Democrats and George Orwell: Embracing "1984"

See my previous two articles. Then consider the "new" Democrat argument against repealing ObamaCare (an argument treated seriouslly by Fox News, because the INCOMPETENT people of Fox News will bite on AP/mainstream media propaganda, and are DISHONEST because they are mainly interested in "controversy" rather than facts)?

Democrats, in a move that would inspire George Orwell to write a sequel to "1984" , if Orwell were still alive) are trying to say that the Obama health care bill is a DEFICT REDUCTION BILL, and that therefore Republicans have to "pay for" any bill repealing ObamaCare.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

These people are comic geniuses, if only they were not serious.

The Obama health care bill is a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR spending bill by which our entire health care system is put under the control of Fedreal bureaucrats. See next article. The idea that ObamaCare represented a deficit reduction bill is more far fetched than George Orwell would have dared include in his fiction. Even the "Big Brother" of "1984" would probably have hesitated to assert something that far fetched.

Take one illustration. The Obama health care bill includes 500 BILLION dollars in "savings" from MEDICARE. IF those "savings" (which no one believes will really happen) can be achieved, and are a good idea, why not KEEP the "savings" (in a separate bill, after repeal), and APPLY THE $500 BILLION TO THE DEFICIT? Nope. I will not go further. The American people generally undrstand this one. The Obama health care bill is NOT a "dseficit reduction" bill, despite the multiple games played with assumptions that Congrress required to be accepted by the CBO. The American people understand this. Democrats have this problem. They think they are in the positin of "Big Brother" in "1984", jsut because they have complete control of the mainstream media. Not ture.

"1948" exists, in the mind of the Democratic Party. Republicans should go on the ATTACK on this kind of absurdity. If they do not, then the Republican Party deserves to DIE.

Why did I write the previous paragraph, about the possible death of the Republican Party? Because, alreay, Republicans are talking about repeal of ObamaCare being too "extreme", and about how "defunding" of ObamaCare will merely hurt the country. If Repuplicans wimp out on this, then they will deserve what they will get. What they will get is the DEATH of the Republican Party, and I have no hesitation in saying so at the every moment when Republicans are riding high.

"Big Brother" was successful only because of the apathy of the people (Orwell's point). The Democrats are trying to crate "1984". If Republicans help them, then Republicans are doomed to live in "1984"--unless we, the people, REJECT THEM ALL.

Fox News: Dishonest and Incompetent

Read my previous post about the Orwellian, fraudulent 9/11 "first responder" bill. Then consider these points, reported by Fox News AFTER the bill passed, but not before (a deliberate incompetence):

1. Attorney's fees were limited to 10%. Say what? WHAT attorney's fees? No one, including the dishonest Fox News, reported anything about attorney's fees before the deal to pass the bill. This is no accident. Tis bill--as I accurately told lyou, IN FORESIGHT--was right out of "11984". The title/propaganda of the bill had little to do with the content of the bill--which was nothing but a PORK EARMARK for New York City and New York politicians. Yes, this illustrates why I would not mourn ANY Republican Senator serving in the last Congress, with the possible exception of Jim Demint. No, I will NOT vote for either of the two Texas Senators, for the rest of my life (not just because of this, but this is consistent with their overall performance). Republican politicians refused to expose this bill for what it was--concentrating again on PROCESS instead of exposing the real objections to the bill (albeit Republicans should have limited the "lame duck" section to no more than 2 or 3 items, and generally exposed themselves as kunable to make the case for democracy and ignoring the vote of the people when the case was handed to them.

2. Fox News reprtted--again AFTER the bill was passed--that only 1.2 billion dollars of the 4 plus BILLIOIN dollar bill had anything to do with health care for ANY "responder"--much less "first responders". See my previoius entry where I told you so. In other words, 25% of this bill was even arguably about the subject upon which the bill was SOLD (propaganda): health care for "first responders". Yes, the DISHONEST Fox News was a part of this propaganda.

3. The overall bill was reduced from an original 7.2 billion, and then 6 billion plus, to 4.2billion, and Democrats assured people there had been no "betrayal" of "first responders". Say what? The bill was reduced almost in half, and there was no "betrayal"? Just how BAD was the original bill? And Republicnas were PROUD of the fact that they "reduced" the PORK in this bill to a mere 75% (at a minimum, since the people who can claim benefits are NOT merely what would ordinarily be in the definition of "first responders"). Tom Coburn (vote AGAINSTR him) was PROUD of this "compromise" which prevented Republicans from having to take an actual stand on princiiple--wherther a principle of "process" or of the fraudulent bill itself. Coburn was PROUD of eliminating "double dipping"--whereby people could claim compensation for the same things that they had already been paid. NO, Coburn did NOT prevent all "double dipping". What about PRIVATE benefits? Waht about private insurance? What about disability payments? What about a hundred other benefits 9/11 "victims" received from any number of sources, including payment for books, etc.? Did Fox News report that the original bill allowed even obvious "double dipping"? Not a chance. Fox News--based in New Yokr--WANTED some version of this bill to pass. Fox News is DISHONEST and INCOMPETENT.

4. Note that--as the attorney's fee provision indicates--this bill was NOT mainly about helath care. It was, and is, about COMPENSATION (taxpayer money paid simplly as a gift, and NOT for "health care"). Did Fox News tell you that BEFORE the passage of the bill. No. That is because Fox News is DISHONEST and INCOMPETENT. WHY do construction workers who helped with the search for bodies and the cleanup--noble as that is, if they did not want to get in the lpockets of the taxpayers--deserve BILLIONS in taxpayer compensation, when SOLDIERS maimed and killed in Afghanistan receive no such compensaton? PORK. Politics. That is the whole reason, and it stinks. And the whole reason Fox News did not report on what was in this bill until it had already passed is that Fox News is based in New York (aside from total incompetence, which may have played a small part). I am morally certain of this.

I could go on, but you get the point. The 9/11 "first responders" was an Orwellian, fraudulent bill. And Fox News willingly participated in the fraud.

