Obama Fails The Economy

Obama Fails The Economy

Obama has been a failure all around. His foreign policy has been heavy on retreat and his domestic agenda sparked backlashes galore. But even worse has been his economic policies. His plan of high taxes, massive government spending, and corporate subsidies lengthened the recession and created a jobless recovery. Those “green jobs” he promised were all an illusion. And now it turns out, he’s made the biggest danger to the economy even worse.

Before we talk about how Obama “fixed” the “too big to fail” problem, you might be interested in a little data on those green jobs we’re all supposed to have now.

When Obama took office, he promised five million green jobs in the next ten years. He even spent $90 billion to make that happen. That works out to $18,000 per expected job. Of course, it’s actually higher because that $90 billion is just a baseline and will cause further federal spending, but still, that's not too bad.

So how has he done? According to the White House, rather than creating 5,000,000 jobs, this money now will create only “827,000 job years” over Obama’s four years in office. But a “job year” is not a job. It is instead the equivalent of one full-time position for one year. If we spread these job years out over the ten years Obama used for the five million claim, you come up with a total of 82,700 jobs. And that means the cost per job is $1.1 million. It also means, Obama still owes 4.9 million jobs.

And don’t forget that even beyond this, you have a variety of failures under the crony clean energy loan program out of the Department of Energy, such as Solyndra, Enerl, Beacon Power, Solar Trust for America, and others. Not to mention, the $2.4 billion flushed away on building fewer than 8,000 Chevy Volts no one wants.

Call me crazy, but Obama’s attempt to create a Mussolini-like industrial policy appears to have been a colossal failure.

Now we get word that Obama has made the “too big to fail” problem worse. Imagine that. When Obama came to power, he promised an end to “too big to fail” so that taxpayers would never again need to support failed banks. Then he signed the financial reform bill, Dodd-Frank, which supposedly did that. . . though Republicans claimed otherwise. Bloomberg News now reports that the five biggest banks, i.e. those that are too big to fail, increased their share of all banking assets from 43% in 2007 to 56% now. That’s right, those five banks absorbed an additional 13% of all the banking assets in the country under Obama. In total, these five banks (JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citicorp, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs) now control $8.5 trillion in assets. Moreover, the size of the banking sector compared to the rest of the economy has doubled in the past decade, making banks even more “too big to fail.” That means the problem is much, much worse than it was before the TARP bailouts.

Obama has flushed money down the toilet while squandering opportunity after opportunity to actually fix the economy and protect the country from another meltdown. His failure to act is shameful and dangerous. Let us hope the Republicans fix these problems when they finally gain control over the government.

As usual, don't forget it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Obama has been a failure all around. His foreign policy has been heavy on retreat and his domestic agenda sparked backlashes galore. But even worse has been his economic policies. His plan of high taxes, massive government spending, and corporate subsidies lengthened the recession and created a jobless recovery. Those “green jobs” he promised were all an illusion. And now it turns out, he’s made the biggest danger to the economy even worse.

Before we talk about how Obama “fixed” the “too big to fail” problem, you might be interested in a little data on those green jobs we’re all supposed to have now.

When Obama took office, he promised five million green jobs in the next ten years. He even spent $90 billion to make that happen. That works out to $18,000 per expected job. Of course, it’s actually higher because that $90 billion is just a baseline and will cause further federal spending, but still, that's not too bad.

So how has he done? According to the White House, rather than creating 5,000,000 jobs, this money now will create only “827,000 job years” over Obama’s four years in office. But a “job year” is not a job. It is instead the equivalent of one full-time position for one year. If we spread these job years out over the ten years Obama used for the five million claim, you come up with a total of 82,700 jobs. And that means the cost per job is $1.1 million. It also means, Obama still owes 4.9 million jobs.

And don’t forget that even beyond this, you have a variety of failures under the crony clean energy loan program out of the Department of Energy, such as Solyndra, Enerl, Beacon Power, Solar Trust for America, and others. Not to mention, the $2.4 billion flushed away on building fewer than 8,000 Chevy Volts no one wants.

Call me crazy, but Obama’s attempt to create a Mussolini-like industrial policy appears to have been a colossal failure.

Now we get word that Obama has made the “too big to fail” problem worse. Imagine that. When Obama came to power, he promised an end to “too big to fail” so that taxpayers would never again need to support failed banks. Then he signed the financial reform bill, Dodd-Frank, which supposedly did that. . . though Republicans claimed otherwise. Bloomberg News now reports that the five biggest banks, i.e. those that are too big to fail, increased their share of all banking assets from 43% in 2007 to 56% now. That’s right, those five banks absorbed an additional 13% of all the banking assets in the country under Obama. In total, these five banks (JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citicorp, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs) now control $8.5 trillion in assets. Moreover, the size of the banking sector compared to the rest of the economy has doubled in the past decade, making banks even more “too big to fail.” That means the problem is much, much worse than it was before the TARP bailouts.

Obama has flushed money down the toilet while squandering opportunity after opportunity to actually fix the economy and protect the country from another meltdown. His failure to act is shameful and dangerous. Let us hope the Republicans fix these problems when they finally gain control over the government.

As usual, don't forget it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Obama Fails The Economy

View Detail

2012 Election: Predicting The Future

2012 Election: Predicting The Future

The primaries are over, even if Santorum and his media buddies don’t want you to believe that. Let me explain why. . . again. Then I’ll tell you why I know Obama will lose and why I’m ready to call the VP race! Read on!

● The Race Is Over: For Santorum to win the nomination, he must win more than 65% of the remaining delegates throughout the race. But even if you combine all of Newt’s and Rick’s votes, Santoronewt has only hit this magic number in two states: Georgia (66%) and uncontested Kansas (66%). In most states they get 51%.

Further, the math is about to get uglier for Santoronewt because they have just about run out of southern states and small farming states where Santoronewt does well. Consider California. In California, Santoronewt gets only 38%. That means, Santoronewt needs to make up 55 additional delegates in the other states just because of California. That means the 65% average mentioned above goes to 69%, something Santoronewt has never hit. Illinois, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, D.C., Puerto Rico and New Mexico all show similar polling numbers. Hence, it is impossible for Santoronewt to win.

And it gets worse yet because not all of Newt’s supporters will go to Santorum. If 10% of Newt’s supporters stay home, Santorum then needs to average 68% instead of 65%. If they vote for Romney, Santorum needs 71%. If 30% of these people jump to Romney, suddenly Santorum needs 83%. Any analyst who tells you this race can still be won is lying.

Santorum knows he’s finished too, as demonstrated by his new wishful thinking strategy. Indeed, his team said this weekend that they intend to stay in the race despite this math because they are hoping the convention delegates might decide to go against their own voters and choose him at the convention. Yeah, and Satan might fly out of his ass. In the meantime, Santorum continues thrashing about. Now he’s accusing Fox News of “shilling” for Romney (after slandering Drudge as a “cheerleader” for Romney), and he keeps whining about Romney’s money. When you start offering explanations for why you can’t win, then you know you’ve lost. Put a fork in him. . . a pitchfork.

● Why Obama Will Lose: I know Obama will lose. No, I do not have access to a newspaper from the future. If I did, I would be out messing with the timeline! But I do know what motivates voters and I can tell you that Obama has lost. Here’s proof.

(1) I’ve said for some time now that voters have given up on Obama and no longer listen to him. This means he can’t win them back anymore. Here’s proof of that: Obama’s approval ratings are not keeping up with growing consumer confidence (LINK). This means the public is not giving him credit for economic growth. Translation: he’s doomed. Also, 80% of people polled say they are NOT better off than they were four years ago. Translation: he’s really doomed.

