Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting that a deficit-reduction plan put together by a panel of Democrats, Republicans, economists and other experts is expected to be introduced today.  The plan is co-authored by Democratic budget veteran Alice Rivlin and former Sen. Pete Domenici (R., N.M.),

According to the article:

“The most recent report, put together by a group called the Bipartisan Policy Center, will call for a one-year payroll-tax holiday in 2011 that it says will create between 2.5 million and 7 million jobs.

“The plan would lower income and corporate tax rates and offset them with a 6.5% national sales or “consumption” tax as well as an excise tax on sugar drinks like soda.”

The national sales tax is essentially a vat (value added tax) tax, something very common in Europe. 

According to the article, the plan also includes:

• Changing the formula for social-security taxes so that they are levied against 90% of all wages, compared with the current system, which caps the tax at a certain income level.

• Major cuts in discretionary spending. Both singled out a government policy that allows military retirees to collect full benefits after 20 years.

• Cuts to farm subsidies and either eliminating or limiting certain politically popular tax breaks, such as the mortgage-interest tax deduction.

There are some problems with this.  To single out military retirees retirement is just ridiculous.  The people who serve in our military do not live the same sort of life as the rest of us–they are forced to move their families every two to four years, they deal with long periods of being separated from their spouses, their salaries are not comparable to the civilian world, and they put their lives on the line on a regular basis.  If you would like to cut someone’s retirement benefits, try federal workers and government officials (including the House and Senate).

This is not a workable long-term proposal.  It is a bunch of gimmicks that hopefully will help with unemployment, but only termporarily, and will not do anything about baseline budgeting or the true causes of our budget deficit.

Baseline budgeting is explained as follows at the Citizens Against Government Waste website:

“Baseline budgeting tilts the budget process in favor of increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency’s budget is projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut. That is analogous to a person who expects to gain 100 pounds only gaining 75 pounds, and taking credit for losing 25 pounds. The federal government is the only place this absurd logic is employed.”

We will never solve the deficit problem unless we are willing to acknowledge the root of the problem.

The lame-duck session of Congress is already up to mischief.  The St. Petersburg Examiner reports today that the Senate is scheduled to consider the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.today. 

The article describes the bill as follows:

“This is a poorly written bill that expands the authority and jurisdiction of the: Department of Health and Human Services, Food & Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, EPA, and Homeland Security.  It will make food more expensive, and make life more difficult for small farmers, food processors, and distributors.”

Under the bill food facilities will be required to “identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards that may be associated with the facility.”  The problem here is the word ‘foreseeable.’  Farmers and businessmen are not psychic–who determines whether or not a problem was foreseeable?

According to Townhall.com:

“It will create 17,000 new bureaucrats, who’s job is going to be to harass small farmers.  It will create huge regulatory burdens for small family farms and even for those who want to grown their own food.  This will choke out small farms.  For those who like to buy their own healthy food, forget it.  It will no longer be available.”

This is another government power grab that needs to be stopped in its tracks or repealed when the Republicans take over the House of Representatives in January.  My home garden where I grow tomatoes should not be subject to government regulation!

The Wheeling Intelligencer and News-Register  reported today that after the government declared that inflation was low enough not to increase social security benefits for senior citizens, the President is suggesting a 1.4 percent pay raise for 2.1 million federal workers. 

The article points out some basic facts about the government’s payroll:

• Civil servants on the federal payroll earned an average of $123,049, including benefits, in 2009, according to USA Today. That same year, average compensation for workers in the private sector, including benefits, was $61,051, reports the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

• The average federal salary has increased 33 percent faster than inflation during the past decade.

• During the past five years, the number of federal employees paid $150,000 or more a year has increased by more than 1,000 percent.

• The $150,000-plus category of employees makes up 3.9 percent of the federal workforce. In 2005, it was 0.4 percent.

The article reminds us that it has been suggested that Congress should freeze the pay of federal employees, following the example of many private companies.  That would be a good start in reducing the deficit.

CNS News is reporting today that the British government has agreed to pay millions of pounds (dollars) in settlements to a group of former Guantanamo Bay detainees who were suing the government for alleged complicity in their torture overseas.

