Mr Miller, it is over

We are different. We accept defeat graciously, wish our opponent the very best, if they are in the same party, we endorse them  and then step back and look towards the next election. We (rightly) were angry when Bob Bennett, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, Lisa Murkowski and others didn’t accept defeat in an honorable fashion, and in some cases mounted independent campaigns to take what they thought was rightfully theirs. Regardless of our personal feelings towards our opponents, we must always act the adult. Where others let their true selves show, we must show ourselves to be always be a servant to the will of the people, and not to our own desires. That is why Joe Miller must give up his quest for the Senate. Murkowski won. End of story. Even if every challenged ballot was thrown out, she would still win by over two thousand votes. He has no chance of winning, yet he presses on and refuses to concede the race. If he had conceded after the final vote count, after the vote count was insurmountable even with challenged ballots thrown out, he may have had a future in Alaskan politics. I think by now he has destroyed any good will he had with the Alaskan people with his selfish crusade to take away something that is not his. He did not win that seat. The people did not wish for him to represent him, therefore he should respect their decision. We as conservatives should always have the highest standards for ourselves, and expect them of those who run in our name. Also, happy Christmas to everyone.

Who is rich these days?

As I said in an earlier post, I have things to say on the subject of wealth. I am not rich. Not by a long shot. Therefore, I don’t think I have to worry about being the object of class warfare. But really, who is rich? The word has been thrown around since people figured out what class warfare was. Rich has meant robber barons, steel magnates, the Rockefeller family, CEO’s, millionaires, billionaires, celebrities, and everything in between. Bill Clinton decided in the 90’s that rich meant making more than $250,000 dollars. The alternative minimum tax was supposed to be a tax on the rich, however as rich has changed over time it now requires a yearly fix in order not to hit middle income families. The progressive tax system was built as a method of making the rich pay their “fair share.” This has turned into a system where the top 20% pays almost all of the taxes in the country. What’s fair about that? Now Obama says that an individual that makes $200,000 or a couple that makes $250,000 is rich. And when the government needs more money, what will the new definition be? Will that number include benefits? Will it include realized and possibly non-realized capital gains? Or will the number just go lower? Calling someone rich is nothing more than a convenient excuse to take their money by turning people against some faceless group of the so-called “rich”. When it comes to rich people, we all can name many. Anyone who runs a company or was in a bunch of movies is probably rich. There are even the pretentious few who go on ABC’s Sunday morning program and tell Obama to raise their taxes to help puppies and rain forests and such. But there are also all the other ones out there. The small business owner, the mid-level manager who is married to a tenured teacher from Chicago where they pay teachers a six figure salary, and perhaps an engineer for Boeing that’s been with the company 20 years. Why are we supposed to despise these people and think that they aren’t pulling their part? Unless you Paris Hilton, someone making that kind of money is working for it. People are paid what they are worth. And if someone is worth a lot of money, they probably contribute a lot to society. Why are we to penalize them for that? Why does the left in America hate the rich? Do they want the producers in our economy to fail and subsequently take the economy down with it? At it would be an equal and just society. Everyone is the same because their all poor! Mission accomplished, everything is equitable. I try and not think of people as evil, just well meaning idiots. Though sometimes it’s hard to continue to have faith in the lack of hostile motives of leftists. But at least you know that when they come for all of your money, you’re rich!

Premonition, or good sources?

Today i read a story in the New York Times that I was absolutely thrilled by, but politically it scared me a little. The article discusses the Obama administration weighing tax reform. The treasury department is supposedly looking at options to get rid of a number of deductions and lowering the marginal rates to split the difference and keep payments equal while broadening the tax base in order to raise more revenue. This is long overdue, and I don’t see why Bush wasted tax law on simply lowering marginal rates while keeping a complex and expensive tax system. And when I say expensive, I mean it. It cost around $11 billion to collect taxes in 2008. David Brooks predicted this in his column last Friday. So, was it premonition or did he happen to speak with Timmy “turbo-tax” Geithner at some point? As this is coming out at this point early in the year, with few actual details I fully believe that this could be a major part of the State Of The Union if Obama decides to run with this. Politically this might be a very good thing for Obama, which is why politically this scares me. I want tax reform to succeed, however if Obama gets this through with Republicans and a decent amount of his party on board he has something good to run on in 2012. This could be his Clinton moment. I do not want Obama to win in 2012. The G.O.P. does have their own hand to play in this game though, and that would be Hauser’s Law. Since revenue has historically always been just below 19% of GDP regardless of tax rates, the G.O.P. needs to stand strong on any tax reform achieving revenues of 19% of GDP in the simplest way with the lowest marginal rates possible. Also, the Republicans need to shut up about the Bush tax cuts the second the two year extension is signed by Obama. Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute says to forget the Bush tax cuts in a column from Bloomberg News. “The fact is, if we extend the Bush tax cuts, it locks in the status quo. Earth to Washington: The status quo stinks. With the economy still limping forward, much more significant fiscal- policy medicine is in order.” Amen brother. Republicans keep complaining about Obama talking about Bush. Republicans should take some of their own advice and forget that destructive administration ever happened. Also, they should erase all legislative history of that administration, but that’s for a later post. The biggest reason for the Republicans to shut up about Bush tax cuts is they need to get a jump on Obama when it comes to tax reform. They need to have a framework ready before S.O.T.U time comes around, so they have Obama coming to them on their terms, not the other way around.

My taxes are about to go up (and I’m poor)

First off, I know that some taxes have gone down under Obama. I am well aware of that. However, most of those tax breaks are temporary and have nothing to do with me as I am not a major player in the economy. Because there was no cut in marginal rates, I saw almost no benefit to them. Because I’m poor, don’t have a home or kids and stuff like that. I am not rich, I make a little over a tenth of what it would take for my marginal tax rates to go up if democrats have their way. My taxes are still going to go up though. A man once told me these words: However, my capital gains and dividend taxes are going to rise significantly. As I said, I am poor. I have used extra savings and a gift from my grandfather to get some stock, and one of them includes dividends. It appears my taxes will rise.  Maybe I am rich and I just don’t know it. That must be it. Anyways, I am curious to see what kind of sell-off there will be if congress doesn’t extend the capital gains tax at its current rate. If there is a big sell-off (which I might be a part of, I am considering shedding some stock), it could erase many of the gains in the stock market that we have had this fall. Not good for me, since I own all blue chips and those follow the market pretty well. And to everyone else who isn’t what the democrats consider a millionaire (a post coming later tomorrow on that subject), take a closer look at these tax plans that Obama is putting forward, you may get hit by them. As a lowly bartender, I sure will be. Wait, I forgot I’m a millionaire/billionaire now.

I was beaten to it

I was going to write something on this court decision, but as I read the Washington Post, I saw this. I have nothing else to add to this. It is perfect. The Case For Endangered Justices – George F. Will

Surely you can’t be serious

I am, and the celestial comedy tour of Nielsen and Carlin will be epic. That said, yesterday it would seem to appear that The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees being the biggest outside spender of the 2010 midterms did not really pay off. President Obama announced that he was seeking a two year pay freeze on federal worker’s salaries. I think its a start. Things to keep in mind are that this is not technically the president’s authority, and final say requires and act of congress. I have no doubt that a Republican house will oblige Obama in the next term on this issue. Also, this does not freeze step raises, which are raises given for seniority. It doesn’t freeze bonuses. It doesn’t freeze hiring. Most importantly, it doesn’t cut the already over-inflated compensation and benefit structure of the public workforce. This is Obama trying to take a tactical move towards the center without actually changing much of anything. So public workers have little need to fret at the moment, the AFSCME’s investment is mostly safe. Just to be clear, I am fully in favor of the freeze, but why stop there?

still relevant

In the endeavor to meet that vow, I pledge you every effort this Nation possesses. I pledge you that we will neither commit nor provoke aggression, that we shall neither flee nor invoke the threat of force, that we shall never negotiate out of fear, we shall never fear to negotiate.

Terror is not a new weapon. Throughout history it has been used by those who could not prevail, either by persuasion or example. But inevitably they fail, either because men are not afraid to die for a life worth living, or because the terrorists themselves came to realize that free men cannot be frightened by threats, and that aggression would meet its own response. And it is in the light of that history that every nation today should know, be he friend or foe, that the United States has both the will and the weapons to join free men in standing up to their responsibilities.

But I come here today to look across this world of threats to a world of peace. In that search we cannot expect any final triumph–for new problems will always arise. We cannot expect that all nations will adopt like systems–for conformity is the jailor of freedom, and the enemy of growth. Nor can we expect to reach our goal by contrivance, by fiat or even by the wishes of all.

But however close we sometimes seem to that dark and final abyss, let no man of peace and freedom despair. For he does not stand alone. If we all can persevere, if we can in every land and office look beyond our own shores and ambitions, then surely the age will dawn in which the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

John F Kennedy, 1961