No, this is NOT the first time I have said this about Fox News. I have repeatedly said that Fox News is part of the mainstream media problewm, and NOT part of the solution. And Fox keeps proving me right. No, I do NOT "regularly" watch Fox News. In fact, I have reached the point where I surf multiiple "news" sources in an effort to read between the lines of themm all. I am VERY good at that. Fush Limbaugh continues to give a better view of the "news" than ALL of the supposed "news" media, and he is far from perfect (as you would expect, since he is not DISHONEST, like Fox, and does not hide his BIAS).

Yes, I know the rest of the mainstream media was WORSE on the fraudulent 9/11 "first responders" bill. Jon Stewart exposed himself as both an idiotand a partisan ideologue, and he is supposed to be a COMEDIAN. The "news" people were just as bad as Stewart, or worse. But you EXPECAT CNN and MSNBC--not to mention ABC, CBS and NBC--to be nothing more than distributors of "1984" style propaganda. The point of this article--besides "I told you so"--is t expose Fox News as DISHONEST and INCOMOPETNET, in its own way. Nope. This is not even a matter of simple "bias". It is a matter of DISHONESTY, and the media are all DSIHONEST, including Fox News. Thewy are ALL uninterested in the facts, but only in their own agenda. William Randolph Hearst--not to mention Joe McCarthy--is surely smiling in his grave at the raw deal Orson Welles gave him in "Citizen Kane". Hearst was probably a better "news" persaon--damning with faint praise-than ANY modern "journalist".

No, it is merely part of the mainstream media propaganda that Fox is not interested in "journalism", while they are. They are WORSE than Fox, wich is at least--as advertised--somewhat "balanced". That is NOT the problem of Fox. The problem of Fox is that Fox rarely appears more interested in the FACTS than the rest of the media. The FACTS are the first responsibility of "journalists"--NOT "interpretation". Every single AP story I read starts off with an INTERPRETIVE pargraph. Whatever facts the AP feels like reorting do not appear until the second paragraph of any AP story, if then.

The mainstream media never reported on the FACDTS of the health care bill (what was actually in it). They neer reported on the FACTDS of the Bush/Democrat TARP bill. Neither did Fox. It is no accident that the TARP bill NEVER was implemented in the way that was DEBATED in Congress (and the media). Instad , the bill was simply a blank check for the Secretary of the Treasury, and the President, to bail out ANYONE in any way they wanted (the very thing that Democratts assured us they would ensujre the bill did not allow).

I stand by what I say above: Fox News is DISHONEST and INCOMPETENT. You should not watch them without taking whatever they say wth large grains of salt. Drudge uses multiple sources for "news"--albeit with outrageous headlines (which I often like).Limbaugh gives multiple points of view, while twisting them all to his own pint of view. The despicable AP can be relied upon--as repoted on the equally despicable Yahoo and multiple other places, including Fox News--to present the LEFTIST pont of view (the "consensus" leftist view) on any matter. Surf them all. Believe none of them.

Who are you to believe? Well, you can believe ME. Sure, I may make a mistake from time to time (rare as that is), but you get HONESTY. I think you generally (not always) get honesty from Limbaugh. You will NOT get it from Fox News, and even less from the mainstream media (excluding Fox). I don't have the time (or eyesight) to do what "journalists" should do: read the bills and rekport the factual DETAILS involved in all of these bills (and political games). But I still get it more right than Fox, because I can figure out what is going on from what IS reported (ignoring what they tell me they are reporting). Again, see the previous entry, and compare it with what Fox reported AFTER the vote (unanimous voice vote) on the 9/11 "compromise".

Note (as usual): Above not proofread, or even spell checked, due to bad eyesight (unless and until this message is deleted). Fox News should be ashamed that I am a better "journalist" with no eyes than any of them are with perfect eyes. The rest of the mainstream media have no shame. "1984" is their model, and they are sticking to it (not as Orwll intended, but as an "how-to" model in how to do "black is white" propaganda).

9/11 "First Responder" Health Bill: Orwell's "1984" Lives On in Our Government

You remember George Orwell's "1984". It was about control: people who want to control you by (among other things) convincing you black is white, perverting the meaning of words so that words mean nothing. They become mere instruments of propaganda, as the government plays on the emotions of people, using repetitive lies, to conceal the truth at all costs. Yes, Orwell was talking about the Communists and the Soviet Union, but he just as well might have been talking about the modern Democratic Party.

Yes, the "Dream Act" (where the only real "dream" involved is Harry Reid's dream of Hispanics--including the newly added citizens--who will vote Democratic). Yes, "comprehensive reform"--used in bill after bill, and often adopted as a phrase by the REPUBLICAN establishment)--is another Orwellian phrase. But the example which is the subject of this article is the "9/11 First Responders Health Act"--sometimes (slightly more accurately) called the "9/11 Responders Health Act". The confusion is deliberately Orwellian, as the bill is by no means limited to people within the ordinary meaning of "first responders". I have heard members of the media refer to the bill both ways, and the public is INTENDED to get the deceptiove idea that this bill only refers to police, firefighters and similar people who responded to the 9/11 attack. Not true.

What, exactly, does this bill--being sold with Orwellian terminology--do? Who knows for sure. Unless you go through the agony of reading every word of the bill (chainging all of the time), you can't know. I can assure you it does NOT refer only to "first responders". Even "responders" is Orwellian, unless you really want to call construction workers and volunteers "responders" who were involved in the cleanup and other non-rescue attempts to deal with the collapse of the Twin Toweers. Now these are surely people who mostly did a noble thing--except, that is, for their unending campaign for more money--but they hardly fit the image of the "heroes" Democrats are trying to use to SELL this bill in the tradition of "1984".

The reason you have no chance of knowing what is really in the bill is that both Democrats and the mainstream media (including--as is often the case--Fox News) do not want you to know. Have you heard the media (any of them) describe WHO gets WHAT benefits from this bill. It was a 7 BILLION dollar bill--now "reduced" to 6 billion. It is obvious that some serious money is involved in this bill, and not just health care for a few "heroes". In fact, the 1 BILLION dollar reduction in the cost of the revised bill tells you how Orwellian this bill has to be. I have not yet heard any media outlet describe what has been CUT from this bill, and why it was there in the first place (much less what is left in the bill). You are ojnly supposed to hear the Orwellian propaganda, all about 9/1 heroe--rather than about what the bill actuallyl does. This is EVIL stuff. No, I am not talking about the idea of providing some kind of health assistance to 9/11 "resp;onders", or even about the provisions of the actual bill. I am talking about the Orwellian propaganda designed to CONCEAL the provisions of the actual bill--including the TITLES of these bills.

