Payroll Tax Cut Fraud and Conservatives: Definitive Test for Whether You Are a Conservative

You can be a conservative and still be somewhat pro-abortioin (although it is not easy). You can be a conservative and still be a strong advocae of "gay rights" (althoughb, again, it is not easy) , You can definitely be a conservative and oppose the death penalty. You can be a conservative and suport the minimum wage, and even cost of living increases in it (as I do, sort of). You can be a conservative and not favor enforcing our immigration laws as written--much less "cracking down" on enforcement (although, again, it is hard). i iI cvould go on with more specific policies. For examle, I favor medical malpractice "tort reform" on a STATE leve, but I OPPOSE it on a national level . That is because I am probably the only person in American who really believes in FEDERALIMSM (a Federal Government of limited poweres, even in areas in which I have a certain position. Most conservatives would probably disagree with me on "tort reform". Indeed, both Mitt Romney (not a conservative) and Rush Limbauh (definitely a conservative) are HYPOCRITES on "tort reform". Romney does not seem to realize that his "argument" (opportunistic as it is) on "state solutions" to health care (correct, by the way, if not very sincere) appplies jsut as strongly to "tort reform" (also unconstitutional). I favor ENDING big mergers in this country, except in very special circumstances, and most conservatives avoid the subject like the plague. The point is that you can be an overall "conservative", ans still vary from the conservative "party line" on a fEW individual issues.


But you cnnot favor an extension of tehe "payroll tax cut" and still be a conservative. Why not? It is because the FRAUD of the "payroll tax cut" (see next article) goes to the very heart of what you have to believe to be a conservative. First, the "payroll tax cut" is NOT a "tax cut". It is a STIMULUS, and that is how OBAMA sold it when he insisted it be passed as the "price" for extending the "Bush tax cuts". Do I really need to explain to you that you can't be a conservative and favor CENTRAL PLANNING (which is all it is when you say that you know how the GOVERNMENT can STIMULATE the economy on a SHORT TERM basis). Sure, a "temporary" "payroll tax cut" is a BETTER stimulus than direct government spending, where the Federal bureaucracy decides where the money goes (to the extent politicians do not). That does not change that a "temporary" "payroll tax ctu" (as is made obvious when you ralize that it is really just a wealth redistribution device,, since the intnet is NOT to take money out of Social Security, which is FUNDED by this tax, but to CHANGE Social Security from a self-funding systgem to a welfare system) is a CASH WEFARE PAYMENT intended to BRIBEW teh middle class. George McGovern poposed giving $1000 to every man, woman and child in America, and got ony 40% of the vote (against Richard Nixon, yet) . That shows how far DOWNHILL this country has gone. The "stimullus gimmick" payroll tax cut is being SOLD on the idea that it gives an average of $1000 to every working American.


Can you believe in "cutting deficits", and trying to stop these constant, accelearating rises in the debt ceiling, ans till favor extension of this "payroll tax cut" tgimmick? Of course you can't. No, don't even START to tell me that the GOP wants to "pay for" the "payroll tax cut" with "spending cuts". The FRAUD of that "argument" is one of the main rasons I have walked away from the GOP FOREVER, wihout looking back. You cannot be a"conservative" and even SAY that, even if you ultimately vote against the final bill (on some contrived reason). This blog has exposed time and time again that NO ONE (not Obama, not Democrats, and not the GOP) is proposing to "pay for" this welfarfe payment disguised as a "payroll tax cut". Yes, I AM telling you that YOU are not a conservative if you buy into this "argument". Ask yourself: Is ANYONE proposing to "cut" 100 BILLION dollars from spending for this next fiscal year to "pay for" the "payroll tax cut" extension? Of course not. Yet, that is what you would have to do to "pay for" the "payroll tax cut" in any real sense, and THEN only if we currenty had a balanced budget (instead of borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar the government is spending). We are not "paying for" the government we HAVE. How can e possibliy "pay for" additions to the deficit with this kind of monhnetary payment gimmick (right out of the George McGovern playbook). Assume that the GOP COULD "cut" 100 BILLION dollars in spending over lthe next year. Would that "pay for" the "payroll tax cut"? NO. We NEED that 100 billiion dollars to CUT our present out-of-control deficit. This is just a sleight-of-hand gimmick (the "payroll tax cut" and "parying for it") being used to justify trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and farther.