The article reports:

“Britain’s ITV News reported that at least 7 ex-detainees would receive payments, and claimed one man would be paid more than one million pounds (US$1.6 million). It did not cite its sources.”

There is so much wrong with this I don’t know where to start.  First of all, the British are putting $1.6 million in the hands of terrorists.  I questions the wisdom of that.  Second of all, it is common knowledge that terrorists who have been captured are taught to claim mistreatment.  Possibly they were mistreated, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are terrorists.  Is it wise to give terrorists $1.6 million in order to avoid some potentially nasty publicity?  What impact does this have on the future safety of the British?  Of the world? 

It is sad to see the courts uphold the rights of the people who want to destroy them.  It makes no sense.  It is another example of how those involved in terrorism with the goal of forming a worldwide caliphate are using our governments against us to further their goals.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about President Obama’s not wanting to extend the ‘Bush tax cuts’ for the rich because it would cost too much.  The President argues that with the deficit as high as it is right now, we can’t afford those tax cuts.  First of all, we are not talking about tax cuts for anyone–we are talking about keeping the tax rates where they are at the present time. 

The article points out:

“Obama’s argument that extending all of the tax relief would cost too much is too disingenuous to let stand.  Of the $3.6 trillion, 10-year tax hike at issue (Obama’s figures), the president proposes to prevent tax hikes representing 83 percent of the total, while saying that the other 17 percent is too expensive to forgo.  If one or the other were too expensive, it would be the 83 percent in the middle-class tax relief provisions, not the 17 percent representing the balance.”

I hope the Republicans stand strong on extending all of the tax rates as they are.  Remember what happened when George Bush compromised with the Democrats and raised taxes on luxury items in late 1990?  As luxury items stopped selling, the people making them lost their jobs.  That caused a ripple in the economy that led to a minor recession.  Tax policies do have an impact on the economy.  The Laffer Curve shows that cutting taxes generates more government revenue; cutting taxes also encourages more economic growth.  Hopefully, the ‘Bush tax cuts’ for everyone will be extended for everyone at least for a few years.

The members of Congress elected because of their support of Tea Party ideas has not even been sworn in yet, but they are having an impact.  The Los Angeles Times is reporting today that Senator Mitch McConnell announced Monday he would support a proposal put forward by conservative Republicans to ban so-called earmark spending in the new Congress.  Until today, Senator McConnell had been opposed to the ban on earmarks, saying that it would not save a significant amount of money.  Technically that may be true, but when you look at the earmarks added into the healthcare bill in order to pass it, earmarks become very expensive and have a tremendous impact. 

The article reports:

“McConnell’s announcement came after a meeting this morning with 12 of the 13 new GOP senators in his office. His fellow Republican leaders hailed the turnaround.

“”An earmark moratorium shows that elected officials are serious about restoring trust between the American people and those elected to represent them. This is a strong first step — though only a first step — towards making the tough choices required to get our country back on track,” Ohio Rep. John Boehner, likely to be the next speaker of the House, said in a statement.

“”Now that Republicans are taking real action to end wasteful spending, I hope President Obama follows through with his rhetoric and promises to veto any bill with Democrat earmarks,” DeMint said.”

Hopefully this is the beginning of turning off the money spigot in Washington and the dawn of a new era for the American taxpayer.

Most of us don’t have our financial information reported in the New York Times, so I guess the circumstances on the events I am about to chronicle would not apply, but I do have questions as to how much of the following you or I would be allowed to get away with without seeing the inside of a jail cell.

According to Right American Word Press in October 2009:

“…The New York Times reported on September 5, 2008, that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel has earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.”;

“Whereas in an article in the September 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times, his attorney confirmed that Representative Rangel’s annual congressional Financial Disclosure statements failed to disclose the rental income from his resort villa;

“Whereas The New York Times reported on September 6, 2008 that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy a villa at a beachfront resort in the Dominican Republic, according to Mr. Rangel’s lawyer and records from the resort. The loan, which was extended to Mr. Rangel in 1988, was originally to be paid back over seven years at a rate of 10.5 percent. But within two years, interest on the loan was waived for Mr. Rangel.”;”

I understand that there are many other charges against Congressman Rangel, but it seems to me that the IRS generally takes the concept of unreported income rather seriously.  The New York Times report is more than a year old.

