Constant Conservative

I regret to say that my home state of South Carolina will apparently have Mr. Greene on the ticket for senator this fall. In his defense, he is probably saying the things that many of his compatriots believe–but have the good sense to not state unequivocally in public.

Here’s a sample:

I will break up the big banks. I will put them out in the street, just as they want to put you out in the street. Those bankers who committed fraud will do hard time.

I will stop debt collectors from calling you. I will make it illegal for a company to sell a debt you have for purposes of collection. You and your family have dignity: you are not cattle to be sold back and forth in the debt marketplace. You know how horrible it is to have those vampires calling you, again and again and again.

I will shut down payday lenders who are sucking you dry.

In America, if you lose your job, and you get sick, you go broke or you die. This happens in no other civilised country. The stories that socialised medicine does not work are lies. Pick your system – Austria, Britain or Canada – but we must have universal health insurance. Healthcare, for free, for everyone.

Mr. Greene, I salute your honesty and your lack of logic. While it is probably not unusual, it is briskly refreshing in a Hugo Chavez fashion. Unlike Mr. Chavez, however, it is likely that you speak from personal experience. I am saddened to hear what has happened to you, but would wager that a majority of your problems arose from your personal choices. You see, it’s not about what other people do, or don’t do, to us–it’s about how we handle what happens.

I realize that retirement age is not 65 for everyone, but that’s the number that comes most quickly to mind with reference to Social Security. As of this last week, Social Security had been around for 75 years.

There are those who are still telling us that Social Security is not only alive but doing very well:

South Dakota AARP Director Sarah Jennings says the program is doing fine.
“There’s no crises here, it’s something we can always strengthen, the program and we’ll need to do that,” Jennings said.
Jennings says even with more baby boomers joining the system, the program is doing fine. She says officials prepared for that surge.
“If nothing is done to the program, no changes are made at all, to strengthen it, social security can pay out full benefits until the year 2037,” Jennings said.

Right. And my grandmother will be brought back to life by the same power that is secretly funding Social Security. If Social Security now pays out more than it takes in, it is hard to see how everything is rosy:

Social Security is officially in the red.  The New York Times reports that the system will pay out more than it takes in this year.  Explains the Times:

The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security.

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

CATO goes on to say the following:

The crisis is now, since the vaunted “trust fund” is filled with non-recourse government bonds–essentially worthless pieces of paper.  There’s no there there when it comes to financing future benefits.  Either payments have to come down or taxes have to go up, unless we adopt real reform centered around personal accounts.  And the latter course seems ever more distant after Congress voted to expand federal control over every Americans’ health care.

Exactly. The trust fund is neither trustworthy nor a fund, if one might put it in simple terms. The federal government has borrowed Social Security collected monies over the years while promising to pay it back. The bonds which have ended up in the trust fund instead of the money cannot be sold. I believe the correct term is that they are non-marketable securities.

What happens if you hold non-marketable securities from an entity which can’t pay its own bills? You take a fiscal bath. That is precisely what will happen to Social Security–barring tax increases. Now that benefits exceed taxes, the money to pay the benefits will need to come from cashing in some of those bonds. The only way the federal government can pay those bonds at present (given the massive deficit spending) is to increase taxes or to print more money, which leads to monetary devaluation–which tends to particularly damage those on fixed incomes.

Social Security has been promised to many people. That promise ought to be kept. We need to, however, learn from our mistakes and quit making the promise to more people.

If you’ve not heard of this particular function of the new health care bill, then here’s another update (oh, and it has precisely nothing to do with health care, in case you are wondering):

Tucked into the nation’s massive new health care law is a requirement that could become a paperwork nightmare for nearly 40 million businesses.

The rule: They must file tax forms for every vendor that sells them more than $600 in goods.

The goal is to prevent vendors from underreporting their income to the Internal Revenue Service. The government must think vendors are omitting a lot, because the filing requirement is estimated to bring in $19 billion over the next decade.

Business groups say it will swamp their members in paperwork, and Congress is listening. Democrats and Republicans want to repeal it, but getting them to work together on the issue is proving difficult in an election year.

It would be nice to talk about how we could do away with the whole 1099 issue (for everyone) were we to go with a consumption tax rather than an income tax, but the IRS has heavily vested interest in ensuring that the current tax law/code complexity is never reduced. Why, it might put somebody out of work–and we can’t have that, can we?