(2) According to Rasmussen, 59% of the public view Obama as more liberal than they are. You can be seen as more conservative and still win in this country, but you can’t be seen as more liberal and still win.

(3) Only 37% of voters say their views are more like Obama’s than the GOP contenders (who get a combined 53%). That’s the real approval gap right there, and the Republicans are ahead by 16%. And this is despite all the nastiness of the primary.

(4) In the Oklahoma primary, Obama only got 57% of the vote and he lost 15 counties. This suggests that the left remains upset and disillusioned with Obama. I wouldn’t draw too much from this, except polls also show that the Democrats are suffering an 8% voter enthusiasm gap (53%-46% compared to GOP enthusiasm). Even 2% can cost an election.

● What’s This I Hear About A VP?: Any day now, the race will suddenly end and everyone will start talking about who Romney will pick as VP. I’m confident it will be Marco Rubio. For starters, Rubio is a Tea Party favorite and any candidate who picks him would instantly drive Tea Party enthusiasm through the roof. Romney needs that. He’s also smart, savvy, telegenic, and (most importantly) Hispanic. Romney needs that too.

But there’s more. Romney has shown no interest in many of the other possible VP candidates: Palin, Cain, West, etc. Indeed, he never mentions them and they’ve all attacked him. Rubio hasn’t. It’s also highly unlikely that Romney would pick one of the other jokers in the race. When the question came up about a picking a "conservative" VP, Romney said, “Well, that would preclude, of course, Rick Santorum.” Yes. . . yes it would.

So he could be looking at a Christie, a Nikki Haley or a Rubio. But Christie is a northeasterner and Romney won’t do that. Haley is not especially popular even at home. He might pull a surprise and pick Rick Snyder, the Tea Party governor of Michigan, or Rick Scott, the Tea Party governor of Florida, but they’re both white dudes and also not very popular. He might pick New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, who is also Hispanic, except she’s very raw and she doesn’t bring much cache. So Rubio is the best choice.

But that’s just guess work. If you really want to know what’s going on, follow the money. Rubio has assembled a team to prepare his image for the national stage. This team includes people who handled re-election campaigns for George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s also racing to publish his memoirs this fall, and his publisher has been leaking details to boost his image. He’s even spent $40,000 to hire investigators to investigate his own background so he knows everything that will end up in the Democrat’s opposition research file. These aren’t things someone does unless they expect to be thrust onto the national stage immediately (as compared to 2016). I would bet Rubio is spending this money and rushing his book because he and Romney have already cut a deal and Rubio is vetting himself for a quick announcement once the primary race winds down.

● Finally and unrelated: I don't normally pass on links, but I know many of you are history buffs and these are some incredible Civil War pictures -- high quality, amazing images, well worth the time. (The Atlantic)

The primaries are over, even if Santorum and his media buddies don’t want you to believe that. Let me explain why. . . again. Then I’ll tell you why I know Obama will lose and why I’m ready to call the VP race! Read on!

● The Race Is Over: For Santorum to win the nomination, he must win more than 65% of the remaining delegates throughout the race. But even if you combine all of Newt’s and Rick’s votes, Santoronewt has only hit this magic number in two states: Georgia (66%) and uncontested Kansas (66%). In most states they get 51%.

Further, the math is about to get uglier for Santoronewt because they have just about run out of southern states and small farming states where Santoronewt does well. Consider California. In California, Santoronewt gets only 38%. That means, Santoronewt needs to make up 55 additional delegates in the other states just because of California. That means the 65% average mentioned above goes to 69%, something Santoronewt has never hit. Illinois, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, D.C., Puerto Rico and New Mexico all show similar polling numbers. Hence, it is impossible for Santoronewt to win.

And it gets worse yet because not all of Newt’s supporters will go to Santorum. If 10% of Newt’s supporters stay home, Santorum then needs to average 68% instead of 65%. If they vote for Romney, Santorum needs 71%. If 30% of these people jump to Romney, suddenly Santorum needs 83%. Any analyst who tells you this race can still be won is lying.

Santorum knows he’s finished too, as demonstrated by his new wishful thinking strategy. Indeed, his team said this weekend that they intend to stay in the race despite this math because they are hoping the convention delegates might decide to go against their own voters and choose him at the convention. Yeah, and Satan might fly out of his ass. In the meantime, Santorum continues thrashing about. Now he’s accusing Fox News of “shilling” for Romney (after slandering Drudge as a “cheerleader” for Romney), and he keeps whining about Romney’s money. When you start offering explanations for why you can’t win, then you know you’ve lost. Put a fork in him. . . a pitchfork.

● Why Obama Will Lose: I know Obama will lose. No, I do not have access to a newspaper from the future. If I did, I would be out messing with the timeline! But I do know what motivates voters and I can tell you that Obama has lost. Here’s proof.

(1) I’ve said for some time now that voters have given up on Obama and no longer listen to him. This means he can’t win them back anymore. Here’s proof of that: Obama’s approval ratings are not keeping up with growing consumer confidence (LINK). This means the public is not giving him credit for economic growth. Translation: he’s doomed. Also, 80% of people polled say they are NOT better off than they were four years ago. Translation: he’s really doomed.

(2) According to Rasmussen, 59% of the public view Obama as more liberal than they are. You can be seen as more conservative and still win in this country, but you can’t be seen as more liberal and still win.

(3) Only 37% of voters say their views are more like Obama’s than the GOP contenders (who get a combined 53%). That’s the real approval gap right there, and the Republicans are ahead by 16%. And this is despite all the nastiness of the primary.

(4) In the Oklahoma primary, Obama only got 57% of the vote and he lost 15 counties. This suggests that the left remains upset and disillusioned with Obama. I wouldn’t draw too much from this, except polls also show that the Democrats are suffering an 8% voter enthusiasm gap (53%-46% compared to GOP enthusiasm). Even 2% can cost an election.

● What’s This I Hear About A VP?: Any day now, the race will suddenly end and everyone will start talking about who Romney will pick as VP. I’m confident it will be Marco Rubio. For starters, Rubio is a Tea Party favorite and any candidate who picks him would instantly drive Tea Party enthusiasm through the roof. Romney needs that. He’s also smart, savvy, telegenic, and (most importantly) Hispanic. Romney needs that too.

But there’s more. Romney has shown no interest in many of the other possible VP candidates: Palin, Cain, West, etc. Indeed, he never mentions them and they’ve all attacked him. Rubio hasn’t. It’s also highly unlikely that Romney would pick one of the other jokers in the race. When the question came up about a picking a "conservative" VP, Romney said, “Well, that would preclude, of course, Rick Santorum.” Yes. . . yes it would.

So he could be looking at a Christie, a Nikki Haley or a Rubio. But Christie is a northeasterner and Romney won’t do that. Haley is not especially popular even at home. He might pull a surprise and pick Rick Snyder, the Tea Party governor of Michigan, or Rick Scott, the Tea Party governor of Florida, but they’re both white dudes and also not very popular. He might pick New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, who is also Hispanic, except she’s very raw and she doesn’t bring much cache. So Rubio is the best choice.

But that’s just guess work. If you really want to know what’s going on, follow the money. Rubio has assembled a team to prepare his image for the national stage. This team includes people who handled re-election campaigns for George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s also racing to publish his memoirs this fall, and his publisher has been leaking details to boost his image. He’s even spent $40,000 to hire investigators to investigate his own background so he knows everything that will end up in the Democrat’s opposition research file. These aren’t things someone does unless they expect to be thrust onto the national stage immediately (as compared to 2016). I would bet Rubio is spending this money and rushing his book because he and Romney have already cut a deal and Rubio is vetting himself for a quick announcement once the primary race winds down.

