My Beauty Best Teacher

The reason why you probably shouldn't go to the mainstream media for anything but sports editorials and the comics is because whenever it writes about anything else its amazing liberal bias shines through. Take for example a recent 'article' (not editorial) appearing in the Detroit News called Death a sure thing, taxes less so: Uncle Sam's share at 60-year low:

Taxes too high? Actually, as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.

And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency. Corporate taxes will be lower by a third, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

From the way this is written, you would imagine that it is Obama and the Democrats in Congress that are to thank for lower taxes and that because of all those low taxes the Democrats provided us with taxes are now at a 60 year low. In reality, tax cuts were pushed for by Republicans over Democrats objections, and it is the Democrats that we can thank for the job-killing regulations and taxes and uncertainty that has destroyed our national economy leading to few with jobs and few companies earning money, thus lower overall revenue to the national government, thus all that 'lower share' nonsense.

Democrats still don't get the Laffer Curve- that when taxes are too high, they choke off investment and economic growth, leading to less tax revenue to the national government, leading to less revenue to spend on national defense, welfare for the truly needy, money for speculative science, and a secure social security system. It is liberals and Democrats who are pushing higher taxes and thus are creating lower revenues for the national government- under Bush and Reagan and Kennedy when they cut taxes revenue to the national government went up and this could allow the federal government to do all those wonderful things liberals want them to do.

The truth is though that liberals don't really want a government that provides for the poor, the needy, the sick, and everyone else if that means that they control your behavior less with lower taxes. Nope, liberals would trade higher taxes and the control this gives them even if the revenues that the federal government are lower as a consequence. That is the only conclusion to reach, if experience demonstrates time after time the truth behind the Laffer Curve.

The author of the article in the Detroit News demonstrates that lack of knowledge of the Laffer Curve must be pervasive in the liberal community- rather than think 'taxes and regulation and government control are higher and tax revenue is down; I want tax revenue up; perhaps we should have less taxes and regulation and government control' the author of the article pushes for more taxes and regulation and government control, and then will have to cast around for someone to blame when this shortsighted and uneducated policy doesn't work (I've been in Michigan for a while and seen Democrats desperately go through a laundry list of people to blame for the failures of their policies).
For more information on the Laffer Curve, check out Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status or The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen.

Jack McHugh put together a stunning list. Maybe you are old enough to remember back when every aspect of your life or business wasn't taxed. Or maybe you remember starting your own business, without getting a license from the government. Maybe, but I don't remember those days. I have grown up in tyranny and seen it only increase as I have gotten older. This is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. Our Founding Fathers fought and died for less than this.

Here is a list of 55 Taxes On You and 116 Licensure Mandates for those who want to start a business in Michigan. First, here are all the taxes that government has slapped on us to steal our money: Accounts Receivable Tax, Business income tax, Business Gross Receipts Tax, Business Tool and Equipment Property Tax, Building Permit Tax, CDL license Tax. Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Excise Taxes, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges, IRS Penalties, Liquor Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Service Charge Tax....

Seriously, are you still reading this list of taxes? Do you think the government taxes all these for the money, or is it just to control us and do a little social engineering? You know, pick winners and losers like government is God or something?

Here are more taxes: Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax, Sales Tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal/State/Local Surcharge Taxes, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Use Tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, and Workers Compensation Tax...

As if those aren't enough taxes, the Democrats and Obama are proposing two new giant taxes- Cap and Trade and taxing employer provided health care benefits.

I'm not going to go through all the license requirements here- you get the picture. Check them all out though if you want, and email me and let me know which license requirement you think is the most insulting. Personally, I'm a little surprised that you can't clean out a sewage tank without paying the government money for a license (Sewer Pipe Cleaners License). Oh well.

Kind of makes you look longingly at the days of a Stamp Tax, doesn't it?

In the featured 'Commentary' section of the Detroit Free Press today, Diane Carpenter Emling, who is a professor at Northwestern Michigan College, writes "Raise my taxes":

Over the last several years, our state legislators have supposedly done us a great favor by cutting our taxes. Speaking for myself, I barely noticed it. However, the inability of the state of Michigan to fund basic public services is costing me greatly. I can’t afford these tax cuts.

Michigan’s financial problems are structural. It is hypocritical to propose patching yet another annual budget by cuts only. For those who want to solve the fiscal problem by cuts, demonstrate some political courage, rather than going once again to the political cheap-shots.