Can you truly believe in a limited Federal Government, and favor extension of the payroll tax cut (Social Security tax, as it used to be known)? No, you can't. As I sate above, this is a GIMMICK to CONCEAL a WELFARE PAYMENT/BRIBE to people for their votes. That is the very reason for the expansion of the Federal Government. You are dishonest, or stupidm, if you believe that you can endorse the very philosophy which has expanded the Federal Government, ansd still credibly say you are all for a "limited Federal Government". As stated above, if you favor a "payroll tax cut" extension, you are acknowledging yourself a CENTRAL PLANNER propsing to "use" government to BRIBE lpeople. You simply cannot be a conservative and do that. "Wait, Skip, was not a "payroll tax holiday" a "better" alternative "stimulus" to the Obama "stimulus bill"? Yes, it was. But that was too clever by half. Look where the GOP has left itself: sort of on record as lproposing THIS kind of BRIBE and "stimulus". It would have been "better" than the Obama "stimulus", but that did not make it GOOD. Now, this IS the "Obama stimulus", and the GOP is accepting teh PREMISES of such a "temporary" "payroll tax cut", even as they say that they will insist it be "paid for": thereby accepting the premise of THAT FRAUD, which Obama is using to justify every expansion of the deficit and of the Federal Government that he wants to take place. Nope. You simply can't be a conservative and think this way.


"But, Skip, that means that MOST of the GOP is not conservative!!!!!". Ah, you have finally undestood why I have ABANDONED the GOP. Yep. I wold vote AGAINST most TEA PARTY GOP (Grand Outdated Party) members, although that does not mean I would vote for a leftist Democrat. The closest I ever came to that was to promise to support Hillary Clinton in the 2008 eleciton, against John McCain. But Hillary saved me from that gruesome fate by losing the nomination. But the GOP has CURED me of voting for the "lesser evil". I just will not do it, unless I believed that the GOP as a whole was fighting for what I believe. I do not believe that. No, I am not talking aobut the rank-and-file, many of whom do agree with me. I am talking aoubt the POLITICIANS, who seem to be unable to have any principles, even when they run against the GOP establishment on the correct gorund that they have no principles.


As stated above, the "payroll tax" is really the Social Security tax. It is the FUNDING mechanismo---the sole funding mechanis-for Social Security. That was not a conservative who set it up to be SELF-FUNDING. Taht was leftist Democrat FDR (my mother's hero, even though she pretty well now recognizes that FDR set up Social Securty as a "government program" instead of a true retirement system, where you have AN ACCUNT in your name (whether invested in the stock market or not). One of the reaons that my mother liked FDR, besides the fact that she blames hoover for her not having enough food to eat, is that FDR did insist on Social Security PAYING FOR ITSELF (although he failed to prevent "raids" on Social Security to "pay for" other government programs). Now DEMOCRATS, and OBAMA, are betraying FDR by UNDERMINING the self-funding aspect of Social Security. Democrats are ATTACKING funding for Social Security with this "payroll tax cut", and they know it That i s because Democrats would like to convert Social Security to a WELFARE/WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION system. That represents a complete destructin of the self-funding system that FDR set up. Democrats want to DESTROY Social Security, as we have known it, and the GOP is going along for the ride (COWARDS that they are, as they adopt the "philosophy' of BRIBING the "middle class"),


You think I am alnoe in this conclusin? Think again. I talked to my accountant friend, Tony, over the last week (after not talking to him for awhile), and he was even more vehement than I about Democrats ATTACKING the fudning mechanism for Social Security. This is not a matter o opinion This stuff is really indefensible, and you absolutely cannot call yourself a "conservative" and adopt this "payroll tax cut" "logic". In case you did not realize it, Social Security is INSOLVENT (on a longer term basis). Where is the money coming fro? It is coming from GENERAL TAX REVENUE (to "reimburse" Social Secuirty). You should be able to see the FRAUD here. My accountant friend,, Tony, as well as my accountant brother, had no problem seeing it. This 'payroll tax cut" is exactly the SAME as simply paing people that $1000, just like George McGovern proposed some 40 yeras ago (to scorn from the GOP then, even though Nixon ws hardly a conservative, which again shows just how far the GOP has FALLEN).


Thre will be more articles on this theme, including the next planned article explaining why the "temporary" "payroll tax cut" is really the same as that FAILED 2008 Bush/Obama/Democrat "stiuylus" where most people got a check for $600. Oh, did I mentino that the "payroll tax cut" FAILED to improve the economy this year, while adding 100 BILLION dollars to the deficit in one year? It is absurd to suggest that this is a "tax increase"--one of the many reasons I canot support Mitt Romney for President. But I can't support Newt Gingrich either, which again leaves me out in the cold. My borthers, by the way--while mainly agreeing with me on the GOP--are inclined to say that we simply cannot afford four more years of Obama. I see that point of view, and do not "drum you out" as a "conservaitfve" for taking that point of view. I just don't think we can afford "politics as usual", which is the final reason that you can't be a "conservative" and favor a "payroll tax cut extension". The above article basically boils down to this being "politics as usal", with theGOP wiling to join in BRIBING voters (the very thing that has gotten us into this mess).


P.S. No proofreading or spell cehcking (bad eyesight). Did I jsut say that Charles Krauthammer, Bill Crystal (sp.? Who cares?) and basically the entire unfair and unbalanced network are not really "conservatives"? I think I did, and I stand by it. Why do you think I have called for a BOYCOTT of the unfair and unbalanced network?