● Finally and unrelated: I don't normally pass on links, but I know many of you are history buffs and these are some incredible Civil War pictures -- high quality, amazing images, well worth the time. (The Atlantic)

2012 Election: Predicting The Future

View Detail

Kris Kardashian's Butt: Capitalism In Motion

Kris Kardashian's Butt: Capitalism In Motion

In honor of the pending death of capitalism, thanks to American conservatives deciding that Rick Santorum somehow should represent conservatism, I figured I would explain why capitalism served us well. . . before we kill it. To aid me in this, I’m going to use the Kardashians, the NFL and the reasoning techniques of the famed Greek philosopher Rambloniclese. Onward!

There is nothing redeeming about the Kardashians as far as I can tell. They’re like a combination of the Manson Family, the Addams Family, and a porno. But I do like one thing about them. See, I never would have made them famous, but somebody else did. And that’s what makes capitalism great. Stick with me here.

The Addams Family Porno

Capitalism works because it allows 310 million Americans to look around themselves every single day and make their own decisions. If they see something they think the rest of us would like, they have the right to try to sell it to us. And we have the right to buy it or not. And nothing proves the value in this system more clearly than the fact that I never would have looked at Kim Kardashian’s butt as a money-maker, but somebody else did.

Ditto with the NFL. The NFL combine begins on Thursday as a large group of male sportswriters and NFL types get together to take nice long looks at a bunch of male athletes and judge them on how they look in their underwear. And no, I’m not kidding. Sounds kind of gay, doesn’t it? But more importantly, it sounds kind of dull. But get this, people watch it. Not only that, they talk about it, they write about it, and somebody even included it in a videogame. Just like Kris Kardashian’s butt, somebody guessed right.

The point is simple: if it were up to me to run the world, there would be no Kardashians and I never would have thought to put the NFL draft on television. It’s only because our system doesn’t rely on me that we have these things. Now imagine what else the world wouldn’t have if it were up to me to decide what people could watch, read, buy or believe?

Now let’s consider a man named Gary Lineker. He’s an a-hole from Britain who announces soccer games. I’m told soccer is some sort of sport. Old Gary, who hosts a program on the BBC, says that soccer players earn too much. Indeed, he thinks they shouldn’t be paid more than nurses or teachers. Gary’s a flaming hypocrite because he gets paid £2m a year for basically flapping his lips. But let’s not worry about that because hypocrisy is the new black in fall fashions. Instead, let me ask a series of questions to see if I can enunciate the problem with Gary’s line of “reasoning.”

What happens to the rest of the money soccer earns if it doesn’t go to salaries? It would go to club owners. So really Gary has decided that some people shouldn’t be made millionaires because that’s unfair to billionaires. But how can all these billionaires be so stupid as to pay this amount of money to the players if they aren’t worth it? And what gives Gary the right to decide that he knows better than the billionaires how much to pay the millionaires?

In truth, Gary doesn’t care about the billionaires. He’s just a spiteful little turd who doesn’t like some people earning more than others. But why pick teachers? Why not convenience store clerks? Why even pay soccer players at all? They should be like government employees should be and they should play for room and board. . . and live on a plantation. In fact, now that I think about it, why do teachers earn so much? Teachers should earn $1 an hour. And my opinion is as valid as Gary’s so why don’t we go with my opinion?

Also, while we’re readjusting the world to our own prejudices, I don’t like really soccer and people shouldn’t be allowed to watch it because I don’t like it. And before you try to tell me that people want it, let me just cut you off and say that I don’t care what people want, because I know what’s best.

Get the point?

Here’s the thing. Capitalism works because it lets millions of people try to sell their ideas to millions of other people in the form of products and services. When a want or need appears, somebody fills it, they don’t have to wait for me to decide if it should be filled. And through the trillions of decisions made each day by every single one of us, the human race goes about making each other happy.

It’s only when the *ssholes get involved and decide they want to control what people get paid or what products can get made or what ideas can be brought to life or which companies should be winners and which losers that things fail. That’s when there are no Kardashians or NFL draft or new cars or butter or health care. . . just lots of lousy GM cars nobody wants. And every dollar the government sucks away from us and every regulation they impose to help some crony is a decision the government deprives us from making. Government is the enemy of freedom.

So let’s all raise a toast to Kris Kardashian’s butt, to rap music, to overpaid athletes and a million other things we don’t like but which somebody else does, and let us thank God that for a brief moment our country was bright enough to adopt capitalism. It shall be missed.


P.S. There’s a Politics of Trek article up today at the film site.

In honor of the pending death of capitalism, thanks to American conservatives deciding that Rick Santorum somehow should represent conservatism, I figured I would explain why capitalism served us well. . . before we kill it. To aid me in this, I’m going to use the Kardashians, the NFL and the reasoning techniques of the famed Greek philosopher Rambloniclese. Onward!

There is nothing redeeming about the Kardashians as far as I can tell. They’re like a combination of the Manson Family, the Addams Family, and a porno. But I do like one thing about them. See, I never would have made them famous, but somebody else did. And that’s what makes capitalism great. Stick with me here.

The Addams Family Porno

Capitalism works because it allows 310 million Americans to look around themselves every single day and make their own decisions. If they see something they think the rest of us would like, they have the right to try to sell it to us. And we have the right to buy it or not. And nothing proves the value in this system more clearly than the fact that I never would have looked at Kim Kardashian’s butt as a money-maker, but somebody else did.

Ditto with the NFL. The NFL combine begins on Thursday as a large group of male sportswriters and NFL types get together to take nice long looks at a bunch of male athletes and judge them on how they look in their underwear. And no, I’m not kidding. Sounds kind of gay, doesn’t it? But more importantly, it sounds kind of dull. But get this, people watch it. Not only that, they talk about it, they write about it, and somebody even included it in a videogame. Just like Kris Kardashian’s butt, somebody guessed right.

The point is simple: if it were up to me to run the world, there would be no Kardashians and I never would have thought to put the NFL draft on television. It’s only because our system doesn’t rely on me that we have these things. Now imagine what else the world wouldn’t have if it were up to me to decide what people could watch, read, buy or believe?

Now let’s consider a man named Gary Lineker. He’s an a-hole from Britain who announces soccer games. I’m told soccer is some sort of sport. Old Gary, who hosts a program on the BBC, says that soccer players earn too much. Indeed, he thinks they shouldn’t be paid more than nurses or teachers. Gary’s a flaming hypocrite because he gets paid £2m a year for basically flapping his lips. But let’s not worry about that because hypocrisy is the new black in fall fashions. Instead, let me ask a series of questions to see if I can enunciate the problem with Gary’s line of “reasoning.”

What happens to the rest of the money soccer earns if it doesn’t go to salaries? It would go to club owners. So really Gary has decided that some people shouldn’t be made millionaires because that’s unfair to billionaires. But how can all these billionaires be so stupid as to pay this amount of money to the players if they aren’t worth it? And what gives Gary the right to decide that he knows better than the billionaires how much to pay the millionaires?

In truth, Gary doesn’t care about the billionaires. He’s just a spiteful little turd who doesn’t like some people earning more than others. But why pick teachers? Why not convenience store clerks? Why even pay soccer players at all? They should be like government employees should be and they should play for room and board. . . and live on a plantation. In fact, now that I think about it, why do teachers earn so much? Teachers should earn $1 an hour. And my opinion is as valid as Gary’s so why don’t we go with my opinion?

Also, while we’re readjusting the world to our own prejudices, I don’t like really soccer and people shouldn’t be allowed to watch it because I don’t like it. And before you try to tell me that people want it, let me just cut you off and say that I don’t care what people want, because I know what’s best.

Get the point?

Here’s the thing. Capitalism works because it lets millions of people try to sell their ideas to millions of other people in the form of products and services. When a want or need appears, somebody fills it, they don’t have to wait for me to decide if it should be filled. And through the trillions of decisions made each day by every single one of us, the human race goes about making each other happy.

It’s only when the *ssholes get involved and decide they want to control what people get paid or what products can get made or what ideas can be brought to life or which companies should be winners and which losers that things fail. That’s when there are no Kardashians or NFL draft or new cars or butter or health care. . . just lots of lousy GM cars nobody wants. And every dollar the government sucks away from us and every regulation they impose to help some crony is a decision the government deprives us from making. Government is the enemy of freedom.

So let’s all raise a toast to Kris Kardashian’s butt, to rap music, to overpaid athletes and a million other things we don’t like but which somebody else does, and let us thank God that for a brief moment our country was bright enough to adopt capitalism. It shall be missed.


P.S. There’s a Politics of Trek article up today at the film site.

Kris Kardashian's Butt: Capitalism In Motion

View Detail

Government Dependence Is Killing America

Government Dependence Is Killing America

America is in trouble, that’s clear. Our economy is creaking along and has produced no jobs in a decade. Unemployment is soaring. The middle class is shrinking. Inflation is crushing wages and people on fixed incomes. Our national debt is stifling and our deficit tells us the powers that be are running full speed ahead with the same old dysfunction. Now we have some interesting data from the Heritage Foundation which highlights the greatest threat this country faces. In a word: dependence.

According to the Heritage Foundation, dependence on the federal government rose 23% in the first two years under Obama. That’s the biggest rise since Jimmy Carter. What's worse, almost every year sees a rise, and the cumulative effects are staggering. In the last two years, the number of people dependent on the federal government has risen 7.5% to 67 million people. That means 22% of the population, one in five people, is a ward of the state. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg because more than 49% of all Americans, 152 million people, live in a household that gets a check from the government.

Think about that.

Half of all Americans look to the federal government as a source of income, and one in five look to it as their primary source of income. Do you think those people will support cutting government spending? Unlikely. At this point, these people eat up 70% of the federal budget -- they claimed 25% in 1962 and 48% in 1990.

Further, 49.5% of all Americans pay NO income taxes (it was 12% in 1960). Do you think those people have any incentive to stop the growth of government?

America has become a country where the many mooch off the labors of the few. This is a disaster because it gives millions of people a strong incentive to vote to keep taking from the rest. And that is highly destructive to the fabric of the country. Why? Because a culture of dependence is forming where a majority of Americans see the government as provider. They have essentially become useless. . . a drain on society. But they have political power because of their sheer numbers and they have no shame in using the government to steal from everyone else. Essentially, the unproductive are using the force of government to make the productive into their slaves.

This must end and it must end fast because dependence makes people unable and unwilling to change. So long as this continues, these people will entrench themselves further and they will ultimately destroy the country in an orgy of debt.

After I started this article, I ran across an article about Jim DeMint. DeMint is the real intellectual Godfather of the Tea Party and must be credited with shaking Senate Republicans from their slumber. DeMint has put out a new book in which he says what I am saying above:

“Dependent voters will naturally elect even big-government progressives who will continue to smother economic growth and spend America deeper into debt. The 2012 election may be the last opportunity for Republicans to win enough votes to win the presidency and a majority in Congress, and enact policies that might turn our nation around from the imminent threat of fiscal calamity.”

This is a significant point. So long as the GOP lets the Democrats (and fellow Republicans) keep adding people to the government dole, we are making it harder and harder to win future elections. It’s a vicious circle, and it needs to be broken.

Interestingly, when DeMint was asked about the presidential candidates, he deferred, but he made two points very clearly: (1) winning the election trumps everything else because of the need to stop this culture of dependence, and (2) the winner of the primary must adopt/focus on Ron Paul’s ideas of individual liberty, cutting the power of the Federal Reserve, and limited government. Said DeMint:

“If our nominee doesn’t pick up a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas, we’re missing the boat and we’re missing a lot of people who could help us build our party. These are not wild ideas.”

I have to agree. I think that a sane Ron Paul without a surrenderist foreign policy would be an unbeatable Republican candidate in almost any election, and especially in this election. The question is, who is this person? Jim DeMint is about the only name that comes to mind at the moment.

America is in trouble, that’s clear. Our economy is creaking along and has produced no jobs in a decade. Unemployment is soaring. The middle class is shrinking. Inflation is crushing wages and people on fixed incomes. Our national debt is stifling and our deficit tells us the powers that be are running full speed ahead with the same old dysfunction. Now we have some interesting data from the Heritage Foundation which highlights the greatest threat this country faces. In a word: dependence.

According to the Heritage Foundation, dependence on the federal government rose 23% in the first two years under Obama. That’s the biggest rise since Jimmy Carter. What's worse, almost every year sees a rise, and the cumulative effects are staggering. In the last two years, the number of people dependent on the federal government has risen 7.5% to 67 million people. That means 22% of the population, one in five people, is a ward of the state. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg because more than 49% of all Americans, 152 million people, live in a household that gets a check from the government.

Think about that.

Half of all Americans look to the federal government as a source of income, and one in five look to it as their primary source of income. Do you think those people will support cutting government spending? Unlikely. At this point, these people eat up 70% of the federal budget -- they claimed 25% in 1962 and 48% in 1990.

Further, 49.5% of all Americans pay NO income taxes (it was 12% in 1960). Do you think those people have any incentive to stop the growth of government?

America has become a country where the many mooch off the labors of the few. This is a disaster because it gives millions of people a strong incentive to vote to keep taking from the rest. And that is highly destructive to the fabric of the country. Why? Because a culture of dependence is forming where a majority of Americans see the government as provider. They have essentially become useless. . . a drain on society. But they have political power because of their sheer numbers and they have no shame in using the government to steal from everyone else. Essentially, the unproductive are using the force of government to make the productive into their slaves.

This must end and it must end fast because dependence makes people unable and unwilling to change. So long as this continues, these people will entrench themselves further and they will ultimately destroy the country in an orgy of debt.

After I started this article, I ran across an article about Jim DeMint. DeMint is the real intellectual Godfather of the Tea Party and must be credited with shaking Senate Republicans from their slumber. DeMint has put out a new book in which he says what I am saying above:

“Dependent voters will naturally elect even big-government progressives who will continue to smother economic growth and spend America deeper into debt. The 2012 election may be the last opportunity for Republicans to win enough votes to win the presidency and a majority in Congress, and enact policies that might turn our nation around from the imminent threat of fiscal calamity.”

This is a significant point. So long as the GOP lets the Democrats (and fellow Republicans) keep adding people to the government dole, we are making it harder and harder to win future elections. It’s a vicious circle, and it needs to be broken.

Interestingly, when DeMint was asked about the presidential candidates, he deferred, but he made two points very clearly: (1) winning the election trumps everything else because of the need to stop this culture of dependence, and (2) the winner of the primary must adopt/focus on Ron Paul’s ideas of individual liberty, cutting the power of the Federal Reserve, and limited government. Said DeMint:

“If our nominee doesn’t pick up a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas, we’re missing the boat and we’re missing a lot of people who could help us build our party. These are not wild ideas.”