My original understanding is that this bill included COMPENSATIOON for people as well as health care benefits. Whether the present bill does is difficult to know, because the media is uninterested in doing its job. What is the main job of the media--Fox News, as well as the despicable rest of the mainstream media? It is to inform you of the FACTS. Nope. The "facts" are not the ASSERTIONS of the political players. The facts are the DETAILS of the bill itself. Reporters need to READ the bill, or at least have a NEUTRAL person summarize the provisions of the bill. If parts of the bill ambiguous, then that is a FACT that needs to be explained. This is the media's main JOB. If they fail to do that, as they have (on this, ObamaCare, and so much else), then they are INCOMPETENT. You should FIRE themm (by not watching or reading, except the minimu necessary to know that the politicians are trying to snow you in the manner of Orwell's "1984"). Yes, I understand that Democrats are making it as hard as possible to know what is in this bill, and many bills, but that is merelyl another reason to vote against this RUSHED bill at the end of a lame duck session. If the media cannot explain to us--coherently--what is in a bill, then we should be AGAINST the bill (and the media, unless they are aggressively fighting the same battle to get the FACTS).

Let us back up. Remember 9/11? Remember all of the DONATIONS. Money has been thrown at New York City, and the people hurt by 9/11. And there is no reason further charitly (it is charity) could not be obtained for deserving heroes--even construction workers. Are these people MORE deserving than the heroes fighting for us in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not a chance. But SOME may be deserving of limited help ()NOT a blank check). How could these relatively few--NOT already being covered--"need" as much as 7BILLION dollars? Not possible. Absurd. Did not New York City police and firefighters have health insurance and other benefits? What about disability? What kind of benefits have these people already received, and what kind are they now receiving? Why cannot the gap be covered by private sources and donations? Where are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Why are the taxpayers of the entire nation supposed to take it on trust that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will spend their money wisely, and on the right peopl? I don't believe that. Do you? Then you really are a fool, aren't you?The questions go on and on. This bill merely seems to regard the Federal Government as a source of "free money".

Yes, looked at correctly, this is merely another EARMARK for the political benefit of the polilticians of New York state. I know. Since we are having a vote on this item, it is not technically an "earmark" (earmarks not usually being subject to individual vote, but submerged in a much bigger bill). But the bill contains all of the evils of an earmark, except that one, and adds some evils (including price tag) not in most earmarks. It is simply a misleading bill proposed by New York politicians for their own political benefit--to get some of that "ffee money" for their constituents.

Okay. But what if there really are some people who really need help with the health care they are receiving--help they can't otherwise get--who responded (even if not in the ordinary definition of "first responders") to an emergency which was an attack on the hwole nation? Fine. Those people--a small number--may exist. But they can be handled without a 6 or 7 BILLION dollar bill. Enter my brother's modest proposal.

My brother's modest proposal (really brilliant): Give the peole the SAME health care being given to discharged heroes who have served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, give these peole military and/or VA health care. Give them a card that gives them access to military health facilities--maybe even some of the same health care facilities as active duty service people. As stated, the 9/11 "responders" can hardly be regarded as MORe heroic than our soldiers who have fought in combat. As sateted, they are hardly more deserving of a better taxpayer funded health care system than the military. IF a 9/11 responder has health care needs CONNECTED TO 9/11 (no blank check for all health care needs), then we can give such a person the same access to our military health care system that soldiers with service connected health problems get. What could be fairer than that? This would apply, of course, only to the extent the needed health care is not already being provided lunder either private or public insurance. If the military has no such health care available to meet a particular need, then the 9/11 person would have the same rights to payment for outside services as a soldier in the same situation.(having to go through the same process as the soldier to qualify for going outside the military system).

You suspect that my brother's brilliant idea would not appeal to the Democrats pushing this bill, or to the people expecting to benefit? I agree with you--again exposing the fraud of this bill.

Then there are the Republicnas. It goes without saying that I will vote AGAINST each and every politician who votes for this bill in this lame duck session--Republican or Democrat, for any office and FOREVER. That already applies to a number of other votes in this lame duck session, includng "don't ask, don't tell", the "Dream Act", "food safety", and probably the START treaty. This is not just because of the indivicual bill, but because Repulicans let the lame duck session turn into this total., unconstitutioional farce making a mockery of the attempt to prevent this assault upon democracy supposedly stopped by the 20th Amendment (changing the term of Congress to the end of the year, instead of March, as previously). Yes, I include in this edict those Republicans who voted for the tax compromise--not because I oppposed any compromomise on that truly emergency situuation but because Republicans again let Obama and the Democrats add a "wish list" of "stimuls" items to the extension of the Bush tax cuts which had no business being considered in the lame duck sessio--not to mention that they should have always been voted on separatedly rather than in connection with an unrelated compromise on extending the Bush taxes only two years. Yes, I am sorely tempted to say I will vote against ANY Republican if this 9/11 bill goes through, or because of all of the other bills that have gone through, because Republicans (not just those voting the wrong way) COULD have stopped the 9/11 bill (maybe all of them) with a strong enough push back against this lame duck session. Even as this is written, Republicans CAN "run out the clock" on this particular bill (with enough political courage). On the brink of going that far, I have not chosen to disown the entire Republican Party over the lame duck session. But it is a close thing, and you can see the number of Republicans for whom I will NEVER vote in the future. Tennessee is especailly bad--where my brother lives. I feel like moving there to vote against EVERBODY (especially Corker and Alexander).

Yes, Republicans are not immune from the Orwellian disease--being politicians who have not really gotten the message. They are still willing to talk about "paying for" something like the 9/11 bill. I feel like voting against ANY Republican who talks about "paying for" new spending, as if that is not an Orwellian deception. Yes, I can understand talking about the Democrat HYPOCRISY and dishonesty--led by Obama, as Liar-i-Chief--in passing a PAYGO (pay as you go) bill with great fanfare, when they never had any intention of doing any such thing. That bill was an Orwellian lie from the beginning, and a lie even if Democrats really intended to pass NEW funding for every new spending bill.

