This morning, Rasmussen released the results of its latest poll regarding the Texas Voter ID law blocked by the Department of Justice on Monday. 56% polled opposed the DoJ ruling. However, even more disturbing than the ruling was another item in the report:
… the United Nations is now investigating the fairness of such laws in Texas and other states. But voters in this country still overwhelmingly support voter ID laws and don’t think they discriminate.
The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.
Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.
Of course, the UN has no jurisdiction over our laws, and the NAACP admitted as such. Additionally, the Supreme Court upheld a Voter ID law in 2008 by rejecting the challenge presented to SCOTUS.
This line of events opening the door to the United Nations injecting themselves into American laws is a slippery slope we don’t want to go down. Since it has time to focus on the US, this must mean that the United Nations has already done its job in Haiti, Iran, and other places that are working on fair and free elections as well….
As a CPA, it is frustrating to hear Social Security repeatedly being described as a pay-as-you-go (“PAYGO”) system, which gives credence to something that is terribly incorrect. PAYGO is not a system at all; rather it is a method of reporting that hides earned realities, making it totally unacceptable to accounting professions, SEC, and virtually everybody.
The fallacy of calling it PAYGO is that, in reality, the cash includes everything we are getting in, while the cash out doesn’t include the responsibilities due to come. The cash out formula specifically excludes the trillions promised to existing workers in the future, (while their Social Security tax is being collected today). It doesn’t really describe, as part of the expenses being incurred this year, the amount of future retirement benefits being earned and promised.
In contrast, if you give an insurance company today $100,000 to pay you a retirement pension beginning when you retired at the age of 65, the insurance company (logically and legally), the insurance company would report this as an asset offset by a liability to provide $100,000 of payments in the future. The Social Security system, however, reports that as $100,000 of profits in the year received, while the obligation to account for and provide future benefits is incredibly ignored.
When the cash in is received, that money egregiously goes into the government’s general tax revenue account and not in any Social Security Fund (anymore). The Social Security Administration merely collects and records the gross Social Security tax receipts, while the net amount, after deductions, is sent to the IRS. Yet the gross amount recorded is the amount spent by the government, resulting in the staggering deficit we face today. Therefore, it is outrageous for anyone to say that accounting for the system can be done simply by looking at the cash in-cash out.
The biggest problem with this arrangement is that it puts the burden on the wrong people. We have a growing population of retiring taxpayers and the current generation is paying off the obligation the older generation never paid for. It is a Ponzi scheme in which, depending on how you play it, you manipulate who is paying whose obligation. Therefore, the PAYGO method doesn’t work because the government takes 100% of the money they receive and they do not put away; they need it to pay today’s debt to another taxpayer, while today’s payee is stuck holding the bag.
According to the Social Security trustees, in a report released this past fall, unfunded liabilities – those promises made to individuals solely in exchange for amounts they have already paid for – amount to an $18 trillion deficit. Social Security in its present form is unsustainable.
The term PAYGO is used for the lay person; cute semantics – but misleading at best, willfully dishonest at worst. It mischaracterizes the program for the political purpose of allowing politicians to declare that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit, and therefore, should not be overhauled in any major way. But until we agree to start recording Social Security (and Medicare) in budgets in actuarially sound way, we will never be able to honestly and effectively deal with their fiscal crises.
President Obama made it a priority of his busy day of not producing a workable budget or cutting the deficit to be supportive of the coed student who complained about the cost of her contraception. He calls and apologizes to her for her interaction with Rush Limbaugh. But our Commander-in-Chief has yet to call the family of slain soldier from Virginia, Army Sargeant Timothy John Conrad, who died February 23, following the Koran-burning incident (which Obama apologized on behalf of America for.)
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus bill was signed exactly by President Barack Obama on February 17th, 2009. We were told how this would help Americans go back to work while creating more jobs. Yep.
It’s another egregious example of the Democrats wanting to overreach boundaries in an effort to appeal to voters:
The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.
The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.
According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.