I have to agree. I think that a sane Ron Paul without a surrenderist foreign policy would be an unbeatable Republican candidate in almost any election, and especially in this election. The question is, who is this person? Jim DeMint is about the only name that comes to mind at the moment.

Government Dependence Is Killing America

View Detail

Of Idiot and Egomaniac

Of Idiot and Egomaniac

OMG! Obama’s right about something. . . sort of. How the heck did that happen?! Also, bad, arrogant, delusional Newt is back, just in time for Christmas! And you won’t like what he said.

● Dateline: Obama’s Brain(sic). As Obama stopped over in Kansas (while telling the crowd he was in Texas. . . “hello Cleveland!”) on his way to his vacation in the coolest of the 57 states -- Hawaii, which is now in Asia, Obama actually said something mostly correct. He noted that people have been losing their jobs not because of “the business cycle,” but because of technology: “you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the internet.” Ya don’t say?!

Ok, let’s think about this for a moment. Could it be that the big enemy isn’t China or decades of Reaganomics or those evil rich just not paying enough in taxes? Could it be the real reason people lose their jobs is technology?

Actually, yes. The sad truth is the biggest job killer is technology. The tractor killed the farm hand. The robot killed the factory worker. The computer killed the typing pool. The internet is killing retail. It is a cycle. And this cycle will never stop. That’s why it’s so vital that America always remain a land of innovation and opportunity. We need to keep making new jobs to replace the ones that will disappear because of technology. That means companies need to be free to take risks. If companies are prevented from taking risks, the only way they can survive against the competition is to find efficiencies, and efficiencies means layoffs. It is a simply truth: risks = jobs, efficiencies = layoffs.

Yet, the Democrats do everything within their power to kill risk. They regulate business to the point it becomes impossible to take risks. They tax those who earn “too much” and thereby eliminate the reward that comes with taking successful risk. And they saddle the economy with trial lawyers and easy litigation to make risk just too risky. This is how liberalism destroys economies. It destroys the ability of “those who would” to generate new jobs to replace the old ones that naturally disappear over time.

For possibly the first time in his life, President AAAhole is onto something. Too bad he doesn’t understand the implications.

● Dateline: Newt’s Brain. The only thing bigger than the gaps in Obama’s knowledge is Newt’s ego. And we’ve just been treated to yet another classic example of this. Said Newt to fellow blowhard Larry Kudlow:

“I was part of Jack Kemp's little cabal of supply-siders who I think, largely by helping convince Reagan and then working with Reagan profoundly changed the entire trajectory of the American economy in the 1980s. You could make an argument that I helped Mitt Romney get rich because I helped pass the legislation that —”

Uh..... To use a slight paraphrase of a famous and devastating debate line from Lloyd Benson, “I knew Ronald Reagan, Mr. Gingrich, and you should shut the hell up about teaching Reagan anything you like punk.”

Newt was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978. By that point, Ronald Reagan had already been Governor of California for two terms and had run twice for president (1968 and 1976). He had advocated conservatism since the 1950s. He endorsed Barry Goldwater a year before Newt got his college degree. So F-you Newt if you’re going to claim that YOU had to convince Reagan of anything, least of all his signature idea, which he was already advocating when you were still in diapers. . . you turd.

This is the problem with Newt: he’s insane. And I don’t mean in an endearing way like crazy uncle Ron Paul and his gold-standard flying saucers. Newt is insane in the way that serial killers are insane. He’s a bigger narcissist than Obama. He doesn’t think God speaks to him, he thinks God comes to him for advice. And he genuinely believes the fantasies he invents. And it gets worse. . .

● Dateline: Trump This. Newsmax is stupidly teaming with Donald “the fraud” Trump to put on a Republican debate on December 27th. Would our candidates really crawl on their bellies to this fraud? Oops, I mean, is this really a good idea?

Fortunately, we didn’t have to wait long before Jon Huntsman to his credit became the first to discover his sense of self-respect and refused to go. Ron Paul immediately followed suit, adding that “the selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate. . . is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.” With the course firmly set by the others, Romney made the bold decision to follow the crowd. So we’re all agreed, right?

Well, no. Newt’s going. In fact, the shameless egomaniac flew to Trump’s side to blast the evil Ron Paul. . . by denigrating Ronald Reagan. Indeed, when asked to respond to Paul’s claim that Trump’s participation would be beneath the dignity of the office, Newt actually said:

“This is a country that elected an actor who made two movies with a chimpanzee to the presidency.”

WTF?! And like that, I have ruled out another candidate.

OMG! Obama’s right about something. . . sort of. How the heck did that happen?! Also, bad, arrogant, delusional Newt is back, just in time for Christmas! And you won’t like what he said.

● Dateline: Obama’s Brain(sic). As Obama stopped over in Kansas (while telling the crowd he was in Texas. . . “hello Cleveland!”) on his way to his vacation in the coolest of the 57 states -- Hawaii, which is now in Asia, Obama actually said something mostly correct. He noted that people have been losing their jobs not because of “the business cycle,” but because of technology: “you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the internet.” Ya don’t say?!

Ok, let’s think about this for a moment. Could it be that the big enemy isn’t China or decades of Reaganomics or those evil rich just not paying enough in taxes? Could it be the real reason people lose their jobs is technology?

Actually, yes. The sad truth is the biggest job killer is technology. The tractor killed the farm hand. The robot killed the factory worker. The computer killed the typing pool. The internet is killing retail. It is a cycle. And this cycle will never stop. That’s why it’s so vital that America always remain a land of innovation and opportunity. We need to keep making new jobs to replace the ones that will disappear because of technology. That means companies need to be free to take risks. If companies are prevented from taking risks, the only way they can survive against the competition is to find efficiencies, and efficiencies means layoffs. It is a simply truth: risks = jobs, efficiencies = layoffs.

Yet, the Democrats do everything within their power to kill risk. They regulate business to the point it becomes impossible to take risks. They tax those who earn “too much” and thereby eliminate the reward that comes with taking successful risk. And they saddle the economy with trial lawyers and easy litigation to make risk just too risky. This is how liberalism destroys economies. It destroys the ability of “those who would” to generate new jobs to replace the old ones that naturally disappear over time.

For possibly the first time in his life, President AAAhole is onto something. Too bad he doesn’t understand the implications.

● Dateline: Newt’s Brain. The only thing bigger than the gaps in Obama’s knowledge is Newt’s ego. And we’ve just been treated to yet another classic example of this. Said Newt to fellow blowhard Larry Kudlow:

“I was part of Jack Kemp's little cabal of supply-siders who I think, largely by helping convince Reagan and then working with Reagan profoundly changed the entire trajectory of the American economy in the 1980s. You could make an argument that I helped Mitt Romney get rich because I helped pass the legislation that —”

Uh..... To use a slight paraphrase of a famous and devastating debate line from Lloyd Benson, “I knew Ronald Reagan, Mr. Gingrich, and you should shut the hell up about teaching Reagan anything you like punk.”

Newt was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978. By that point, Ronald Reagan had already been Governor of California for two terms and had run twice for president (1968 and 1976). He had advocated conservatism since the 1950s. He endorsed Barry Goldwater a year before Newt got his college degree. So F-you Newt if you’re going to claim that YOU had to convince Reagan of anything, least of all his signature idea, which he was already advocating when you were still in diapers. . . you turd.

This is the problem with Newt: he’s insane. And I don’t mean in an endearing way like crazy uncle Ron Paul and his gold-standard flying saucers. Newt is insane in the way that serial killers are insane. He’s a bigger narcissist than Obama. He doesn’t think God speaks to him, he thinks God comes to him for advice. And he genuinely believes the fantasies he invents. And it gets worse. . .

● Dateline: Trump This. Newsmax is stupidly teaming with Donald “the fraud” Trump to put on a Republican debate on December 27th. Would our candidates really crawl on their bellies to this fraud? Oops, I mean, is this really a good idea?

Fortunately, we didn’t have to wait long before Jon Huntsman to his credit became the first to discover his sense of self-respect and refused to go. Ron Paul immediately followed suit, adding that “the selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate. . . is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.” With the course firmly set by the others, Romney made the bold decision to follow the crowd. So we’re all agreed, right?

Well, no. Newt’s going. In fact, the shameless egomaniac flew to Trump’s side to blast the evil Ron Paul. . . by denigrating Ronald Reagan. Indeed, when asked to respond to Paul’s claim that Trump’s participation would be beneath the dignity of the office, Newt actually said:

“This is a country that elected an actor who made two movies with a chimpanzee to the presidency.”

WTF?! And like that, I have ruled out another candidate.

Of Idiot and Egomaniac

View Detail

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

If you haven't seen it yet, my latest article is up at Big Hollywood (Click Me).

Sometimes it’s amazing how daft leftists can be. We spent more money than we could afford and now we’re broke? How did that happen?! We tax rich people and they send their money overseas. Nobody could have seen that coming!! We let criminals out of jail and somehow the crime rate soars?! How? Now liberals have discovered that massive immigration depresses wages. Ya think?

While Britain’s Labour Party was in power between 1997 and 2010, they threw open the immigration doors to let pretty much anyone who wanted into Britain into the country. Part of this had to do with new European Union rules which allowed free movement from Eastern Europe and part of it was leftist political correctness which sought to de-British Britain.

To give you a sense of how open the doors got, consider these figures:

● Between 1980-1991, the UK lost an average of 42,000 people each year.
● Between 1992-1995, the UK gained 9,200 immigrants per year.
● Between 1996 and 2010, under Labor, the UK gained 178,000 per year.

A couple weeks ago, a report was released, which had been commissioned by Labor when it was in power and then suppressed, because Labour didn’t like its conclusions. In fact, they ran around telling the public the exact opposite of what the report found. But now the truth has come out.

According to this report, this wave of immigrants flooding Britain depressed British wage and “undercut” British workers. You don’t say?! It was so bad in fact, the Labour Party has had to admit Labour “got it wrong” on immigration and concedes this “had a big effect on people in Britain.” Great. . . now explain why you kept lying about it?

But can they seriously claim they had no idea this would happen? Assume you make widgets and you need a new worker. In Room A, there are two potential employees. . . they look surly. In Room B, there are 500 potential employees. Do you think you will end up paying more if you hire from Room A or Room B? It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Yet, somehow it was never obvious to liberals that flooding Britain with workers, i.e. turning Britain’s labor market from Room A into Room B, would have a negative effect on the workers already in the country? How stupid do you need to be not to see that coming? Oh, that’s right, liberals don’t think about the future, they assume there are no unintended consequences.

Britain has shown that the consequence of importing a ton of labor are very clear. It will increase the competition for jobs, which will result in wages being depressed because there are more people bidding for the same number of jobs.

Now let's look at America. We are letting people in at three times the rate the British were when they “got it wrong”. . . we are letting enough people into this country every year to populate Denver, Colorado. That’s unsustainable.

The Democrats support this because they think these immigrants will vote Democrat, which will overcome the white flight their party has experienced. But what do they think the effect will be on the wages of blacks, Hispanics and uneducated whites.... the very groups the Democrats claim to want to help? The fools currently squatting outside Wall Street want this too (check out Bev’s article on their list of demands). Those idiots want both (1) a hike in wages and (2) open borders. But of course, those are contradictory demands because once you open the borders, wages will crash. Not surprisingly, Big Business wants this too because it keeps their costs down.

Talk about an unholy alliance!

I'm all for immigration, but there need to be limits. Clearly, three times the British level is too much.

If you haven't seen it yet, my latest article is up at Big Hollywood (Click Me).

Sometimes it’s amazing how daft leftists can be. We spent more money than we could afford and now we’re broke? How did that happen?! We tax rich people and they send their money overseas. Nobody could have seen that coming!! We let criminals out of jail and somehow the crime rate soars?! How? Now liberals have discovered that massive immigration depresses wages. Ya think?

While Britain’s Labour Party was in power between 1997 and 2010, they threw open the immigration doors to let pretty much anyone who wanted into Britain into the country. Part of this had to do with new European Union rules which allowed free movement from Eastern Europe and part of it was leftist political correctness which sought to de-British Britain.

To give you a sense of how open the doors got, consider these figures:

● Between 1980-1991, the UK lost an average of 42,000 people each year.
● Between 1992-1995, the UK gained 9,200 immigrants per year.
● Between 1996 and 2010, under Labor, the UK gained 178,000 per year.

A couple weeks ago, a report was released, which had been commissioned by Labor when it was in power and then suppressed, because Labour didn’t like its conclusions. In fact, they ran around telling the public the exact opposite of what the report found. But now the truth has come out.

According to this report, this wave of immigrants flooding Britain depressed British wage and “undercut” British workers. You don’t say?! It was so bad in fact, the Labour Party has had to admit Labour “got it wrong” on immigration and concedes this “had a big effect on people in Britain.” Great. . . now explain why you kept lying about it?

But can they seriously claim they had no idea this would happen? Assume you make widgets and you need a new worker. In Room A, there are two potential employees. . . they look surly. In Room B, there are 500 potential employees. Do you think you will end up paying more if you hire from Room A or Room B? It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Yet, somehow it was never obvious to liberals that flooding Britain with workers, i.e. turning Britain’s labor market from Room A into Room B, would have a negative effect on the workers already in the country? How stupid do you need to be not to see that coming? Oh, that’s right, liberals don’t think about the future, they assume there are no unintended consequences.

Britain has shown that the consequence of importing a ton of labor are very clear. It will increase the competition for jobs, which will result in wages being depressed because there are more people bidding for the same number of jobs.

Now let's look at America. We are letting people in at three times the rate the British were when they “got it wrong”. . . we are letting enough people into this country every year to populate Denver, Colorado. That’s unsustainable.

The Democrats support this because they think these immigrants will vote Democrat, which will overcome the white flight their party has experienced. But what do they think the effect will be on the wages of blacks, Hispanics and uneducated whites.... the very groups the Democrats claim to want to help? The fools currently squatting outside Wall Street want this too (check out Bev’s article on their list of demands). Those idiots want both (1) a hike in wages and (2) open borders. But of course, those are contradictory demands because once you open the borders, wages will crash. Not surprisingly, Big Business wants this too because it keeps their costs down.

Talk about an unholy alliance!

I'm all for immigration, but there need to be limits. Clearly, three times the British level is too much.

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

View Detail

Jobs Bill: The Obama Is In The Details

Jobs Bill: The Obama Is In The Details

Things are not going well for Obama’s jobs bill. First, there was no bill, even though Obama insisted there was. Then there was a bill, but no Democrats were willing to sponsor it. In fact, they hate it. . . they fear it. Then Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert came along.

Obama’s jobs bill seemed destined for failure the moment Obama even announced it. The bill is a disaster of recycled, failed ideas which no one really thinks will do any good. The left hates it. The right hates it. Rasmussen says that only 38% of the public supports the bill. Even among Democrats desperate to do something. . . anything, this bill has been about as popular as the plague.

● Sen. Jim Webb (Va): “Terrible.”