Why is the 9/11 bill not fully "paid for", even if new taxes cover it? Easy. Say you hae a maxed out credit card with a $10,000 balance. But you are unemployed, and can't pay for it. Then you apply for a NEW credit card, and assure the bank your proposed credit limit (the new one) is "paid for" because you expect a new job (new revenue) that will be just enough to cover the new credit card. Have you arranged to "pay for" the new credit card? Of course not. You would not have paid the old credit card, and you needed EVERY new dollar of revenue you got to be applied to pay off the old card. We are not paying for the prsent government programs. Therefore, until we are, it is a LIE (objective--not a matter of opinion) to say that ANY new government spending is "paid for" unless and until we pay for the OLD spending. Republicans join in this lie every time they suggest that the problem with a Democrat bill is that it is not "paid for". Every single dollar of new revenue is needed to be applied to our deficit. Otherwise, how does the deficit ever go down? If every dollar raised in revenue is available for NEW spending, then we NEVER pay for the OLD spending. Orwell never even imagined a lie this obvious, and yet so universally accepted. The ONLYL reason I do not promise to vote against every Republican who is complicit in this lie is that it basically includes lthem ALL. And I am not yet willing to abandon Michelle Bockman (plus a very few others now in office and more coming into office). I have heard Michelle Bockman go along with this "paying for" lie with regard to this very same 9/11 bill. Shame. But Michelle Bockman is still my heroine, and you have to allow some blind spots for the good guys. Need I tell you that most Republicans now in office are NOT "good guys" (and gals)?

Orwell's "1984" lives on, in the Democratic Party, and too much of the Republican Party. .

Note: Above neither proofread nor spell checked, due to my bad eyesight.--unless/until this note disappears.

Republicans and Democrats: Why You Can't Believe Your Eyes--and Ears--on the Tax Compromise, and Know It (the Tactics of Making the Other Bastard Die

What is the best TACTIC for both Republicans and Democrats in approaching this Obama?Republican tax deal (the deal which would avoid INCREASES in tax rates rather than cut any tax rates)?

Easy. The best tactic is what Democrats are already doing. Be RELUCTANT to vote for the bill. Let the maximum number of your party vote against the bill without actually sinking the bill. For Republicans, this even has the benefit of stopping anything else from happening before the end of the year--stopping the attempt by Democrats to use the lame duck Congress to push through a lnog list of "wish" items in the last hurrah of a defated group and weakened "establishment" of both parties.

Ino other wods, as many Republicans should vote AGAINST this bill as possible to FORCE as many Demorats (playing the same game) to vote FOR this bill as possible. This also prevents Democrats from CHANGING the bill for their political purposes, as the whole bill seems at risk (assuming Republicans engaging in this game of chicken really don't want a "Christmas tree" bill--a dangerous assumptioin). In other words, make "negotiaters" deal with REPUBLICAN holdouts as well as Democrats, meaning that the original deal will be the only hope of passagfe. Further, the more pressure Republicans can put on Democrats to force them to make an apparently real choice between passing this bill and being responsible for it failing, the better off Republicans will be.

What is the risk here? None, if it works. The real risk is that people will miscalculate, and that the bill will fail to pass without a chance to resurrect it before the end of the year. If I were a Republican in the House or Senate, this would not be a real risk, since I would be willing for this compromise to fail. At best, I would be ambivalent about the billl. As my previous articles make clear, I would probably vote against the bill for real. But Republicans should not really LIKE this bill, except as the least of evils. Thus, they should be willing to RISK the bill failing, whilte perhaps plotting to reluctantly let it pass at the last minute.

Do Republicans have the cojones to play this kind of game (which they, like Democrats, are used to pllaying for political purposes, which is why I give individual politicians so little credit for "courage" n o :iooisubg: tgeur keadersguo ub a fauked attenot ti stp[ a bo;;_

I doubt if Republicans have the cojones to really pllay this game as it needs to be played--much less to really STOP this compromise। I am sure of one thing. You should NOT believe those professing "reluctance" to support this bill unless they actually not only vote against the bill but CAMPAIGN (publicly) against the bill on substantive grounds. Even then, they may be merely playing politics. See why we need to get away from "politics as usual"? It is making everyone totally cynical--especailly about politicians. Okay, I was born that way, but the rest of the public is catching up with me--fast reaching the conclusing that the only good "term limit" is ONE TERM (if we cant get rid of them faster than that).

Note: Not proofread. The title is not a proofreading failure at the end. Ran out of room, where the end was meant to say "....making the other bastard die for his vote" (a takeoff on "Patton"). Did you get it? If not, you may not be up to reading this blog--which leaves lyou in a lot of company. How can you handle

Tax Code, Stanley Johanson, Certainty and Simplicity: Republican Betrayals Go On and On

You say that Republicans (politician kind) don't really believe in small government: that they only believe in their kind of Big Government? You say that Republicans don't really believe in lower spending by the Federal Government: that they believe in spending, but in their kind of spending? You say that Republicans dont realy believe in true control of our debt or our deficit: that they only blieve in the kind of debt and deficit that they want, which may end up just as large as the kind of debt and deficit that Democrats want? Well, you are right, and the way so many Republicns have embraced the Bush tax cut compromise proves it. But you are leaving out a primary Republican betrayal. Republicans (politicians, except for a few True Believers) do NOT believe in a simple tax code. This is shown not only by the embrace of this tax cut "compromise", but by the "alternatives" Republicans have proposed ever since Obama took office.

No, general income tax rate reductioins--much less failing to INCREASE such rates, as the present Bush tax cut debate is about--do NOT represent "spending" which needs to be "paid for". Indeed, an increase of taxes is unlikely to raise government revenue (especially now), while a decrease in taxes (general income tax rates) may actually RAISE REVENUE. Ronald Reagan proved that, and a thought experiment will show you it is true.

Do you agree with leftist Democrats that no one should make over $250,000 (or $500,000 or a million dollars or whatever)? Ujbiw tget dib;t put it hat way, but they are clearly saying that all money a person makes beyond a certain amouint belongs to the GOVERNMENT, which the government allows a person to keep only as a matter of grace. The dirty little secret, of course, is that ALL money people make, and have, belongs to the government, but let us stay with the present thought experiment. Okay. let us accept that all money people make over a million dollars (with higher rates up to a million) is there for the government to use if the government NEEDS it. You are certainlly being told that people don't NEED to earn more than a million dollars to have a nice life. In fact,you are being told that there is something obscene about people earning more than that--so much more than others---and that those people should certainly not object to "sharing" (in the manner of Robin Hood) with the rest of us when we are in need. And why should people be able to pass on more than a million dollars to their children, when the rest of us NEED it?

Okay. We have established no one needs more than a million dollars. In better times, maybe we could let Alex Rodriquez keep all of that extra money (wel, some of it), and Steve Jobs (Apple). But these are not normal times. Let us, therefore, confiscate (condemn--as in eminent domain) all of that money. We NEED it, and the rich can afford to lose it. It is their civic duty. Plus, let us confiscate ALL of every estate--to the extent the estate exceeds one million dollars and is not given to the spouse. Does not the logic of the present Democrat position lead to the conclusion that this is perfectly all right, as a means of reducing our debtg and deficit? After all, we are DESPERATE, and this source of funds is there for the taking (not needed for the peoiple who have it to live well). Think of the STIMULUS, as we redistr\ibute all of that money to people who will actually spend it, and don't rluin our future by borrowing from China!!!!! What is wrong with this picture?

How much money (revenue) will a 100% tax on all income above one million dollars raise? On all estates (death tax) over one million dollars? Remember, one million dollars is more money, or at least about as much, as people earning minimum wage will earn in their entire working LIFETIME!!!! And we NEED the money. No brainer, right? Well, it is a no brainer. Such a tax will raise NO revenue. The government will LOSE revenue (no matter what the CBO says). The government will LOSE a LOT of revenue. This is not even an opinion. It is an absolute fact.

In our hypothetical perfectly fair tax world (from the leftist point of view), no one will earn over a million dollars (as soon as they can arrange it, and it will be soon). no one will die with over a millioin dollars, and they won't pay it in gift tax either. How will they do it? Taking it easy is one way. Why kill yourself, for the government? Moving out of the country is another way. Maybe the "rich" will recreate the United States of America (now dead) in another place. If only, of course, the "rich" had not already mainly lost the principles upon which this country became great. It would not be possible for me to even itemie all of the ways in which the rich will make certain they do not pay this confiscatory tax to the government. Elizabeth Barrett Browning could not count the ways ("How do I love thee; let me count the ways"). But you know, and I know, that NO ONE will pay these taxes (no one who is sane, which may leave Warren Buffet out). The government revenue from the rich will approach ZERO, and the OTHER taxes on EVERYBODY will have to go up (a vicioous cycle which represents a death spiral for what used to be the United States of America). One way or another, even if they have to make their life a non-stop party, NO ONE will die with over a million dollars. And, in a significant way, the left will not care, because (as Obama told Joe the Plumber,), for the left it is not really about government revenue. It is about redistributioin of the weath and the leftist idea of "fairness". Of course, the country will be destroyed, but you often get the feelig that the left would prefer that to giving up their own power and control. We will end up with full scale economic fascism ("state capitalism"--the state totally determining the winners and losers) before the final collapse. We are already way down that road.

This concludes our thought experiment, where we have PROVED that a confiscatory tax ratre LOSES revenue. "But", you say (fool that you are), no one really proposes a 100% tax rate." That does not change the principle involved once you take the positiion that the government owns all of a person's money--even if you limit that to money above a certain amount (a limit true leftists do not recognize). What about a 90% tax rate? Believe it or not, we actually tried that. No one paid the rate, because there were so many loopholes that all but the terminallyu stupid avoided the rate. Why do you think JFK (yes, a DEMOCRAT) got rid of that rate? 80%? Remember state and local taxes also have to be considered. 70%? People will NOT pay any of those rates. They will avoid them.

Further, and leftists will never understand this one, the OPPORTUHNITY to earn more than a millioin dollars a lyear, even if most people will never do it, is part of the essence of the United States of America. It is more than undermining the economy, and destroying the very revenue we profess to be trying to raise for the government. The idea that it is all about what the government "needs", and taking it form the "rich", is contrary to the very founding principles of this country. If we accept that idea, as leftists do, then we are no longer the United States of America--the democratic republic more successful than any in history, and which has come to dominate the world. The attitude seeps down to every person, and we are lost. What is funny is that I think more ordinary PEOPLE are able to understand this--lby instinct, and especailly if it is explained to them--than politicans are willing to accept this (Republican and Democrat). Politicans want CONTROL.

Butawe are talking about tax rates of 40^ at the top, are we not? Too high. Especially when you consider all of the other taxes, and the monster the tax code has become. We--even most Republican politicians--are approaching taxes from the wrong direction. As I began this article, I told you that income tax reductions are NOT "spending", and do not need to be "apid for". That is partly because income tax reductions--and refusal to raise tax rates--often RAISE revenue. Further, income tax increases REDUCE revenue. However, the main reason tax rates are NOT "spending" is that it is absurdly wrong to talk about tax rates that way. The FIRST thing we need to decide is the appropriate tax rate (and structure). If you don't understand that from the thought expermient above, then yuou have missed the point. What is the maximum the Federal Government should take out of an individual's income (and estate), both to maximize revenue and limit the government to an appropriate amount of intrusion inoto a person's personal life? I put that at no more than approximately 25%--slightly lower than where Ronald Reagan put it. But that is the decision that has to be made FIRST--or the decision to change the tax structure entirely, which I don't see as necessary if we limit the top rate and go back tto the Reagan idea of a SIMPLE tax system. Once we determine what the appropriate tax rates/system shoud be, THEN we must limit our spending to the revenue produced by that system and rates.

You see--or should--where this is going. The tax rates, and system, SHOULD NOT CHANGE (once it is appropriately set). A goood part of our problems come from the fact that we have continued to tinker with the Reagan revolutioin--NOT to simplify the system while keeping the tax rates constant, but by RAISING tax rates and COMPLICATING the tax system to let the politicians determine winners and losers (economic fascism). CERTAINTY in the tax system is almost as important as the appropriate rates and system.