Let’s go after the greedy oil companies as a cash cow to fund our politically motivated government projects:
Kucinich said these tax revenues would be used to fund alternative transportation programs when oil-and-gas prices spike
How delicious is it that our government — unable to even produce a working budget or spend within its limits — is deemed fit to determine what a reasonable profit is.
The late Dr. Milton Friedman cogently expels one of the most persistent economic fallacies regarding the government, spending, and producing. Take 3 minutes and be enlightened and entertained.
While pushing for a Social Security payroll tax extension, Obama wants a 3.25% surtax on millionaires to pay for it. This is wealth redistribution under the guise of “fairness”.
Are you going to cut taxes for the middle class and those who are trying to get into the middle class, or are you going to protect massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires?” he said. “Are you going to ask a few hundred thousand people who have done very, very well to do their fair share or are you going to raise taxes for hundreds of millions of people across the country?”
“…the current vice president…talks like the sort of guy who sits right next to you on the bus even though there are plenty of empty seats — just so he can explain how squirrels aren’t mammals.”
Indeed, in many respects, he’s as close as American politics gets to a wacky sitcom character who’s a couple fries short of a Happy Meal.
I’ve seen very few fact checks pertaining to Obama’s record and/or speeches. USA Today did a nice little round-up of some recent claims by Obama regarding the jobs bill, taxes, etc. I’ve reproduced it below in it’s entirety because it was simple and straightforward.
AP fact check: Obama claims miss some evidence
By Jim Kuhnhenn, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – In challenging Republicans to get behind his jobs bill Thursday, President Obama argued Republicans have supported his proposals before, demanded that they explain themselves if they oppose him, and challenged others to come up with a plan of their own. The rhetoric in the president’s quick-moving press conference dodged some facts and left some evidence in the dust.
Obama: “If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the American people, why they’re opposed, and what would they do.”
The facts: While Republicans might not be campaigning on their opposition to Obama’s plan, they’ve hardly kept their objections a secret.
In a memorandum to House Republicans Sept. 16, House Speaker John Boehner and members of the GOPleadership said they could find common ground with Obama on the extension of certain business tax breaks, waiving a payment withholding provision for federal contractors, incentives for hiring veterans, and job training measures in connection with unemployment insurance.
They objected to new spending on public works programs, suggesting instead that Congress and the president work out those priorities in a highway spending bill. And they raised concerns about Obama’s payroll tax cuts for workers and small businesses, arguing that the benefits of a one-year tax cut would be short-lived. The memo also pointed out that reducing payroll taxes, which pay for Social Security, temporarily forces Social Security to tap the government’s general fund. And it opposed additional spending to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and other public workers.
Obama: “Every idea that we’ve put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.”
The facts: Obama proposes to pay for his jobs bill by raising taxes, something traditionally opposed by Republicans and, in the form Obama proposed it, even some Democrats. Senate Democrats were so allergic to Obama’s approach, which relied largely on limiting deductions that can be taken by individuals making over $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000, that they’re eliminating it and replacing it with a new tax on millionaires.
In claiming bipartisan support for the components of his proposal, the president appears to be referring just to what the plan would do, not how it’s paid for, but that’s a crucial distinction he doesn’t make.
Some of tax-cutting proposals offered by Obama have received significant Republican support in the past. But some of the new spending he proposes has received only nominal Republican backing. Evidence of bipartisanship provided by the White Houseincludes legislation last year that provided $10 billion to prevent teacher layoffs. It won the support of only two Republican senators —Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine and among the most moderate Republicans in Congress. Another example cited by the White House was proposal last year to offer tax breaks to businesses that hire new workers — it passed the House 217-201 with six Republican votes.
Obama: “The answer we’re getting right now is: Well, we’re going to roll back all these Obama regulations. … Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?”
The facts: Well, yes, some think it will. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month submitted a jobs proposal to Obama that included a call to ease regulations on businesses. It specifically called for streamlining environmental reviews on major construction projects and to delay the issuance of some potentially burdensome regulations until the economy and employment have improved. In the letter, Chamber President Thomas Donohue also called on Congress to pass legislation that would require congressional approval of major regulations. The chamber did not indicate how many jobs such regulatory changes could create, but it said: “Immediate regulatory relief is required in order to begin moving $1 trillion-$2 trillion in accumulated private capital off of the sidelines and into business expansion.”