● Sen. Mary Landrieu (La): “That offset is not going to fly, and [Obama] should know that. Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

● Sen. Tom Carper (Del): “I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan. That’s better than everything else the president is talking about combined.”

● Rep. Raul Grijalva (Az): “There is serious discomfort with potentially setting up Social Security as a fall guy.”

That’s why no Democrats have been willing to sponsor the bill.

Enter Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert. Gohmert has represented Texas since 2005. In 2008, he offered an alternative to the stimulus that would have given the country a tax holiday. In 2009, he cosponsored a bill that would have required presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate. Now he’s gone after Obama’s jobs bill, and what he’s uncovered is pretty shocking.

First, Obama’s bill would turn the unemployed into a protected class similar to ethnic minorities. Thus, if an unemployed person applies for a job and is not hired because someone who currently has a job is hired instead, that person can sue the company for discrimination. Seriously.

This is HUGE! Think about what this would do. The effect would be to (1) freeze everyone in place at their current jobs because no one would hire anyone who has a job, (2) stop all but essential hiring because of the risk of litigation, and (3) spur tons of frivolous litigation in the hopes of striking it rich or getting bought off. This would become the “Unemployed Litigants Enrichment Act.” You would literally see unemployed people bringing an avalanche of suits in the hopes of squeezing some cash out of local businesses.

This would destroy American business.

Secondly, there is a clause in this legislation which provides that any state that accepts federal money under any program will automatically waive its 11th Amendment protections (called “sovereign immunity”). That means states could then be sued for employment discrimination. Combine this with the unemployment bit above and you’ve got a recipe for the unemployed enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. Even without the extra employment bit, this still would be a goldmine for employment lawyers.

These provisions are insane, which is why Obama is trying to create a sense of urgency to get the bill passed before anyone reads it. Hence, he spent the day talking about the “employment crisis” and our “national emergency.” Fortunately, this will never pass a Republican Congress. Heck, I doubt it could pass a Democrat Congress.

Finally, you should know that Gohmert has struck again. Since the Democrats have been unwilling to introduce the bill, Gohmert stole the name of Obama’s bill and introduced his own “American Jobs Act.” This is a two page bill that eliminates the corporate tax!

So yes, Mr. President. . . let’s pass the American Jobs Act now!!

Things are not going well for Obama’s jobs bill. First, there was no bill, even though Obama insisted there was. Then there was a bill, but no Democrats were willing to sponsor it. In fact, they hate it. . . they fear it. Then Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert came along.

Obama’s jobs bill seemed destined for failure the moment Obama even announced it. The bill is a disaster of recycled, failed ideas which no one really thinks will do any good. The left hates it. The right hates it. Rasmussen says that only 38% of the public supports the bill. Even among Democrats desperate to do something. . . anything, this bill has been about as popular as the plague.

● Sen. Jim Webb (Va): “Terrible.”

● Sen. Mary Landrieu (La): “That offset is not going to fly, and [Obama] should know that. Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

● Sen. Tom Carper (Del): “I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan. That’s better than everything else the president is talking about combined.”

● Rep. Raul Grijalva (Az): “There is serious discomfort with potentially setting up Social Security as a fall guy.”

That’s why no Democrats have been willing to sponsor the bill.

Enter Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert. Gohmert has represented Texas since 2005. In 2008, he offered an alternative to the stimulus that would have given the country a tax holiday. In 2009, he cosponsored a bill that would have required presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate. Now he’s gone after Obama’s jobs bill, and what he’s uncovered is pretty shocking.

First, Obama’s bill would turn the unemployed into a protected class similar to ethnic minorities. Thus, if an unemployed person applies for a job and is not hired because someone who currently has a job is hired instead, that person can sue the company for discrimination. Seriously.

This is HUGE! Think about what this would do. The effect would be to (1) freeze everyone in place at their current jobs because no one would hire anyone who has a job, (2) stop all but essential hiring because of the risk of litigation, and (3) spur tons of frivolous litigation in the hopes of striking it rich or getting bought off. This would become the “Unemployed Litigants Enrichment Act.” You would literally see unemployed people bringing an avalanche of suits in the hopes of squeezing some cash out of local businesses.

This would destroy American business.

Secondly, there is a clause in this legislation which provides that any state that accepts federal money under any program will automatically waive its 11th Amendment protections (called “sovereign immunity”). That means states could then be sued for employment discrimination. Combine this with the unemployment bit above and you’ve got a recipe for the unemployed enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. Even without the extra employment bit, this still would be a goldmine for employment lawyers.

These provisions are insane, which is why Obama is trying to create a sense of urgency to get the bill passed before anyone reads it. Hence, he spent the day talking about the “employment crisis” and our “national emergency.” Fortunately, this will never pass a Republican Congress. Heck, I doubt it could pass a Democrat Congress.

Finally, you should know that Gohmert has struck again. Since the Democrats have been unwilling to introduce the bill, Gohmert stole the name of Obama’s bill and introduced his own “American Jobs Act.” This is a two page bill that eliminates the corporate tax!

So yes, Mr. President. . . let’s pass the American Jobs Act now!!

Jobs Bill: The Obama Is In The Details

View Detail

Taxes: Main Street v. eStreet

Taxes: Main Street v. eStreet

Today’s topic involves an issue about which I am conflicted. Should states be allowed to “tax” internet merchants? I put “tax” in quotes because that's not actually what's going on. The real question is: should states be allowed to force internet merchants to collect sales taxes from customers? This is a much more complicated issue than it seems at first glance. Here is the problem as each side sees it:



1. The State View: Americans buy about $10 billion a year from the internet (and growing). But as a practical matter, states can’t tax this. Technically, they can and do tax it, but they can only collect the tax from the purchaser. Indeed, most states have laws requiring you to report what you purchase and pay tax on that. . . fat chance.



From the state perspective, this is lost revenue. To solve this problem, states keep trying to force internet retailers (e-tailers) to collect sales taxes just like bricks and mortar retailers do. Right now, e-tailers don’t do that, and states don’t have the power to force them.



The reason states can’t force this is the way jurisdiction works in the United States. To be able to regulate (and tax) a business, that business must have some “nexus” to the state. But the term “nexus” isn’t clearly defined. Operating a warehouse within a state clearly constitutes a nexus. Having a retail operation does too. But what if people buy from your catalog or off your webpage? So far, the courts have always said that is not enough to form a nexus. Thus, states can’t force e-tailers to collect sale tax for them. . . though they keep trying.



California is the latest state to try. What they’ve done is to declare that any e-tailer who deals with local sellers has a nexus to the state. Amazon falls into this category because it partners with small businesses all over the country including California. Because of this bill, Amazon has begun terminating its relationship with all of these people if they are located in California (10,000 were terminated in July). Amazon is also trying to get this bill repealed by referendum.



2. The Main Street Retailer View: Main Street retailers hate companies like Amazon. They have no choice but to collect the sales tax imposed by the state. Thus, they are at a disadvantage to the e-tailers, and the disadvantage can be serious. In liberal states like Illinois, for example, it can reach nearly 12% with local surcharges. That’s a significant handicap when the e-tailer doesn’t have to collect those taxes.



Extending this argument to its natural conclusion, retailers argue that if this situation is not remedied, then e-tailers will eventually wipe out retailers. But keep a couple things in mind. First, these are the same retailers who wiped out the mom and pop shops two decades ago. . . so their argument rings a little hypocritical. Secondly, there are other benefits the retailers get (like property tax breaks) that are not given to the e-tailer. Third, the retailer business model may be defective, and rather than trying to force a tax hike on e-tailers, maybe they should be looking for new services to lure customers back into their stores. Fourth, some products simply aren't amenable to the e-tailer model.