Let’s read what Lindsey Graham said recently with reference to illegal immigration and new legislation. He’s going hypothetical here:

Yeah, I think it’s fair to say that I need to go home to South Carolina and say: listen, I know we’re all upset that we have 12-14 million people illegally.  I’m going to have to be practical.  We’re not going to deport or jail 12-14 million people.  A practical solution is not awarding this citizenship on day one, but to allow them to stay here on our terms, learn our language, pay a fine, hold a job, and apply for citizenship through the legal process by getting in the back of the legal line.

That to me is a practical solution. But, I have to be able to say, as part of doing that, we looked at all the incentives that led to the 12-13 million coming, and we changed them.  That we did secure our border, unlike any other time in the past, that we now have laws that make it possible to verify employment; we now have a temporary worker program that will allow people to come here and work on our terms temporarily, and help our employers with labor when they can’t find American labor.  I have to be able to say that, because I think most Americans are willing to clean this mess up.  They’re not willing to perpetuate it.

He would like to say “we are all  upset” that millions of people have broken the law, but “I’m going to have to be practical” we are not going to apply the legal penalties to these people. I think he’s just admitted that it is possible to overwhelm our legal system by having a large enough number of people commit the same crime that the cost of prosecution/further action is prohibitive. For years, some (yeah, no need for specificity here) have advocated that if a few million Americans simply did not pay income taxes, the IRS would be overwhelmed and unable to prosecute all of us. It would seem as though those folks were correct in their thinking–except it would appear that the tactic has been adopted by another group of lawbreakers.

Now, the second part of that paragraph makes pretty good sense–the idea that those who have immigrated illegally should get in line to immigrate legally. However, I believe that the line starts back in their home countries–and not where they currently reside in violation of several duly passed US laws.

When he talks about incentives, in the next paragraph, he is not making much sense to me. The single biggest incentive for illegal immigrants is that life is better here than there (wherever there may be). It could well be that they are attracted to a watered down version of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Not sure how we get rid of that incentive by the actions he advocates. The best way to lessen the incentive for folks to come here from Mexico, for example, would be if that country wasn’t in such shambles, legally and economically. That’s not going to change until Mexico decides that is is responsible for its own problems.

Securing our border is a good start, but we can only secure the border if we ensure that those who are currently here illegally go back to the other side of it. We had a big secure our borders and grant amnesty push in 1986, if I remember correctly–and all we got from it was the amnesty. That served as a lesson to a whole generation of immigrants that when it came to getting into and staying in the United States, it was better to not worry about asking for forgiveness or permission–both of them would be granted if one held on long enough.

Senator Graham wants to be seen as bringing a third way to the table to compete with the “bring them all here” and “send them all home” perspectives. The problem is that his proposal shows a continuing lack of respect for the rule of law. If someone gets his start in business by knocking over a bank, it stands to reason that his business dealings are unlikely to be aboveboard. Likewise, if a person comes to this country illegally (and they are rewarded for doing so) then there is little reason to believe that they will be law-abiding in other matters.

I realize that he’s a representative from California, but does no one out there understand that if what Pete Stark says is true, then we really do not have a constitutional republic anymore? Video follows:

Seems as though it may be a Thune news day:

Matt Zabel, longtime chief of staff to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), is leaving his post to take a job as vice president of government affairs for Target.

“Matt has helped me build a great Senate operation from the ground up,” said Thune. “I’m grateful for his hard work and knowledge and love of South Dakota, and I wish him all the best.”

Zabel’s move comes amid speculation that Thune is considering a run for president but, according to sources briefed on the move, there is no large meaning to be drawn from the departure.

One does not need to draw a “large meaning” from something to understand that changes may be afoot.

From the folks over at Politico:

With speculation growing that he’ll join the wide-open 2012 Republican presidential field, South Dakota Sen. John Thune plans to roll out a sweeping proposal Tuesday to remake the congressional budget process.

Thune’s budget plan would create a joint House-Senate panel on cutting government spending, call for a line-item veto and mandate that 10 percent of the deficit be cut each year until it is eliminated.

As he tries to build up his policy credentials, Thune is also stepping up his political travel, headlining a Republican Party of Virginia event on Wednesday, to be followed by trips to Arkansas, California and Ohio on behalf of GOP Senate candidates. With Thune in heavy demand on the campaign circuit, more such trips are expected soon.

Then there is this little bit from near the end of the article:

Thune would be in a strong position if he wants to make a White House run. Handsome, articulate and very popular among conservatives and evangelical Christians, Thune is unopposed in his bid for a second Senate term, an unprecedented position for any Senate candidate in South Dakota history.