Obama: “We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates, in some cases, than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job.”
The facts: True, “in some cases” wealthy people can exploit loopholes to make their tax rate lower than for people of middle or low income. In recent rhetoric, Obama had suggested it was commonplace for rich people to pay lower rates than others, a claim not supported by IRS statistics. But on Thursday, Obama accurately stated that it only happens sometimes.
In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the IRS. Yet that was less than 1 percent of returns with incomes above $1 million. On average, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes; those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid 9.9 percent; those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid 6.3 percent. The White House argues that when payroll taxes — paid only on the first $106,800 of wages — are factored in, more middle class workers wind up with a higher tax rate than millionaires.
Class warfare has become a key component of Obama’s policies and re-election rhetoric. The components of such a tactic are easily recognized: 1) the political opponent will hurt those among us who are most vulnerable (elderly, poor, etc); 2) the political opponent does not care about the “middle class”; 3) the political opponent wants to benefit those most advantaged (the rich/elite). The third point of this strategy is the one that is most popular with Obama, as he continuously and intentionally rails against “millionaires and billionaires” in order to separate that particular population from mainstream America.
Besides the obvious baseness of such an argument coming from the President of the United States, it is critically important to note that he doesn’t actually ever define a millionaire or billionaire. The amount of true millionaires and billionaires are so few in number, that taxing them more – as Obama plans to do – will not help with any significant deficit reduction. His assertion is pure dishonest political speech because you cannot possibly create enough revenue from the millionaire/billionaire population even if you were to tax them at 100%. Our fiscal situation is so dire in this country that an increased tax on this group in any large or small amount solves nothing.
Unfortunately, none of this matters to Obama. He intentionally throws the labels around so that they conveniently fit whatever emotive language will coerce voters and supporters to rally behind his outrageous fiscal policies. It is classical class-warfare: antagonizing lower socio-economic groups against the “rich”.
Obama has stated his intent to raise the marginal rates on the top income earners, (aka the “rich”, “wealthy”, or “top 2%”). Yet according to the IRS, the threshold for this bracket is actually 200K for individual taxpayers or 250K for married couples. These incomes are certainly no where near millionaire or billionaire amounts.
Since there is a clear federal definition for a group of taxpayers whom Obama is targeting for tax increases, Obama really has no right to say millionaires and billionaires as a collective for the highest income earners. But he uses the generic terms anyway. By making it sound like one kind of people, it pits the average/middle-class against “the other guy”. And if he actually tried to define that other guy instead of resorting to generic terms, it would include a lot of people who would be upset to be included.
History shows us that higher tax rates results in less – not more – tax collections. Democrats like to wax poetic about the high rates of 70% and even 91%. What they fail to comprehend or deliberately don’t explain is that at those times, there were an enormous amount of tax shelters such as real estate, so that people could legally lower that taxable income and would not have to actually pay the outrageous tax rates.
With the IRC reforms of 1986, Reagan reduced the tax rates to 28% in exchange for getting rid of the tax shelters. As a result, the amount of federal income collected was more at 28% and a clean tax code than at 91% and tax shelters, because at 28%, it really wasn’t worth the time, cost, and effort to hide money. If the tax rates are going to rise again – in addition to state and local tax hikes – the tax burden in this country will be staggering. People will do one of two things: 1) start finding ways not to pay it like they did when the rates were outrageous or 2) stop working and investing so much because it’s just going to get taken away from them. When that happens, it’s not good for the economy.
Blindly going after “millionaires and billionaires” (who earn $200,000 or more) is simply a tactic Obama uses to pit classes against one another for political gain. Imposing higher taxes on that segment of the population most able to invest in and aid our recovery is true economic ignorance. Why take additional money from those taxpayers who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully and give it to the government and politicians who have proven their ability to mismanage and squander income?