3. The eStreet Internet Retailer View: The e-tailer response is twofold. First, to allow states to force them to collect the tax would make them a special case that violates 200 years of jurisprudence. It’s the business equivalent of letting New York haul you into court just because you sent a letter to someone who lives in New York.



Secondly, e-tailers make a practicality argument. There are 8,000 different tax jurisdictions in the US, each with different rules, procedures and rates, which change at a moment’s notice. Moreover, these jurisdictions don’t align with zip codes. Thus, it would be a practical nightmare for a company like Amazon to assess and collect the right amount of tax. It would be impossible for smaller e-tailers. This change could effectively kill off all but the largest e-tailers.



4. My View: Politically, I am conflicted on this. As a firm believer in federalism and the 10th Amendment, I generally favor letting states handle their own affairs. . . even if they make a mess of it. So they should be allowed to tax whatever activity goes on inside their borders provided they don’t discriminate against out-of-state companies. But that argument really doesn’t apply here because they can tax these transactions, they just can’t get it collected the easy way. States have a right to regulate themselves, they don’t have a right to regulate outsiders just because it makes things easier for the state.



And practically speaking, I think it would be disastrous to allow 10,000 tax regimes to force themselves upon e-tailers. What’s more, how can we then be sure they are being treated fairly (i.e. that there is no discrimination against out-of-state companies)? Suppose a single sales tax is imposed on both retailers and e-tailers. That sounds fair, but what about the property tax breaks, utility discounts or other things the retailer gets that reek of local favoritism?



I don’t care for the idea that in the long run we are likely to end up with most retailers going out of business in favor of e-tailers (e.g. book and music stores). But on the other hand, these e-tailers have been very good for consumers even beyond the sale tax issue and the death of the retailer may be inevitable unless retailers find some way to improve their business model.



Right now Senate Democrats are trying to come up with a bill (the Main Street Fairness Act) to “solve” this problem. Amazon supports it, eBay opposes it. Frankly, this sounds like it will impose a fairly heavy regulatory burden on e-tailers. I suspect Amazon likes it because it will make it hard for smaller competitors to enter its market. eBay probably opposes it because eBay relies on thousands of small sellers, who would likely end up violating the new rules.



There may be no good answer, but when in doubt, I find myself coming down against any solution offered by Democrats with the support of the biggest company in the field and with the support of trade groups looking for a little protectionism for their members. So if I had to vote right now, I would vote to leave the system as it is.



What do you think? How would you solve this problem?

Today’s topic involves an issue about which I am conflicted. Should states be allowed to “tax” internet merchants? I put “tax” in quotes because that's not actually what's going on. The real question is: should states be allowed to force internet merchants to collect sales taxes from customers? This is a much more complicated issue than it seems at first glance. Here is the problem as each side sees it:



1. The State View: Americans buy about $10 billion a year from the internet (and growing). But as a practical matter, states can’t tax this. Technically, they can and do tax it, but they can only collect the tax from the purchaser. Indeed, most states have laws requiring you to report what you purchase and pay tax on that. . . fat chance.



From the state perspective, this is lost revenue. To solve this problem, states keep trying to force internet retailers (e-tailers) to collect sales taxes just like bricks and mortar retailers do. Right now, e-tailers don’t do that, and states don’t have the power to force them.



The reason states can’t force this is the way jurisdiction works in the United States. To be able to regulate (and tax) a business, that business must have some “nexus” to the state. But the term “nexus” isn’t clearly defined. Operating a warehouse within a state clearly constitutes a nexus. Having a retail operation does too. But what if people buy from your catalog or off your webpage? So far, the courts have always said that is not enough to form a nexus. Thus, states can’t force e-tailers to collect sale tax for them. . . though they keep trying.



California is the latest state to try. What they’ve done is to declare that any e-tailer who deals with local sellers has a nexus to the state. Amazon falls into this category because it partners with small businesses all over the country including California. Because of this bill, Amazon has begun terminating its relationship with all of these people if they are located in California (10,000 were terminated in July). Amazon is also trying to get this bill repealed by referendum.



2. The Main Street Retailer View: Main Street retailers hate companies like Amazon. They have no choice but to collect the sales tax imposed by the state. Thus, they are at a disadvantage to the e-tailers, and the disadvantage can be serious. In liberal states like Illinois, for example, it can reach nearly 12% with local surcharges. That’s a significant handicap when the e-tailer doesn’t have to collect those taxes.



Extending this argument to its natural conclusion, retailers argue that if this situation is not remedied, then e-tailers will eventually wipe out retailers. But keep a couple things in mind. First, these are the same retailers who wiped out the mom and pop shops two decades ago. . . so their argument rings a little hypocritical. Secondly, there are other benefits the retailers get (like property tax breaks) that are not given to the e-tailer. Third, the retailer business model may be defective, and rather than trying to force a tax hike on e-tailers, maybe they should be looking for new services to lure customers back into their stores. Fourth, some products simply aren't amenable to the e-tailer model.



3. The eStreet Internet Retailer View: The e-tailer response is twofold. First, to allow states to force them to collect the tax would make them a special case that violates 200 years of jurisprudence. It’s the business equivalent of letting New York haul you into court just because you sent a letter to someone who lives in New York.



Secondly, e-tailers make a practicality argument. There are 8,000 different tax jurisdictions in the US, each with different rules, procedures and rates, which change at a moment’s notice. Moreover, these jurisdictions don’t align with zip codes. Thus, it would be a practical nightmare for a company like Amazon to assess and collect the right amount of tax. It would be impossible for smaller e-tailers. This change could effectively kill off all but the largest e-tailers.



4. My View: Politically, I am conflicted on this. As a firm believer in federalism and the 10th Amendment, I generally favor letting states handle their own affairs. . . even if they make a mess of it. So they should be allowed to tax whatever activity goes on inside their borders provided they don’t discriminate against out-of-state companies. But that argument really doesn’t apply here because they can tax these transactions, they just can’t get it collected the easy way. States have a right to regulate themselves, they don’t have a right to regulate outsiders just because it makes things easier for the state.



And practically speaking, I think it would be disastrous to allow 10,000 tax regimes to force themselves upon e-tailers. What’s more, how can we then be sure they are being treated fairly (i.e. that there is no discrimination against out-of-state companies)? Suppose a single sales tax is imposed on both retailers and e-tailers. That sounds fair, but what about the property tax breaks, utility discounts or other things the retailer gets that reek of local favoritism?



I don’t care for the idea that in the long run we are likely to end up with most retailers going out of business in favor of e-tailers (e.g. book and music stores). But on the other hand, these e-tailers have been very good for consumers even beyond the sale tax issue and the death of the retailer may be inevitable unless retailers find some way to improve their business model.



Right now Senate Democrats are trying to come up with a bill (the Main Street Fairness Act) to “solve” this problem. Amazon supports it, eBay opposes it. Frankly, this sounds like it will impose a fairly heavy regulatory burden on e-tailers. I suspect Amazon likes it because it will make it hard for smaller competitors to enter its market. eBay probably opposes it because eBay relies on thousands of small sellers, who would likely end up violating the new rules.



There may be no good answer, but when in doubt, I find myself coming down against any solution offered by Democrats with the support of the biggest company in the field and with the support of trade groups looking for a little protectionism for their members. So if I had to vote right now, I would vote to leave the system as it is.



What do you think? How would you solve this problem?

Taxes: Main Street v. eStreet

View Detail