Make structural changes: Work seriously to pass a progressive income tax. Eliminate funding for townships, consolidate school districts, enact rational sentencing reforms, and eliminate legislative pension and insurance hand-outs. Cut tax loopholes and extend the sales tax to all services. No more across the board cuts, cuts in programs for the most needy, and beating up on teachers and public servants. Significantly increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to protect the most needy, but please, do me a favor: Raise my taxes. Do it now.

Diane Carpenter Emling, you are a liar and a hypocrite. I call you a liar because you don't want your taxes raised- you want my taxes raised- you didn't call for an increase in taxes, you called for an increase on taxes on other people. I call you a hypocrite because you claim that you want your taxes raised, yet I am sure that on your tax deduction you claimed everything possible, and probably haven't donated additional money to the state.

Liberals always try to pretend that they are some sort of holy person and that they would want to be taxed more, but when it comes down to it, they don't. In Virginia they established a "Tax Me More Fund," modeled after the one in Arkansas, where all of those liberals who offer to 'tax me more' can donate money. Year after year, all of the 'tax me more' people donate nothing to this fund (Virginia's fund raised $19.36 in 2006). Given the choice to pay more in taxes, liberals like Professor Emling never do, because they are lying about their agenda- they want you to pay more in taxes, not themselves.

Professor Emling's agenda is quite clear in her editorial- she wants anyone not her to pay more taxes (progressive tax) and to have that wealth redistributed to her (no more cuts to teachers pay). Giving her a voice and listening to her is what will make our country a worse, less successful, a less free, and a less prosperous nation.

A quick search of Professor Diane Carpenter Emling turned up some fun stuff. She is a social studies teacher at Northwestern Michigan University, and apparently teaches her class in the same agenda-driven incoherent babble as her commentary above. One reviewer of her class (ratemyprofessors.com) said "she often talks in circles and is incoherent," another wrote "she is the worst professor i have ever had," and another wrote "she pushes her personal beliefs on the class and she has no room for other beliefs- as long as you can conform to her ideals for the purpose of the class, it is easy, but her class is a joke and she should be fired." She is also surprisingly a big Obama donor (opensecrets.org).

Many people email me and comment that they are scared about how I might be teaching and corrupting our youth- my reviews are the exact opposite of those!

It is doubtful that she can be educated, but if you would like to try, here is how to contact her: Phone: (231) 995-1295 and E-mail: demling@nmc.edu. Have fun!

Months after Granholm promised to never again raise taxes on Michigan residents, admitting that the policy of raising taxes and spending that money on government projects does not create a better economy (actually, she just admitted that government taxing/spending was now at the magical proper level), she has proven herself once again to be a liar (liar: someone who is untruthful or misleads). She, like most liberals, is only true to one agenda- more government power over your life.

Two separate stories prove what happens when you support Democrats in politics- Granholm Supports Raising Gas Tax and Granholm Backs Graduated Income Tax. Now, Republicans aren't perfect and support increasing spending sometimes and debate within the party about how big the government should get. But Democrats focus always on raising taxes and increasing government. In these two stories, we see a big-government liberal Democrat Governor Granholm pushing to raise taxes on your travel and to raise taxes on you if you are more successful.

Don't be fooled by either of these taxes- Michigan's roads are poor because the state has chosen not to support them in favor of other policies (like money for seasonal workers to find homes, money for programs for minority groups, money for mansions and helicopters for the Governor, etc) and because our state supports polices that make road maintenance and construction expensive and cumbersome (sweetheart deals, living wage, etc)- not because they are 'underfunded and need more tax dollars.' Don't be fooled by the government mismanagement and corruption into giving them more money.

And don't be fooled by the proposal for a graduated income tax- the tax is not going to 'be more fair' or 'help our state be more equal' the reason the change in tax structure is being pushed is because if the government can make you envy your neighbors wealth, if the government can fool you into believing in class warfare, if the government can make you believe that just because you make less money than your neighbor you have some right to his property, than they can raise taxes on the rich. It is politically unpopular to raise taxes- but it isn't politically unpopular to raise taxes on the rich, so change from a flat tax to a progressive tax, and than it is easier for the liberal Democrats in government to raise taxes and transfer more wealth to them.