That is where Stanley Johanson comes in. He was one of the nation's leading authorities on estate planning when I was a student at the University of Texas Schoool of Law (although I had him as a teacher of a class called Low Income Housing--believe it or not). Over the years, Stanley Johanson (I have not checked his current life status) remained one of the top estate planning experts. In that capacity, he used to give a yearly seminar in El Paso on estate planning--a one day seminar that was better than most week long deminars on the subject I attended. For a number of years--until I quit doing estate planning and headed toward retirement--I attended Johanson's seminar every year. What was one of Johanson's main messages, year after year? It was about the STUIDSITY of Congress tinkering with the estate tax system year after year. I can't even imaine what Johanson would say about the STUPIDITY of reducing the estate tax over an entire decade to ZERO (what it is now), and then proposing to put back the entire complicated law at a tax rate of 55% (or 35% under the "compromise", or whatever_/ Kpjamspms [pomt was tjat cpmstamt cjamges om tje tax ;aws==eer ,pre cp,[;ocated==,ade [;ammomg O<{PSSOB:E/ What he said about estate planning applied to the entire tax system. Tinkering constantly with the tax system is merely a way for politicians to assert CONTROL for their own political benefit.

Yes, if you understtod the above, you realize that we need to arrive at a SIMPLE system with taxes low enough to avoid government domination and low enough to avoid excessive interference in the lives of people--and excessive government interference in the economy. We need to have a system that AVOIDS encouraging people from making decisions for tax reasons--either economic decisioins because of government subsidies or to avoid taxes. Then we need to STOP. Simple and PERMANENT, that is what we really need. That is the opposite of what we are getting, and the opposite of what Stanley Johanson correctly preached all of those years.

What if we have a deficit? What if we have a recession? What if...... Forget it. We need to let the tax system alone (once a simple system is in place). No gimmicks. No "temporary" increases. No "temporary reductions. No tax credits. No "temporary" tax holidays. This idea that government can CONTROL the economy is theoretically impossible, and historically absurd. If you think lyou have to spend in a recession to help people, as FDR did in the Great Depression, do it. History says it will not work, and that correct long-term olicies are better. But, whateverf you do, LEAVE THE TAX CODE ALONE. Yes, the problem is that ALL politicians thknk exactly the opposite. The tax code is the FIRST place they look to TINKER and CONTROL. That may yet destroy us.

Ywes, the new, proposed 2% "tax holiday" on the payroll tax IS the equivalent of spending-nothing more than welfare payments trgeted at taxpayers where politicans think the votes are. Tax credits are SPENDING (as the Debt Commission correctly said). This is not true of general tax rates. But it is true of these TAX GIMMICKS. Part 2 of this article will explain why . For now, you can surely see that Republicans--who keep proposing complex gimick aftrer complex tax gimmick themselve, falsely in the name of tax reduction--have totally BETRAYED the idea of a SIMPLE tax system they have often purported to support. You can see why so many Republicans have jumped at this compromise with Obama. Far from giving up anything, they are gloating that Obama has embtaced their traitorous (to conservatives) idea that the TAX CODE is the way to "solve" all of our problems--with politicians coming to the rescue with tax incentives targeted at specific groups and specific problems. This is a BETRAYAL by Republicans of the basic principle of a simple tax system wehere the government does not assert the power to determine winners and losers in the economy.

Part 2 of this article will expand on the reasons "targeted" tax relief is spending--no different than welfare spending--including an analysis of this payroll tax holiday. Remember that a variation of that "tax holiday" was proposed by Republicans as a STIMULS in place of Obama's failed "stimulus". It is, in fact, a better simulus idea than the Obama stimulus, because it merely gives people money to spend the way they want, but it is merely a variation of the Bush/Democrtat $600 "stimuls" that FAILED in the summer of 2008. These games--as represented by this new Bush tax cut compromise--may cause ou to despair. That is often my reaction. All we can do is refuse to accept them--the purpose of these articles condemning politicians of both parties and explaining why they are all so bad. The only "sollution" is to KEEP voting these people out until they get the message, and to keep telling them why we are not voting for them.

Note: Part 2 will appear sometime this week. In the meantime, please note that the above is not proofread in any way, due to my eyesight, and that the only articles you can assume are proofread will not contain this note. I am trying to retroactively get articles proofread, but who knows how well it will work.

Bush Tax Cut Betrayals: Republican Betrayals and Other Liews

Did you know that it is a LIE that the proposed tax cut compromise will add 1% to growh in 2f011? Yes, I am talking about the very economist Obama says he listens to ("Zandy", or some such name--doesn't matter as economists are always wrong, and amonmng The Stupidest People on Earth--as an occupational group, and this point is obvious except in that Obama's favorite economist admitted that public discourse and opinion on the Bush tax cut compromise is being distorted by misleading propaganda).. Yes, there is some excuse for the Obama lie--when you take into account he has no idea what he is doing, but no excuse at all for the mainstream media (which also does not know what it is doing, but is dam well supposed to know how to find out, which could also be said of Obama, except that they all are only interested in agenda).

What one of Obama's favorite economists, who Obama quoted on this very thing, said was this (on the Bush tax cut compromise): "When I said that the Bush tax cut compromise announced by Obama would add add a full percentage poijt to the growth of the economy in 2011, I was NOT saying that the bill would add a full percentage point in growth from this year's level. I was comparing the expected growth rate if the compromise is passsed with the expected grwoth rate if we RAISE TAXES by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Since the Bush rates are the rates currently in effect, and are scheduled to expire, doing nothing will have the effect of raising taxes. But passing the compromise will NOT have the same stimuls effect as reducing taxes, since the main tax rates will remain exactly the same as they presently are. In fact, there will be a 35% INCREASE in the 'death tax' 'for the rich'."

You will note that the above is not an exact quote from Obama's favorite economist. The terminology is basically mine. But the substance is his, as well as being obvious (except to Obama supporters and the mainstream media--a redundancy). It is impossible to get a "stimulus" from keepng the taxes the same (except for a minor, and incalculable, psychological effect destroyed by the two year limit of the proposed extension). Now it is true that this economist said the bill would have a "stimulus" effect, bt he based that entirely on the SPENDING and "tax gimmick" parts of the bill (really welfare payments targeted at specific taxpayers, as the government continues to pick winners and losers in the nature of what Daniel Silva ("Moscow Rules") and I call ECONOMIC FASCISM (state capitalism, or "socialism with a capitalist veneer"). Daniel Silva used the term to apply to today's new Russia. I use it to apply to our Democrat AND Republican politicians. (I really am THAT close to f final vow never to vote for ANY Republican again, except those totally on the outs with the establishment of the Republican Party--which would mean I would not vote for, for example, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Mike Pence, Governor Pawlenty, and so many other conservatives. It is already true, as it was true of John McCain, that Hell can frfeeze over and I still will not vote for Newt Gingrich. As stated in my last two articles, I have not yet made that decision based on the initial terms of this disgraceful, "politics-as-usual"", compromise, but any change in the terms or new betrayals by Republicans over the next two years are going to push me over the edge. It will be one of the disappointments of my life if I never vote against Obama in my life, even as I will never have voted for him. Right now, I think it is more likely than not that such will be the cross I have to bear--almost as shameful as having helped raise TWO feminist lawyer daughters.)

The question the Obama favored economist answered, by the way, was from Chris Wallace on Fox News. What is interesting, but not surprising, is that Wallace--a mainstream journalist at heart--immediately forgot all about the answer he had got, and was talking on his Sunday afternoon broadcast as if he had gotten the opposite answer. Why is it so important to realize that the only reason that extending the Bush tax cuts was/is so important is that you simply do not raise taxes during a deep recession, or trying to come out of one. FDR once said it was the single biggest mistake he made in his political life durng the Great Depression (where FDR FAILED to get us out of the Great Depression with massive government action--instead having to wit almost a decade for World War II)?

It is important because the minor "siimulus" parts of this bill--nowhere near 900 billion dollars because most of that represents tax rates that are remaining the SAME) has alreaedy proven a FAILURE. Need I remind you of the Obama?Pelosi?Reid "stimlulus" of more than 800 billion dollars over about two years--much more than the ADDITIONAL spending and tax cuts in this proposed compromise. That Obama "stimulus", as he keeps reminding you (while lying about the details of the situation), was a combination of tax gimmicks (welfare for taxpayers our economic fascists have decided to make winners) and spending. How do you know that the 2 percent welfare payments disguised as payroll tax cuts will not work. Remember the Bush/Obama/Democrat "stimulus" of the spring/summer of 2998? The $600 checks? Well, I remember, even if Obama, the Democrats who controlled Congress at the time, and the mainstream media have forgotten. That "stimulus" FAILED, even though the money WAS spent by the people who received it. The money did them no good, because it did nothing to get the economy and job market--not to metntion financial markets-on a solid, long-term footing. We have extended unemployment benefits all of these two years. It has not helped. It especially has not helped people get jobs. It has mainly benefitted those who--and I know several personally--who do not really intend to get a job. That includes one attorney who went to China, and still collected Massachusetts unemployment benefits using a Florida address. This kind of absurd policy merely promotes fraud and abuse, and bad habits by those (probably a majority, although a declining one the longer the extensions continue) who are really looking for work.

By now, you know Einstein's definition of insanity: "doing the same thing again and again with the confident expectatiion of a different result." This idea that government can SPEND its way out of problems by directing the free market, and regulating it with ever more control, is simply insane. It has not worked--ever. It cannot work (because no human being is infallible enough to make it work--certainly not Ben Bernanke, who did NOTHING to stop the financial collapse in the first place). You can see why Republican politicians have gone way past annoying me. They refuse to make these points. Even Jim Dement--one of those handful who I will excuse from the edict I am likely to place on each and every Republican--refused to really take on this absurd indefinite extension of two years of unempoyment benefits--talking about "paying for it", as if we are paying for ANYTHING. Until we get to an acceptable deficit, we are not paying for ANY new program. It is a LIE to say otherwise. Note how Obama--after saying that "PAYGO" ensured "pay as you go"--no longer mentions it. But he will--wometime in the future--as if that were one of the successes of his first two years ("solving" that problem). Obama will act like he--in his role as Liar-in-Chief) had not shown, by his own actions, that the PAYGO bill was a total fraud (as I said at the time). Republicans arfe going to do the same thing on debt and the deficit. Thjey are going to act as if they had not been TRAITORS to those principles--not years ago, but this December. The new Speaker of the House--come January--has already promised to not put togeteher "Christmas tree" bils, and back door deals. But he is in the process of facilitating one.

That is why I will blame ALL Republicans in Congress if Democrats manage to further "change" this bill (already bad), like TARP. The dirty little secret is that Republican leaders--not to mention potential "establishment" Presidential candidates--can STOP this compromise if they want to. Assuming they really believe it is good for the country, they could also be making it clear that ANY changes in the bill will guarantee its defeat (in private telling people who dont want to go along that they will pay a HEAVY prive for it). As I said in my previous article, Republicans also CAN stop the rest of the "wish list" that Democrats decided to get through in this lame duck Congress for totally political reasons (theirs, and Republicans who wuld not let them then, but may let lthem now, when they can run out the clock). Nope. I have had it. As I said in my previous article, I am at the Rublicon. I may not have Caesar's legions behind me--maybe the tea party does--but I am ready to cross. Once I do--and I will stick to it, as I stuck to not voting for John McCain, despite full knowledge of what Barack Obama was. Once I cross this Rubicon, the Republican Party will be totally dead to me--unless fully taken over by someone like Sarah Palin.

Note: Because of eyesight problems, this article is not even minimally proofread (and I type fairly badly, especially when I have trouble even seeing the result of what I type). I am tryig to arrange after-th-fact proofreading. You will know it has been done when this note is deleted on any article.

Republicans and the Tax Cut Compromise: Sellout

Republicans--the kind who betrayed both conservatives and the American people for a decade--came up with a "Christmas tree" compromise on not increasing taxes (extending the Bush tax cuts). That compromise alone reveals that the current bunch of Republicans has learned NOTHING--absolutely nothing--from their previous mistakes, other than the lesson Obama has learned: that they need to do better at fooling the people.

My initial reaction was to vote against every single Republican--for the rest of my life--who votes for this compromise. No, we should not raise taxes. The present tax rates should be extended. Maybe it was worthwhile making a compromise on that issue alone, such as by limiting the extension to two years (terrible as that kind of temporary tax bill is--a major defect in the original Bush bill imposing a better ten year limit, although still terrible economics, in a similar compromise/procedural device to gain passage of the original Bush bill), but this hardly justifies giving up principle in other areas (the Christmas tree effect where lots of politicians get what they want, so long as the Federal Government is Santa and the deficit is INCREASED). That is partly how the original TARP bill turned into a prok bill (especially as the Senate originally passed it), and a bill that really gave the President/Secretary of the Treasury a blank check to spend money to bail out Wall Street and General Motors in a way not even debated. It is how the original "simulus" bill became nothign more than a Christtmas tree of pork and political wish granting. It was how the health bill became the absolute monnstrocity it became (beyond the flawed concept of putting the entire health care system under the control of Federal bureaucrats).

Thus, this "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts shows that the "old" Republicans (many of them also being in the "new" Congress) have learned no lesson at all. They are Big Government guys who believe the American people want to be BRIBED, and who believe in the "Christmas tree" approach to legistlation.
It is NOT correct for Obama to say that Republicans held Democrats "hostage", or the American people hostage, on unemployment benefits unless you also admit that Democrats held Republicans hostage, and the American people hostage, on tax cuts for everyone. Both concepts represent "politics as usual" that the people supposedly voted against. They are separate issues that should not be linked (and for which there was no reason for linkage except Republicans did not want--wanting to fool the people who thought they had voted for "change"--a separate vote on this stupidity of indefinite extensions of unemployment benefits as some sort of new welfare program). Unemployment benefits were an entirely separate issue from extending the current tax rates, and there should have been a SEPARATE compromise (like a final three month extensioin to enable people to prepare for the cutoff) on that SEPARATE issue. Similarly, the NEW (although a substitue for the FAILEAILED welfare payments masquerading as a tax "simulus" in the original Obam "stimulus) represents a SEPARATE issue--completely new "stimuls" spending adding directly to the deficit rather than avoiding a tax increase).

Raising the Bush tax rates, by the way, would be no different than INCREASING TAXES if the Bush tax rates had been made permanent (as almost all of the original proponents of those rates wanted). The tax rates now in effect are the same tax rates that have been in effect for almost a decade. An INCREASE of those rates is the SAME as increasing rates which did not have an expiration date. It would be a TAX INCREWASE, just like any other tax increase (not ture, for example, of the Bush?Democrat $600--failed--tax cut in the srping/summer of 2008 or the "stimulus" tax cuts in the original Obama "stimulus" bill, since those were REPRESENTED to be short-tem, one-time payments which would NOT be extended, as well as being gimmicks instead of real, long-term tax rates).

If I believe Republicans have revealed why they have learned--at least the present group--NO lesson from the electioiin, and the past decade of Republican betrayals, why did I not maintain my resolve to vote against EVERY Republican who supported this Obama/Republican compromise? Easy. Too many Republicans, and even conservatives, are so invested in the Bush tax rates AND tax gimmicks that I would end up condemning (totally) too manyu people who--it can be argued--reasonably believe that this compromise is best for the American people. Yes, they are being disingenuous, and I think they are wrong (as I would vote against the compromise), but should the new Republican leadership, and so many potential Republican Presidential candidates), be condemned before I (and you) even see where the Republicans will go once they have more power in Congress--and more control over the agenda and the debate? Should I really condemn somone like Michell Bockman (one of my real heroines) if she chooses to vote for this compromise? I realized I just can't go that far.

But the Republican Party is AT RISK here. People like me are on the edge already of deserting the Republican Party for good. It would not take much. And the news today was that REPUBLICAN SENATORES (not to mention Democrats in the House and Senate) were adding "goodies" to this bill (shades of the "Louisiana Purchase" and Cornhusker Kickback" in the health care bill).

No. If Republicans add further things to this bill, or allow Democrats to "change" a bill I already don't like, Hell will freeze over before I ever vote for any Republican who votes for such a bill, for any office.

Further, Republicans are now in a position to STOP the lame duck Democrats who have been DEFEATED from adding ANY more leftist legislation into law after they did not get that legislation into law before the election. That cynical assault on democracy and fair play is something for which I will hold ALL of the Republican Party responsible, and not just the few Republicans who might vote to pass specific bills (like Scott Brown, Susan Collins, etc.). Time has run out. Repubicns can MAKE time run out. If they don't, it is because they don't have the guts to "run out the clock". Yes, I am talking about the fraudulent "Dream Act" (a DECEPTIVE amnesty bill on illegal immigration) and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I am even talking about the START treaty, upon which I have no strong positioin but don't think it should be rammed through in a lame duck Congress when there is no reason for the rush other than fear the new Senate will not pass it. I am talking about any other bills on the leftist Democrat "wish list" that they can get traitor "establishment" Repubicans to let them ram through in a rush to passs as much as possible before they lose power.
Already, Reupblicans have let Democrats push through a "magic wand" ("magic wand theory of government": wave a magic wand and say you have "solved" a problem) Food Safety Bill which basically turns the entire food industry over to the mercy of anything Federal bureaucrats want to do to them. If your food prices go up, you will know why. It is this bill, AND the unrestrained spending and deficits.

As I say, Republicans are in the process of proving that this is still "politics as usual", and that they are the same Republicans who betrayed us over the past decade. If they continue down this path, the Republican Party will destroy itself--just when it is gloating over one of its greatest victories. Sad to say, it will be no great loss if we can expect nothing more than more of the same. This Obama/Republican compromise is both the last chance Republicans will get from me, and the Rubicon for me. I am at the Rubicon. If Republicans go beyond the compromise that Obama announced, and let other things go through (with the POSSIBLE exception only of START), then I am done with the Republican Party. I am crossing the Rubicon, like Julius Caesar, and not looking back. Unfortunately, I do not have the power of Julius Caesar, but Republicans should realize that their are many out here like me (and I am not even part of the "tea party" movement).
Note: The above article is not proofred, due to my eyesight problems. I am trying to arrange for my brother to proofread at least some of these articles--which I cannot even spell check. If this note appears, you will know the article has not been proofread. If I am able to substitute a proofread version, I will delete this note. This is the policy I will follow from now on, at least until further notice.