Today, according to The Hill, after Charlie Rangel walked out of his ethics trial, the House eithics panel decided to continue the trial.  According to The Hill:

“Chisam (Blake Chisam, the staff director and chief counsel for the full ethics committee)  moved forward with the case after the adjudicatory committee rejected a request by Rangel to delay the trial because he lacked counsel. Rangel’s team of attorneys told him they could no longer represent him in late October, and Rangel said he could not afford to hire a replacement right away after incurring almost $2 million in legal fees during the past two years.

“Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, offered a motion to continue the trial after Rangel opened his remarks by pleading for a delay and complaining about the unfairness of proceeding with the trial while he lacks counsel.”

Charlie Rangel may be a dedicated public servant, but it is time for him to leave the stage.  I don’t know if he thought tax evasion, using rent-controlled apartments as offices, etc. were acceptable behavior or not, but I do know that many Americans are now awake and planning to hold their elected officials to some sort of ethical standard.  The days of a free lunch for the political class are rapidly coming to an end.

Michelle Malkin reported yesterday that HHS Secretay Kathleen Sebelius has approved 111 Obamacare waivers for businesses, unions, and other providers of health insurance providers.  The article lists some of the aspects of the waivers:

“Aetna, based in Hartford, Connecticut, was part of a first round of waivers in September for 209,423 beneficiaries in plans that don’t comply with the new requirement. Oak Brook, Illinois- based McDonald’s Corp., the world’s largest restaurant chain, Jack in the Box Inc., based in San Diego, and the United Federation of Teachers also were among the waiver recipients.

“About 200,000 people were included in the new round of exemptions, bringing the total to almost 1.2 million people, HHS said on its website. Also on the list for exemptions are Manor Care Inc., a nursing-home company owned by Washington-based private equity firm Carlyle Group, and Universal Forest Products Inc., a lumber company based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Spokesmen for Manor and Universal Forest didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

“…Dish Network, the Englewood, Colorado-based No. 2 U.S. satellite-television provider, will be given a waiver for 3,597 employees, and Orlando, Florida-based Darden Restaurants, owner of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster chains, will get a waiver for 34,000 workers, according to the HHS list. Darden spokesman Rich Jeffers didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Dish Network spokesman Marc Lumpkin declined to comment.

“The waivers, which last for a year and can then be renewed, let workers keep coverage until new options are available in four years under the law, said Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman for the agency.”

If you look at this carefully, you realize how many people would actually lose their healthcare insurance had the waivers not been issued.  The questions then becomes, “Shouldn’t we take another look at this program in light of the fact that it is doing exactly the opposite of what was promised?”

Meanwhile, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), vowed Friday to introduce legislation killing a part of the new healthcare reform law that imposes new tax-filing requirements on small businesses.  He wants to end the requirement that businesses report any purchases of over $600 to the IRS.  He points out that this will impose undue paperwork burdens on companies amid an economic downturn when they can least afford it.

I have a better idea.  Let’s repeal the entire law and start over with tort reform, portability across state lines, and tax credits for individuals buying their own health insurance.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about the Paycheck Fairness Act, which the Senate will be debating in the lame-duck session next week.  The aim of the bill is to promote ‘gender equality’ in the workplace. 

According to the article, opposition to the bill is based on the fact that:

“…(the bill) would try to ensure pay equity by restricting employers salary decisions, making it easier to file suit against employers believed to be engaged in sex-bases pay discrimination and requiring businesses to desclose detailed salary information to the government.”

The article points out that the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act already provide protection against gender-based wage discrimination.

The article further points out that the Business Roundtable and The Business Council sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag in June citing the Paycheck Fairness Act as legislation that would hurt economic growth and stifle job creation.  According to the article:

“[Paycheck Fairness] would open companies to potentially crippling employment litigation without adding significant benefit to workers, since current law already addresses the discrimination issue,” the letter read.

“In spite of the concerns coming from the business community, women’s groups, labor organizations, and even the president insist that the Paycheck Fairness Act is essential to ensure that women are treated fairly in the workplace.”

If we truly want to see job growth in America, we need to get the government out of businesses.  The Equal Pay Act already addresses this problem, and the fear of lawsuits will hinder any business from hiring.  Business works more efficiently when owners do not have to spend a large portion of their time filling out forms for the government.  We would be better off making sure we enforce the laws already on the books instead of constantly trying to create more laws.

According to The Hill‘s Blog Briefing Room yesterday:

“President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Sunday that the lame-duck session will be used to ratify the START nuclear-arms treaty.

“According to the White House pool report, Obama gave his commitment to his Russian counterpart as the two met, both lauding their friendship and relationship built up over the past two years.

“”I reiterated my commitment to getting the START treaty done during the lame-duck session,” Obama said at a photo op, calling passage of the treaty a “top priority” of his administration.”

There are a few obvious questions to ask about this commitment.  Why push the treaty through in a lame-duck session when the newly-elected Congress will be seated in six weeks?  Why was the treaty not considered before the election?  What is in the treaty that makes the President want to push it through in a lame-duck session?

The answers to these questions may be found in a Heritage.org article about the problems with the START treaty.  The article at Heritage lists twelve flaws in the treaty.

Flaw #1: New START fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack.

Flaw #2: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options.

Flaw #3: The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous.

Flaw #4: New START counts conventional “prompt global strike” weapons against the numerical limits imposed on nuclear arms.

Flaw #5: The Obama Administration has made New START an essential part of a broader agenda that pursues the goals of nuclear nonprolifera­tion and nuclear disarmament concurrently.

Flaw #6: New START’s limits are uninformed by a targeting policy that is governed by the protect and defend strategy.

Flaw #7: New START leaves in place a large Russian advantage in nonstrategic (tactical) nuclear weapons.

Flaw #8: New START does not appear to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Flaw #9: The BCC’s mandate is overly broad.

Flaw #10: The New START limitations are unclear on whether they would permit the U.S. to counter future threats from a combination of states.

Flaw #11: New START is not adequately verifiable.

Flaw #12: The Obama Administration believes that Russian cheating under New START is only a marginal concern.

This is one of those articles I occasionally post that includes a lot of things I don’t really understand.  Having read through the Heritage Foundation’s objections to the START Treaty, I am relatively sure that it would not be a good treaty for the United States.  I think the benchmark for any treaty should be (in the words of Ronald Reagan), “Trust, but verify.”  We have no reason to believe that the world is a safe place for any nation.  To sign a treaty that essentially steps away from our commitment to self-defense is not smart.  Hopefully Congress will not approve this treaty.

Today’s Washington Examiner reported on the sentencing of Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old Pakistani woman, to death for being a Christian.  Under Pakistan’s Islamic sharia law, professing Christianity is blasphemy against Islam and is punishable by death. 

The article states:

“That’s the unsolvable problem posed by the political, religious and cultural relativism at the heart of the PC mindset – It it logically impossible to simultaneously insist that all views, faiths, and cultures are equally valid and deserving of respect while tolerating one that insists – on pain of death – that it along must be followed by all others.”

In simple terms, if all religions are the same, how is it ok for one religion to kill people for not endorsing it?  The death sentence for Asia Bibi is one reason that Islam must never be allowed to infiltrate the courts of the United States.  It is a reason why Oklahoma was very wise to ban the use of Sharia Law in its state courts.  We need more states to do the same.

Yesterday Front Page Magazine posted an article about a Justice Department investigation into Chris Christie, current governor of New Jersey.  According to Front Page Magazine:

“This month, the Justice Department’s inspector general released a report purporting to show that Christie, who has built up a reputation as a spending-slashing fiscal conservative by taking on New Jersey’s bloated public sector, routinely overcharged the government for hotel stays while in his former job as a U.S. Attorney. Christie exceeded the government’s set rate for travel expenses on 14 of 15 trips, according to the report; on nine of those trips, his “lodging costs exceeded the government rate by more than $100 per night.” These costs, which went over the government rate by between $19 and $242 a night, ultimately totaled $2,176.”

These are not new charges–they were brought up and dealt with during Christie’s campaign for governor.  According to the article:

“…Christie parried the charges by pointing out, reasonably enough, that with just a few rooms offered at the government rate at every hotel, staying within the set government rate was not always possibility. Nevertheless, he explained that he tried to stay at a cheaper hotel whenever that was an option. Whatever view one takes of that particular controversy – and New Jersey’s voters registered their opinion clearly when they voted Christie into office – there is nothing revelatory in the Justice Department’s audit.”

The Justice Department has become political and unjust under President Obama.  They have refused to investigate the New Black Panthers voting intimidation scandal, they have sued a state for attempting to control immigration, and they are going after those who they believe are political enemies.  It really is time for the new Republican House of Representatives to begin their investigations.

One of the reasons many of us get so disgusted with politicians is that sometimes they seem to be playing ‘gotcha’ games rather than doing their jobs.  The Hill posted an article yesterday that seems to fall into that category.  Under the current Senate rules, a bill can be blocked in the Senate if 41 Senators oppose it.  Three Democrat congressmen are attempting to change that.

The Hill reports:

“Three Democratic proponents of changing the Senate’s filibuster rules are vowing to press their case in the 112th Congress despite the GOP takeover of the House, with one senator pledging to force the issue on the very first day.

“Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) all told The Hill this week they are not backing down from their effort. The Senate’s rules — which are based on tradition, not the Constitution– have frustrated Democrats for the past several years as GOP leaders have required a 60-vote majority even for procedural motions.”

This is interesting to me as it occurs just as the Republicans are gaining a few more seats in the Senate.  Frankly, I think the 60-vote requirement is good.  It keeps really bad legislation from being passed (except in the case of healthcare where the goalpost was moved)

The Hill also reports:

“”In the past year, we didn’t do a single appropriations bill. That’s our main job, to fund the government, and typically at least we do defense and intelligence appropriations. We didn’t even do those. And we didn’t do a budget. People are concerned about the deficit right now, well, if you don’t do a budget you can’t address the deficit. So there is a good case to be made for rules reform.””

I totally disagree with that statement.  The reason the budget did not get passed was that the Democrats running for office did not want to have to campaign on their votes.  Had a good budget been proposed, it would have been supported on both sides of the aisle and the filibuster would not have been an issue.  The problem in this Congress has not been the filibuster–it has been bad legislative proposals that were unpopular with the American people.  Had the Democrats had better ideas, they would have been able to pass legislation easily.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the effect of Obamacare on the uninsured that the program was supposed to help.  According to the article, the figures are stark:

“375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.

“8,011: The number that actually did.”

The article points out:

“That comes to a success rate for that prediction of just under 2.2%.  The Wall Street Journal points out that the program operates at a loss — which means that consumers who qualify for the program in essence have partial subsidies by entering it.  And yet, despite the billions of dollars committed to funding it and the efforts of 27 states to duplicate it, only eight thousand people have bothered to apply for the program.”

It really is time to REPEAL AND REPLACE!!!

Fox 40 News in Sacramento, California, is reporting on a 13-year-old boy at Denair Middle School who was asked to take an American flag off of his bicycle.  Cody Alicea says that he placed the flag on his bicycle to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He’s had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was told to take it down.

According to the article:

“Cody’s grandfather says the school was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the flag. He feels if there was really a problem it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans week.”

I am sorry if the school was worried about the flag stirring up racial tensions, but it seems to me that the school should protect a student’s right to fly the American flag.  If the school can’t guarantee the safety of a student (or the students) because someone is flying an American flag, maybe that school needs new officials.

In July The Atlantic published an article about the fact that the State of Texas seems to have avoided the economic recession that has hit the rest of the country.  The article points out that Texas came into the recession in good shape because in 2008 Texas was enjoying a strong economy based on an energy boom. 

According to the article:

“Real estate executives and economists struggled to find one reason why the Texas economy largely avoided the real estate boom and bust, but a few theories emerged. First, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro suggested that a reliance on property taxes in Texas (compared to California) might have dulled real estate appreciation. Second, the banks that survived the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980s have mostly held onto conservative and un-exotic lending practices. Third, land and utilities are generally cheaper throughout Texas, which holds down the cost of the living. Fourth, besides Dallas, Texas’ major cities have diversified away from the kind of real estate and financial services addiction that plagued CaliFlAriVada (that’s CA, FL, AZ, NV), where the recession has been the most severe.”

The article also points out that the major cities in Texas have hosted stable industries.  That has generally resulted in consistent growth. 

The article concludes:

“Maybe it’s the lack of a state income or capital gains tax. Or the dearth of union workers. Or the plentiful labor supply on the border of Mexico, or the lower wages, or the stable and lean regulations. There’s something about Texas that makes it the most popular place for business to do its business, as CEO Magazine and CNBC both found the last year. As Brooke Rollins, president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told me: “Our research shows that the more tax incentives and less regulation you have, and the less likely businesses are to get sued, the more likely it is they’ll want to come and prosper in your state.””

I would like to add one other reason why Texas has not participated in the recession.  According to an American Medical News article in 2008, there was another factor.  In 2003 Texans approved a state constitutional amendment limiting noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $250,000 for physicians.  Five years later, the cap is being credited for slashing liability insurance premiums, boosting the ranks of doctors in the state, and improving medical access to patients.  This is the kind of healthcare reform we need! 

The article at American Medical News points out:

“Texas physicians have witnessed a 25% overall drop in liability rates since 2003, the state insurance department says. For the first time, the state’s largest medical liability carrier, Texas Medical Liability Trust, saw a 50% reduction in lawsuit filings, this from 2003 to 2008. Texas went from four insurers to more than 30 during that period.

“According to the Texas Medical Board, medical license applications have soared from 2,561 to 4,041 — a 58% jump. At the same time, the number of neurosurgeons has climbed 12%, while the supply of orthopedic surgeons has risen 9%.

“The results seen in Texas, with lowered liability insurance premiums, are repeated in experiences from other states that have enacted caps of varying degrees. In February, the AMA released an analysis of independent research that showed caps on noneconomic damages are effective and have lowered premiums at least 17%, with some specialties seeing even greater drops.”

This is the answer to our nations so-called ‘healthcare crisis’–not more government control.  When the rest of the states realize that they can prosper instead of going broke, maybe they will take a look at what has happened in Texas and learn from it. 

This article is based on information from The Heritage Foundation, Investor’s Business Daily, and the Wall Street Journal regarding the preliminary report released by the deficit commission.

The Heritage Foundation views the report as a starting point for the debate.  Their comments included:

“Since it is a preliminary report from the chairs, it should be viewed as a model for discussion and seeding ideas for the final commission report. As such, the report tackles some of the key elements of the budget–cutting discretionary spending, cutting entitlement and other mandatory spending, and tax policy–and it suggests some small changes to the budgetary process. The co-chairs are to be commended for putting out a plan that addresses the fiscal issues confronting the nation.”

Investor’s.com asks the following:

“Though timid, some of the ideas floated by the co-chairmen of President Obama’s “deficit commission” are praiseworthy. But is this a bait-and-switch — to be followed by destructive new taxes?”

The Wall Street Journal posted an article by Aurthur Laffer.   His suggestions for solving the deficit problem are as follows:

1.  Extend the ‘Bush tax cuts’ forever and abolish the estate tax.

2.  Repeal Obamacare–Mr. Laffer notes that Obamacare allows individuals to pay only five cents for each dollar of health care.  He asks, “Who do you think pays the other 95 cents?”  (The American taxpayer?)

3.  The cancellation of all spending that punishes those who produce and rewards those who don’t.  This is the kind of thinking that has drained our treasury for years with no visible results.

4.  The enactment of stalled free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.   The free trade agreement with Columbia has been blocked by unions. 

Mr. Laffer’s suggestions for the ideal growth agenda include such ideas as a true flat tax with two rates–one on personal income and one on net business sales, passing a balanced budget amendment that would not include raising taxes, price stability, and finally, as comedian Jackie Mason puts it, “putting the politicians on commission”.   Holding politicians responsible for the consequences of their actions.

I am sure we will hear much more about the deficit commission in the coming days.  The Political Calculations blog posted the following chart.  I think we have to deal with spending before we even talk about taxes.

Thank you to all American veterans.  Your sacrifices have kept us free.  We salute you and your families.

The American Thinker posted an article yesterday pointing out that Indonesia, praised by President Obama for its religious tolerance, does not allow Israeli citizens to visit there.  I am really sorry to hear this.  I know there are other Muslims countries that have similar restrictions, and I am really sorry that the freedom-loving countries of the world have not taken a strong stand against these countries.  Meanwhile, as he was praising an anti-Semitic country for its tolerance, President Obama was criticizing Israel for building in its own capital.  This is definitely a “beam me up, Scotty” moment.  It seems to me that until the west finds a way to support its energy needs independently of the Middle East, anti-Semitism will be accepted as the rule of the day.  That is unfortunate.

Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air today about a Time Magaine article saying that if hyperinflation arrives, it will be the fault of the Tea Party.  Just as a frame of reference, the federal government has raised its expenses 38% during the past three years and raised the debt ceiling accordingly.  The article also fails to mention that the Federal Reserve, in an effort to keep interest rates low as the spending skyrocketed, has been printing money at an alarming rate.  So how in the world would inflation be the fault of the Tea Party (which at this point has very little actual power–a situation that will change in January) ? 

The problem here is not that the Tea Party will be to blame for inflation.  For Time Magazine the problem is that the Tea Party espouses smaller government–a horrible concept to the mainstream media.  The thing to remember as you read this sort of article is that the mainstream media is part of the status quo.  The Tea Party is a major part of the opposition to the status quo.  The major media would like nothing more than to discredit the Tea Party in the eyes of American voters so that we can continue down the spending road we are on.  Since every American would be affected by the economic unheaval that will occur if we do not cut spending, I really don’t understand why the media opposes the Tea Party.

The Hill is reporting today that the Chairmen’s Mark Report of President Obama’s fiscal commission has been released. 

According to the article:

“The report, approved by the panel’s co-chairmen, former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), proposes capping discretionary spending, instituting tax rate reductions while broadening the tax base, gradually raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 and reducing the rate of increase of Social Security benefits.

“The report is the “chairmen’s mark,” meaning that it is a draft that has not been approved by the 18 members of the president’s commission.”

The significant thing here is that the draft has not been approved by the 18 members of the president’s commission. 

According to the article, these are the five recommendations of the commission:

• Enact tough discretionary spending caps and provide $200 billion in domestic and defense savings by 2015.

• Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base and reduces the deficit.

• Address the Medicare “doc fix” not through deficit spending but through savings from payment reforms, cost-sharing, malpractice reform and long-term measures to control healthcare cost growth.

• Achieve mandatory savings from farm subsidies and military and civil service retirement.

• Ensure Social Security solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors.

It will be interesting to see how the details of this report shape up.  Again, I want to go on the record against the idea of means-tested Social Security.  Paying into Social Security was never means tested–we were all forced to do it.  Are the federal pensions of Congress (who robbed Social Security after they opted out of it) means tested?  To means test Social Security is to penalize those of us who saved and reward those of us who did not.  It is another way the government encourages unproductive behavior.

Let’s see how many of the members of the commission sign on to the report.

The Washington Times reports today that Congressman John Boehner is not going to compromise on leaving the current tax rates in place.  The article in the Washington Times refers to the current rates as Bush tax cuts, which I think gives the impression that tax cuts ‘for the rich’ are coming.  That is simply not true.  The question is whether or not to leave the current tax rates in place.  The ‘Bush tax cuts’ will expire on January 1, and everyone’s taxes will go up–childcare deductions will drop, and tax rates in various income categories will rise.  To extend those tax cuts simply means that the tax rates will stay where they are.

One of the problems in our economy right now is uncertainty.  Small businesses have no idea what their tax rates or costs of healthcare will be next year.  They are reluctant to hire anyone until they have an idea of what their expenses will be.  Making the current tax rates permanent would solve that problem.  It would be better to further drop tax rates for everyone (google the ‘laffer curve’ and see what lower taxes does to revenue), but if Congress will not lower tax rates, it would be better to at least keep them where they currently are.

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about the commonwealth of Pennsylvania seizing the newborn child of a mother who was guilty of eating an everything bagel before the hospital did a routine drug test.  Evidently Pennsylvania routinely does drug testing on expectant mothers during prenatal doctor’s visits and new mothers in the hospital.  The testing can probably be justified by saying that it gives the doctors a heads-up if they are going to be dealing with the baby of someone addicted to drugs or puts them on the alert if a mother may not be a competent mother.  The drug tests on this mother taken during her pregnancy had all been negative, but this was not taken into consideration after the hospital test.  If you are going to take a child away from a new mother, you had better be sure your drug test is reliable.  In this case it really wasn’t.

The article at Hot Air reports:

“The birth of a couple’s first child is supposed to be a joyous occasion — and for the first three days, it was for Elizabeth Mort and her partner Alex Rodriguez. But then the commonwealth of Pennsylvania took their young daughter away after the hospital where she was born reported the mother for testing positive on a drug test. Her drug of choice? An “everything” bagel from Dunkin’ Donuts…”

The article includes the video of the Mythbusters episode where the hosts of the show illustrate that poppy seeds will cause a positive read on a drug test.  I understand the desire of state authorities to protect children, but I believe they overstepped their bounds (and their common sense) in this case.

USA Today posted an article today stating that U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.  Let’s see what this means.  The state courts cannot consider international law or Islamic law when deciding cases–they must base their decisions on the Constitution and on state law.  Why in the world is that a problem?

The Council on American-Islamic relations brought a lawsuit against the law.  According to the article:

“”My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith,” said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose.””

The amendment most certainly does have a secular purpose–it is to make sure that court cases are settled on the basis of American law.  The measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70% of the vote–don’t the voters in Oklahoma have rights?

The article also points out:

“Among other things, Awad’s lawsuit alleges the measure transforms Oklahoma’s Constitution into “an enduring condemnation” of Islam by singling it out and barring courts from referring to Islamic law. It also alleges it violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against laws regarding the establishment of religion.”

Maybe I’m looking at this backwards, but it seems to me that the law prevents the establishment of religion as law.  The First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a government religion.  To allow Sharia Law to be used in court is to allow religious law to trump American laws.  That is is unconstitutional.  Hopefully this restraining order will be overturned.  I don’t want to live in a country where women can’t work, drive cars, or go out without a male relative with them.  I can’t imagine what this judge is thinking.  Her rights are at risk also.

The Hill reported yesterday that two Senators, Tom Carper (D-Del.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio), have written a letter to the chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform advocating for a 25-cent per gallon tax increase.  They want the increase to be implemented over a three-year period.  The Senators want 10 cents of the tax increase to go to deficit reduction and 15 cents to go to funding transportation infrastructure improvements. 

The letter was addressed to Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), co-chairmen of the fiscal commission, which is due to submit its recommendations to Obama by Dec. 1.

There is so much wrong with this suggestion I don’t know where to start.  The first thing to keep in mind is that Congress is not impacted by increases in the cost of gasoline–they do not directly pay for their gasoline–it comes out of a spending account (which I am sure they can increase if need be). This is another case of Congress discussing the passage of a law that will negatively impact all Americans except Congress.  It will also have a very negative impact on the economy.  I predicted $4 a gallon gasoline very soon without this tax, with this tax it will come much sooner.

I don’t envy the members of the fiscal commission that is supposed to make recommendations on the deficit.  Many of the members of the commission are people who believe higher taxes are the answer to everything–not lower spending.  They are about to meet the Tea Party. 

As most Americans are being forced to cut their budgets to make ends meet, it’s time for the government to do the same.  I don’t want to hear about cutting the programs that Congress knows will get the most reaction; I want to hear about cutting waste.  During the past two years as business has been losing jobs, government has been gaining them.  It’s time for that to change.  Just for the record–I am against a means test for Social Security.  No one means tested every American when the government took their money for Social Security.  No one means tested Congress as they stole the money from Social Security from 1965 on (after they opted out of the program).  It is time for change in Washington, and I hope the new Congress realizes that.