2011, regardless of what happens in the 2010 elections, will be a bad year for America due to the avalanche of tax increases that will hit everyone, specifically dead people, married people, rich people, investors, poor people, those with kids, those who save, those who buy medications, and small businesses. New tax increases of varying amounts will be levied on these groups starting in 2011, and the result of these tax increases will be lower spending, lower saving, lower investment, lower business activity, and increasing hiding of taxable income by those that can, with the end result being falling revenues to the government and less economic activity. That will mean less jobs, less income, and a lower quality of life for you. The blame for this can be laid 100% on politicians, namely anyone who voted for Obamacare and anyone who refused to vote to make permanent the 2001 tax cuts, both of whom are almost all Democrats and who are all liberals.

There are so many new taxes and taxes that are going to come back from the dead that it is tough to know where to begin, so let's start at the end- on midnight of December 31, the death tax returns. If you die before than, there is no tax on your beneficiaries property simply because you died, but if you die in 2011, the government will swoop in after you die and take more of your already-taxed before property simply because you are dead. They will take 55% of the property of those who have left behind $1 million or more in savings and redistribute that property to favored political groups in society. Of course this is immoral and unethical, but that's what you get when you vote Democrat. If you are a small business owner or farmer, you may very well have an estate that is valued in excess of $1 million, especially if you have worked hard your whole life and been successful, and after you are dead government agents will come in and figure out how to destroy your life's work and break it up and redistribute it to those who didn't work hard and earn it. This will obviously hurt our economy.

The Bush tax cuts are also set to expire in 2011. These tax cuts are not just 'for the rich'- the lowest bracket for the personal income tax, or the tax cuts 'for the poor', will jump 50% from 10% today to to 15% under Obama and the Democrats. You read that correctly- Obama and the Democrats will have worked to raise taxes on the most poor in our society by 50%.

The next lowest income bracket, we'll call that 'taxes on the lower-middle class' or 'taxes on the working class', will be increased from 25% to 28%, and 'taxes on the upper-middle class' or 'taxes on the hard-working class' will be increased from 28% to 31%. Again, these tax increases will strike the middle class as well, meaning that more of your money that you work hard for every day will be taken to you and transferred to the government who will then transfer that money to various politically connected groups. You will have less money to spend on goods and services, which will mean lower demand for those products, which will mean someone will lose a job who provides or makes those, which will mean someone else on welfare sucking down tax money. Unemployment will raise, consumer demand will fall, and our society will be more poor because of these tax increases.

Oh, I guess 'the rich' also will be taxed at higher levels too, although once you become rich, you are able to hire good tax attorneys who figure out how to hide your wealth from the government anyways. And I imagine with a more confiscatory government swooping in to take more of your wealth just because you are more successful will encourage more people to seek to hide their income and assets behind politically-engineering loopholes and accounting tricks, leading to the tax increases 'on the rich' not taking as much of their wealth as liberals and Democrats hope. The details are that those currently in the 33% taxable income bracket will have their taxes increased to 36% and the 'taxes on the super-rich' will be increased from 35% to 39.6%. I predict that the results of these massive tax increases on the rich will not provide the revenue that the government hopes it can steal from these people, and so they will demand higher and higher taxes on 'the rich' out of envy and greed. This immoral theft will result in more money and effort spent in hiding assets from an unethical government rather than in doing anything good for society, less money at the top for goods and services resulting in less demand for products resulting in unemployment and a falling economy, considerably less 'play money' for the 'rich' to put in the bank where it can be used for mortgages or small business loans, or less 'play money' for the 'rich' to invest in the stock market leading leading to depreciating assets and less business investment.

Democrats, liberals, and anyone who votes for them, are bringing this falling economy on us in 2011 by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and the death tax revive. But that isn't all- those who voted for Democrats in 2008 also share the blame for the massive amounts of taxes that come with the new Obamacare bill. That will be my next post.

Source: Investors Business Daily.

Over considerable Democratic objections, a Republican Congress dramatically lowered taxes for everyone in our entire country almost ten years ago. Republicans lowered taxes for low-income earners who go to work everyday making goods or providing services that we all need. Republicans lowered taxes for middle-class earners who do what they do to make our economy strong and vibrant. And Republicans lowered taxes for high earners, those who invest in industry, run their own businesses, or are very successful in their enterprises. Everyone in our country got a tax break when Republicans were in charge of Congress and everyone in our nation got to keep more of their income.

Not so when Democrats are in charge of Congress. Under four years of Democratic control, there were no major tax cuts enacted (most of us never even noticed that little baby Obama cut that was targeted towards politically favored groups). And now, as Democrats are being thrown out of office, they have decided to at the very last moment engage in class warfare and not extend the tax cuts for high earners in our nation, thereby putting in place the largest tax increase ever in the history our nation on small businesses, successful entrepreneurs, and top investors. The effect of that massive tax increase by Democrats will predictably be to lower investment, lower incentives to produce, and increase business for tax layers who will shield greater amounts of income from the state's lustful reach.

So, on a local note, where did Congressman Gary Peters vote?

Congressman Peters, as some of you might know, is a 'blue-dog' Democrat from Michigan who managed to cling to office in spite of the Republican wave of 2010 by convincing the voters of his district that he was a tax-cutting, small-government, moderate, friend-of-business conservative, and not in fact what his votes in Congress say that he is, which is a tax-raising, large-government, liberal, enemy-of-business leftist. He says he's one thing- I say his votes say he is another. So, let's take a look at where he voted this time around. Did he vote to play class-warfare and raise taxes on the rich or did he vote against his party in support of Republican proposals to make permanent the tax cuts for everyone? Oh, he'll run next election claiming that he voted 'to cut taxes', but we all know that the vote on HR 4853 was not about cutting taxes for the middle class, but was about whether or not to let the Republican tax cuts for everyone continue or not.

Let's go to the record, courtesy of the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. On Roll Call vote number 604, on a motion that the House agrees with an amendment to the Senate amendment of HR 4853 (which extends the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Democrats couldn't openly vote on this issue, they had to sneak attack on it in a totally ungermane bill), Gary Peters, Democrat from Michigan's 9th District, voted 'Yea'. Just look for 'Pelosi' on the Roll Call list, and you'll see Peters' name there, as always, voting with Nancy Pelosi 95% of the time.

And with that, Peters and other Blue Dog Democrats have once more showed that when it comes down to it, they want to just play games with tax rates, picking and choosing who they like, and would rather attack the rich in a down economy then let those people keep the money they earn to invest or buy as they see fit. Peters and other 'moderates' showed that class warfare and shady games are more important to them then just doing the right thing, which is extending the Republican tax cuts. If Democrats love the middle class and poor so much, after extending tax cuts for everyone, they should then propose deeper tax cuts for those groups, and I am sure Republicans would be okay with it. It's within their power to do so. But no, they just want credit for not raising taxes that they supported earlier on selected groups within society. And if you vote Democrat, that's all you are supporting. Myself, I usually vote Republicans, because they want credit for lowering taxes that they have always supported lowering for everyone in society, and that sounds a little bit more like it should be.

UPDATE: Via Conservative Summer:

On December 2nd, Rep. Gary Peters voted along with his party again, to extend the 'Bush Tax Cuts' to those making under $250k a year. This is not what the Congressman promised back in September. In fact, in a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Peters along with three other Congressmen wrote:

"We urge you to consider legislation to extend all of the income tax cuts," the letter to Pelosi reads. "In recent weeks, we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small business owners, and families who have voiced concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth. Given the continued fragility of our economy and slow pace of recovery, we share their concerns."

Today we find the unemployment numbers have climbed from 9.6% to 9.8% and these numbers will certainly rise with the additional tax burdens that Congressman Peters has imposed on our small business owners. And he calls himself a 'moderate.'

UPDATE II: The Freep says this about Peters recently:

U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, a Bloomfield Township Democrat, was one of President Barack Obama's best friends last week because he was one of the few Democrats openly supporting extending the Bush-era tax cuts for everybody, not just people who make less than $250,000 a year...the New York Times described Peters as an "obscure" freshman representative from Michigan.

This is Peters' game- openly support tax cuts for everyone, and then when the vote comes up in Congress on the issue, vote the other way. Then when it comes time to explain why you voted the way you did, you use your legal background to explain that your vote was to cut taxes for the poor and middle class, while we all know that that vote was to purposefully extend tax cuts for everyone but the 'rich'. This guy might be 'obscure', but I think a better word to describe Congressman Gary Peters is 'slimy.'

According to data from Moody's Analytics Inc, when taxes were cut under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, the rich responded by increasing their savings, putting more money into the banking system, helping investment in small businesses, homeowners get more affordable houses, and banks become more profitable and stable. On the other hand, when tax rates were raised under Bill Clinton, savings rates fell, and instead of these good things happening, government officials used the money that they took from the rich and productive to instead give to their political supporters and spend on their pet causes.

According to Bloomberg, somehow this is going to weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say drastically increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans will prompt them to reduce their spending, further harming the economy. For example, Democrat President Barack Obama wants to pick and choose who he thinks should have to pay more in taxes, and wants to arbitrarily establish that anyone who earns more than $200,000 deserves to pay more in taxes, simply because they earn more and the government can take it from them, and he thinks that this will make encourage job growth and productivity.