While many people have not lost their jobs over the last year or so, everyone should be prepared to receive a reduction in pay as of January 1, 2011. The hardworking folks at Americans for Tax Reform have the down low:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).  The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.  All the rates in between will also rise.  Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.  The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

To put it simply, the average taxpayer will see about a 3% increase in base income tax level. This works out to $300 per $10k of income. Not much, you say? Let’s say someone makes $40k per year. That would be a $1200 increase in base taxation.

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

If that person listed above who makes $40k also has 3 children, then he will see another $1500 disappear.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

No way of knowing if our $40k person would lose a parent or other benefactor, but this injustice deserves a treatise or two all by itself. How under God’s great blue heaven can one justify taking money from someone’s estate simply because they have more than someone else? Remember, the very, very wealthy people (who this tax is supposed to “punish”) are not usually affected by it, or not much. They can afford to hire a phalanx of lawyers and accountants to make sure everything is set aside in trusts and otherwise protected from the grim reaper’s sidekick: the taxman. However, our hypothetical hardworking person’s parents are very much in the group of people who are most hurt by this. Someone starts a business, operates it his entire life and grows it into something which is worth a few million dollars–not that much return for 30 to 50 years of labor–only to see it sold and broken up on his death to satisfy the government’s desire for more.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.  The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.  These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Wait, you say, our $40k person doesn’t have any capital gains or dividends to worry about. Maybe, maybe not. But one does not have to be insanely wealthy to have investments. I was discussing this with a friend yesterday whose family member is taking a hit on capital gains this year only because next year it will be much worse–and these investments must fund this person’s retirement.

There is more, getting into the various taxes, fees, and other lovely terms which simply come down to the government taking that which it needs to fuel its own boiler, so go read the entire article. Keep in mind before you do that our $40k friend is already down 6.75% of his income before factoring in anything else. How would our $40k friend feel if his supervisor came to him and said that he’d get 6.75% pay cut and that more cuts would be coming?

That’s exactly how I feel–and you should, too.

Thanks to MHH for the link.

From some of those brave party people:

Democratic governors expressed “grave” concerns to White House officials this weekend about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, warning it could cost the party in crucial elections this fall, The New York Times reported late Sunday.

The closed-door meeting took place at the National Governors Association in Boston on Saturday, according to two unnamed governors who spoke to the Times.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs, and all of a sudden we have immigration going on,’” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, was quoted as saying. “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”

The suit is “toxic” because it will cause the Democrats to lose elections? What a remarkably wrongheaded view of things. This thinking is in concord with the statement by Hank Johnson of Georgia that Congress should pass a specific bill to ensure that Republicans are not elected.

The suit does show the citizenry that the Federal government does not care about the security of the states more than it cares about its own power. This dawning realization will tend to cause people to elect fellow freedom-loving individuals to positions of leadership at the state level to counteract (and perhaps reverse) the damage which is being done at the national level.

Perhaps the time is come for a few Democratic governors to consider the source of their authority: the federal government, or the people who elected them?

From John Thune’s site:

“President Obama’s decision to put a leading advocate of rationed health care in charge of Medicare without even a public hearing is a slap in the face of the American people who have every right to know how Donald Berwick intends to implement President Obama’s new trillion dollar health care plan. Sneaking Dr. Berwick into power without giving the public any opportunity to hear his controversial views on rationing only raises more red flags about the unpopular health care law that was jammed through Congress over the objection of the American people. This is another backroom deal that favors special interests over the American people.”

Pretty well spot on, I must say. Whatever happened to that  “up or down vote” thingy we heard with regard to President Bush’s appointments?

Couldn’t have said it better myself:

Corn is great food, but lousy energy. Energy derived from corn–ethanol–cannot compete in the marketplace with more efficient sources of energy, like petroleum, unless its producers get money from the government to artificially lower the price of their product. This is what is known as “green energy.” It amounts to having a bonfire with your money. Well, no, not exactly a bonfire, since, while there is undeniably a net inefficiency and thus a destruction of wealth, your money doesn’t go up in smoke. Rather, your tax dollars are transferred to a combination of Midwestern farmers and politically connected ethanol plant developers. Like other government subsidy programs, it’s great if you get to cash the checks, but bad if you are a taxpayer or an energy buyer.

Which makes it bad for nearly all of us in the long run. Until even the farmers understand this and refuse to give up short-term gain for long-term stability, however, we’ll keep propping up a system which should collapse under its own inefficiencies.

Are we going to get serious about a lack of leadership in our government? If not, we had better get used to seeing more of this: