Changing The Culture One Word At A Time

As conservatives watch their values under constant attack by the liberal media and her allies, they need to step back and look at some of the methodology being used. Words are powerful things and can be skillfully used either for good or evil.

Let’s look at some of the words added to the American vocabulary in recent years. When were the words traditional marriage, income inequality, white privilege, Islamaphobic, homophobic, and anti-abortion added to our vocabulary? What is the impact of these words?

The expressions traditional marriage and traditional family arose out of a need by the leftists activists to separate out those people who believed in the Biblical definition of marriage and family. The show Modern Family was created to use comedy to begin to dilute those concepts. Traditional marriage and traditional family values needed to be made ‘not cool.’ The expressions are used to diminish those people who believe that marriage is a church sacrament that is limited to one man and one woman and that family consists of two parents and their children. Income inequality is an expression used to create guilt in those people who work long hours, get an education, and succeed in what they are doing. We all have different gifts and are rewarded differently when we use those gifts. That will never change–an office worker will never be paid the same amount as a successful actor or successful NFL player. Meanwhile, there are also starving actors and football players that try but do not make the NFL or major movies. The expression white privilege is relatively new. The concept here is that if you are white, any success you may have obtained is due to your color rather than your efforts. It is another way to minimize the success of those people who work hard. Islamaphobic is an expression Muslim leaders dreamed up when they observed the success of the homosexual community with the use of the term homophobic. Why does the media say anti-abortion rather than pro-life? Because generally speaking people are more receptive to being for something rather than against it–thus the expression pro-choice rather than pro-baby killing.

This is how the political left subtly changes the culture and the way most of us view the major issues of the day. The next time you read a newspaper article or hear a news report, pay attention to the specific words used. The words used tell you a lot about the purpose of reporting the story in the media.

 

How The Tax Code Impacts Senior Citizens

After everything we hear about income inequality and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, it is rather amazing that no one has pointed out the higher rate of taxes paid by senior citizens. This is particularly amazing because senior citizens vote in large numbers. There is an organization called AMAC (Association for Mature American Citizens) which is basically AARP for conservatives that has looked at the tax code in relation to senior citizens and posted an article. At this point I need to mention that I am a member of both AMAC and the AARP. One of those memberships is free to me, one I pay for.

The article reports:

The top 1% of income earners nationally (millionaires & billionaires) pay on average a federal tax rate of 22% yearly. Compare that with the rate paid by most seniors receiving Social Security benefits and currently earning over $32,000.00 each year who are forced to pay a tax rate of up to 28%. At the $42,000.00 yearly income level (hardly considered wealthy,) 85% of Social Security Benefits become taxable up to a 28% rate. Seriously, a higher tax rate (28%) for a $42,000 yearly income compared to a 22% average rate for million dollar wage earners? “This “age penalty” is blatantly unfair, confiscatory, and betrays those who are self-reliant, did the right thing, and saved for their future retirement.

The arbitrary mandatory minimum distribution (forced withdrawal up to 4% of all savings, IRA’s and annuities) every year after the age of 70.5 is clearly and simply unfair age discrimination on the part of the IRS and Congress. Forcing seniors to withdraw up to 4% of their savings each year (also taxed at a higher rate and increasing their total income) is punitive and creates a “double jeopardy” tax penalty not faced by younger tax payers.

Another, even more egregious, travesty cooked into the IRS tax code allows the federal government to pilfer the financial assets of seniors upon the death of their spouse. The surviving spouse must deal, not only, with the emotional loss but also must surrender most or all of the Social Security benefits of their deceased husband or wife. To add further injury, standard deduction and personal exemptions ($10,300) of their spouse are also lost, resulting in a higher income tax rate on less income.

The result of all of this is that seniors are financing a disproportionate amount of federal spending. The current presidential campaign provides seniors with the opportunity to demand that those seeking the office explain how they will remedy this government sanctioned “senior abuse.” It’s time to lift the heavy hand of government, reform this unfair depletion of senior American’s assets, allow them to reap the benefits of their retirement planning, give seniors a fair shake, and revitalize the American dream.

It might also be relevant to mention that the majority of senior citizens’ income (with the exception of IRA’s) has already been taxed at least once. Stock dividends, for instance, have been taxed at least once before people receive them (through corporate taxes). Also, just for the record, I am not in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy–they already pay more than their fair share. (In 2013, CNBC reported “the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent…pay negative 9 percent.”)  I am, however, in favor of raising taxes on lower income people so that they begin to take an interest in changing the tax code. The American tax code is a tribute to special interests–it is time to change that.

The AMAC article was written by State Representative Charles “Doc” Anderson, a veterinarian,  who has represented  District 56 (Waco and McLennan County) in the Texas House of Representatives since 2005.

Lying With Statistics

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the recent discussion on wealth inequality in America. French economist Thomas Piketty has written a book called Class Warfare in which he decries the unequal distribution of wealth in America and calls for extreme taxing of the ‘rich.’

The article includes the following chart and explanation:

“There are transcription errors from the original sources and incorrect formulas,” the FT noticed. “It also appears that some of the data are cherry-picked or constructed without an original source.”

But the bigger problem is that just looking at the actual data on U.S. inequality — using what is called the Gini ratio, a measure of how incomes are dispersed across society — you can see Piketty’s thesis is wrong.

As the chart below shows, contrary to claims by left-leaning economists such as Piketty, individual inequality hasn’t changed at all since 1960. But there has been an increase in household inequality.

Why? As economist Don Boudreaux and the website Political Calculations have noted, the changing composition and size of households are the reason.

Households have shrunk markedly. Since 1960, the average size has plunged from more than 3.4 persons to about 2.55, Census data show. One-person households have nearly quintupled since 1960 and today make up nearly 30% of all households.

When charted, the household Gini ratio looks as if there is growing inequality. But in fact it shows that households are smaller, with fewer earners.

Our point is that using tendentious data to bolster a case for taking even more private-sector output for government use is dishonest at best.

It is possible to make statistics say pretty much anything you want them to say. Mr. Piketty’s book is a current example of that fact.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Solution To “Inequality”

Jonah Goldberg posted an article at Townhall.com today that offers an interesting solution to the ‘inequality’ President Obama and some of the political left seem to be focused on lately. Oddly enough, the solution does not include giving more money or power to Washington.

In referring to the culture of Alaska (many of Mr. Goldberg’s wife’s family members live in Alaska, so he has spent some time there), he notes:

In my experience, Alaska stands out in another way: social equality. When I started going there regularly, I was shocked to discover how casually different economic classes intermingle. Scanning the attendees of a party or patrons of a restaurant, it’s pretty much guesswork to figure out who’s a millionaire and who’s a mechanic. Nothing like that happens in places like Washington, New York or Los Angeles, where upper and lower classes get along little better than the Morlocks and Eloi did in H.G. Wells‘ “The Time Machine.” But it does happen in lots of places — liberal and conservative — outside the Amtrak Acela corridor.

Mr. Goldberg points out a very logical solution to ‘inequality’ in America:

For practical purposes, people don’t live in the United States of America. They live in their neighborhoods, towns and communities. Yes, these are American communities, but your neighbors live in your neighborhood, not seven states over. Your kids don’t go to “U.S. schools”; they go to the school down the road.

Yet most of our money goes to the government in Washington, and so does most of the power. Why not flip that around? Want to see the rich, poor and middle class interact more? Give them a reason to show up to a city council or school board meeting. Sure, money has power at the local level, too, but so do votes.

Moreover, when rich people get their way at the local level, people usually know who they are and why they are doing things. And you can bend their ear at the supermarket or at soccer practice.

But when all the decisions are made in Washington or New York, most Americans are simply out of the loop.

And they resent it.

Having lived in New England for many years, I attended many Town Meetings where budgets, roads, zoning, and community growth were discussed. It was a way to see politics on a local level, and it was a way to be involved in the politics of your town. The taxpayers voted on the budget; the taxpayers voted on the zoning; and the taxpayers got to see their elected city officials at work. The taxpayers also had a chance to talk to their elected officials after the meeting. I don’t know if a Town Meeting would work in a larger setting, but certainly if more Americans felt that they had some sort of power, they would attend some of the various committee meetings in their cities and towns. Involving taxpayers in their local governments would be a step forward. I think Mr. Goldberg is on to something.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The State Of The Union

Today’s Independent Journal Review posted a list of seven of the lies President Obama told during his State of the Union address. There were more than seven, and I am sure anyone who has been paying attention was able to spot many of the lies in the speech.

The article lists seven:

1) Income inequality is the worst it’s ever been! The article points out that income inequality is the same as it was in 1987.

 

2) Raising minimum wage will help families. The article reminds us that it’s not hard to believe that Obama, who has never run a business, doesn’t understand that artificially forcing a business to pay someone more than their wage is worth will put more people out of the labor market. Making job creation more expensive leads to fewer jobs.

 

3) His minimum wage hike for federal workers brings immediate relief. The article points out that most employees of federal contractors earn more than the minimum wage, so this will apply to only about 10% of those, or 200,000 employees. Finally, this wage hike won’t apply until 2015 at the earliest, and even then, only for new contracts, not old ones.

 

4) How many Americans have gained insurance under Obamacare? In fact, five million Americans have lost insurance, meaning that this number is not a net gain. In other words, the vast majority already had insurance before Obamacare. As few as 11% might be new enrollments to Obamacare. Finally, the payment system for the federal Obamacare website isn’t completed; who knows how many of these will experience more “glitches.”

 

5) Obama will cut red tape that’s holding up construction jobs!  The article reminds us “The reason most of these projects are delayed is they don’t have enough money. So it’s great that you are expediting the review process, but the review process isn’t the problem. The problem is we don’t have enough money to invest in our infrastructure in the first place.”

 

6) Your medicare premium went up? You’re making that up! The article points out that on paper, the program’s giant trust fund for inpatient care gained more than a decade of solvency because of cuts to service providers required under the health law. But in practice those savings cannot simultaneously be used to expand coverage for the uninsured and shore up Medicare.

 

7. Obama’s created 8 million new jobs in the last four years. The article reminds us that this figure leaves out a lot of lost jobs early in Obama’s presidency and glosses over that this recovery has been the weakest since World War II. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only a net gain of 2.4 million job have been added on Obama’s watch (this doesn’t account for population growth, leading to the lowest labor participation rate since 1978).

 

Generally speaking, there were a lot of lies in the speech. After listening to the speech, a person could easily assume that ObamaCare was working fabulously, the economy was in great shape, and the President could do anything he wanted to without the approval of Congress. Obviously, none of the above is true. I understand that politicians tend to stretch or spin the truth, but any resemblance to truth in last night’s State of the Union speech was purely coincidental.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Income Inequality

Lately we have been hearing a lot about ‘income inequality.’ It’s even a Biblical concept–Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.” So income inequality was with us in Biblical times and is still with us. It seems to be a constant thing. Other than help the poor among us, do we have the ability to change it. Well, we have a government that right now is trying.

Yesterday CNS News reported that according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office, the top 40 percent of households by before-tax income actually paid 106.2 percent of the nation’s net income taxes in 2010. So what did the bottom 60 percent pay? That sounds like too few people pulling the wagon with too many people in it.

The article explains:

The households in the top 20 percent by income paid 92.9 percent of net income tax revenues taken in by the federal government in 2010, said CBO. The households in the fourth quintile paid another 13.3 percent of net income tax revenues. Together, the top 40 percent of households paid 106.2 percent of the federal government’s net income tax revenue.

The third quintile paid another 2.9 percent—bringing the total share of net federal income tax revenues paid by the top 60 percent to 109.1 percent.

That was evened out by the net negative income tax paid by the bottom 40 percent.

There is one aspect of the tax code that needs to be considered when viewing these statistics. When Congress has the highest percentage of millionaires per capita in America, why would they produce a tax code that is so unfavorable to the rich? Well, it’s not totally unfavorable to the rich–it is unfavorable to rich people who currently are earning their wealth. Family wealth carefully invested in tax shelters is not taxable. Previously acquired assets are not taxed unless they are sold.

The American tax code is already 13 miles long. We need to scrap it, and make it very simple–how much did you make, how much did you give to charity, how much mortgage interest did you pay? Subtract that from your gross income and pay a small percentage of what is left. The charitable deduction encourages people to support charitable works and the mortgage deduction encourages people to buy houses and form communities. End of story.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Behind The Policies Of President Obama’s Second Term

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article yesterday which asked the question, “Does this mean it’s now okay to say that Obama is a redistributionist?”  The question was based on a Washington Post article posted on Friday by . Mr. Goldfarb is the Post economics reporter and posted an article about the underlying principles of President Obama’s second term as President.

The Washington Post reports:

Obama’s actions as president provide a glimpse of how he views legislation as a means to his end. His health-care reform law, aimed at covering as many of the uninsured as possible, takes a shot at addressing income inequality by imposing new taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Beginning next year, upper-income earners will pay new surcharges that will result in an average additional tax bill of $20,000 for the top 1 percent. The money will help finance insurance subsidies and other coverage in 2014 for people in the lower middle class and below. A recent study by Cornell University’s Richard Burkhauser estimates that “Obamacare” will add $400 to $800 in disposable income annually for these Americans.

The Post further reports:

Every president talks about education, but Obama’s rhetoric reflects an acute awareness of recent research. The data show that rising inequality is largely the result of a changing economy that handsomely rewards people with better skills or credentials — a college education — and leaves people with a basic education at a disadvantage.

Think about this for a minute. People with better skills or credentials are being rewarded, resulting in more income inequality. Good Grief! Translated loosely that means that people who work hard, go to school, and learn are being rewarded. Why else would they work hard and go to school?

Many (not all) of the basic income inequalities in America are moral and cultural. Studies show that young people who finish school. get married, and have children in that order generally do not wind up in poverty. A year of college will not hurt anyone who applies himself during that year, but without the desire to work hard at getting a college education and the desire to work hard afterward, success will not magically appear.

America is not a third-world country. The poor in America have cars, air conditioners, flat-screen televisions, and the latest cell phone gadgetry. Taking money from the people who actually earn it makes all of us poorer in the long run because it erodes the work ethic of those receiving the money.

President Obama has been re-elected, but it is up to Congress and Americans to protect the opportunity that has historically been America. Being in the welfare system is not an opportunity. If we begin to encourage people to work rather than simply take money from those that do work, income inequality will begin to correct itself. However, we will always have income inequality as long as some of us would rather let someone else work to support us.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is Fairness Really The Issue ?

Investors.com posted an article yesterday about President Obama’s speech declaring that his policies would bring ‘fairness’ to America. Unfortunately, all President Obama’s policies have brought is shared misery.

The article reports:

But by Obama’s own measure, the country has gotten more “fair.” The richest 1% now pays almost 40% of all federal income taxes, up from 25% two decades ago, while the bottom half pays only 2%, down from 6%. The federal regulatory state has never been as big, and government spending as a share of the economy is at record levels.

What’s unfair is what these policies have produced — a woeful economic recovery that’s hurt the middle class the most.

In fact, as IBD reported recently, the only winners since Obama took office have been corporations (profits are up 68%) and Wall Street investors (the Dow’s up more than 45%). The rest of the country has gotten the shaft.

The article further reminds us that since President Obama took office, unemployment is higher, house prices are lower, and inflation is beginning to rise. Since the recession supposedly ended in June 2009, household income has dropped almost 7 percent.

The article also reminds us that:

And income inequality — which was flat during the Bush years — has started to rise.

What we have now is crony capitalism. Solyndra and other ‘green’ companies staffed by President Obama’s fundraisers have received large amounts of money from the government in the past year, as have many Wall Street firms. Meanwhile the rest of us are struggling to keep up.

The only economic fairness President Obama has brought us is shared misery. We need to remember this in 2012–regardless of who the Republican candidate is.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why The Deficit Cutting Supercommittee Won’t Work

On Sunday, The Hill reported that Representative James Clyburn (S.C.) is vowing to use his position on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to tackle the nation’s enormous wealth gap.

The article reports:

Clyburn said he’ll be pushing for revenue raisers – not just cuts – in the next round in order to “secure our nation’s financial future in a fair and balanced way that requires shared sacrifice and creates opportunity for all Americans.”

There is a basic problem with this statement. We will never be able to eliminate poverty. We can try to make poverty more comfortable–food stamps, housing, etc., but we will never eliminate it.  Jesus, who seemed to have a pretty good idea of what human nature was like, stated in Mark 14:7, “For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good.” Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty more than forty years ago. We lost. What we have done has not worked, what is Representative Clyburn planning to do that is different?

What is responsible for the nation’s wealth gap? Part of it may be due to educational opportunities, but more of it is due to work ethic, ambition, attitude, values, etc. Unless you are willing to work on some of those areas, you will not change the wealth gap.

The article further reports:

While Democrats are insisting on tax-revenue increases as part of the package, Republicans are equally as adamant that they be excluded.

“We were not elected to raise taxes or take more money out of the pockets of hardworking families and business people,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) wrote Monday in a memo to fellow Republicans.

There is a basic philosophic difference between the statements of James Clyburn and Eric Cantor. Eric Cantor understands that people who have wealth have generally worked hard to obtain it. Taking it away from those people will not make the poor any richer–it will make everyone poorer. Shared sacrifice does not work–it is not good for anyone.

Raising taxes in a recession is not a good idea. The Democrats stated in January when they extended the Bush tax cuts that raising taxes in a fragile economy was not a good idea. What has changed? The supercommittee is political theater. The problem is that when they fail, our defense budget will be stripped and we will pay a heavy price for that in national security. The defense budget is not our problem and low taxes are not our problem–it’s the spending, stupid!

If you truly want to tackle the wealth gap, lower everyone’s taxes, cut regulations, and tell everyone on welfare that the payments will stop in three months. At that point, the economy will grow!

Enhanced by Zemanta