According to the Bloomberg article, Obama, at a White House news conference on Sept. 10, said the push by Republicans to extend cuts for the wealthiest Americans is a “bad idea” because it would cost $700 billion in government revenue at a time when he is spending trillions of dollars in record budget deficits on various schemes and projects that his government officials hatch up. He instead has the "good idea" to raise taxes on the rich, take billions out of their pockets, cycle it through hundreds of government officials, and send it to labor unions and special interest lobbyists, in the failed theory that this type of stimulus will somehow not increase the unemployment rate and depress economic growth in this nation.

The truth of the matter is that progressive tax rates discourage hard work and investment, take money from the most productive members of our society and transfer it to the least productive members of our society (government officials), and are at their very heart immoral, punishing people with higher taxes simply because they or their parents were more successful in satisfying the wants and needs of the good people of this nation. There are few moral or economic arguments in support of increasing taxes on those who earn more- in reality, the government increases taxes on the wealthy because it can, because these people have things that the government can take, and because there are fewer 'rich' than there are 'poor', especially when Democrats run things.

The Bush tax cuts should be extended, forever, and further more, since they were successful in both improving the economy and boosting government revenue (which could then be sent to the poor and the needy and education and defense of our nation and all the things that liberals and Democrats pretend to want), a new round of tax cuts should be enacted, for both the poor, middle-class, and the rich. Equality, freedom, liberty, life, and protection of property was what our nation was built on- if we return to these principles, our nation will once again be prosperous. But if our nation turns away from these ideals and embraces the Democrats and liberals vision of inequality, tyranny, control, death, and destruction of wealth, our nation will continue to suffer the consequences.

As the Detroit News states, the fight over Michigan's school funding escalated Friday as Gov. Jennifer Granholm ordered educators to help persuade state lawmakers to raise taxes to avoid the surprising and drastic cuts to education that she recently made.

Within hours teachers and school employees around the state began to receive demands from MEA union bosses and school district superintendents calling for taxes to be raised. The line was parroted rapidly around the state- very soon after Granholm issued this order to educators, the Democrat's talking points were churning out over the email systems around this state.

One email sent to every employee in the district said this "the Governor had no choice but to reduce funding to schools"- which is a debatable point and one that both sides could argue, but school districts parrot out to their employees as a fact beyond repute.

Another email sent to every employee in another district said this "All of the insiders know that the Michigan law forces the Governor to make cuts to education"- always a good liberal talking point, the fact that 'everyone knows' especially those with 'insider knowledge' that we need to raise taxes, while all of the rest of us in the real world without hidden revealed knowledge about the secrets to the world go about working and paying taxes. As if poor Granholm had no other options- she couldn't cut her pet projects like lattes for movies stars or windfarms for connected friends or even the extensive staff for her husband.

From a district out of Wayne County comes this email from a superintendent "We must unite and demand more revenue sources for the state- contact your lawmakers and demand that they fulfill their obligations to Michigan's schools and raise taxes." Yup, that's right boys and girls, your taxpayer money is going to public employees who use that money to contact other public employees who then will demand more taxpayer money to provide more funds for more public employees to demand more of your money.

Granholm gives talking points out and the army of public employees move. The fight indeed escalates. Which side are you on?

UPDATE: In reply to all the nasty emails asking me which side I am on, I again quote Reagan- a rising tide floats all boats. Cutting taxes encourages prosperity, which leads to higher revenues to government, which leads to more funds for teachers, which leads to higher pay and better job security. So I ask you teachers out there- which side are you on?

Republican Engler cut taxes and put in place conservative policies- your pay went up and jobs were secure. Democrat Granholm raised taxes and put in place liberal policies- your pay went down and jobs became less secure. Results matter more than ideologies- teachers need to reject these marching orders and start looking out for themselves and vote Republican.

In June 23, 2009 I wrote a post against attempts to regulate smoking, but apparently at that time I did not write a post stating my views on the local Michigan smoking ban. I did call in to some local radio shows then and express my view that the smoking ban would likely lead to less patrons visiting bars and resulting less tax revenue and more unemployment, but most of the radio hosts and other people in the state ignored that sort of advice, and so our Democratic Governor and Democratic Legislature went ahead and passed a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

One year later the results are coming in, and like most attempts by Democrats to govern our society, the result is a society that is less richer, prosperous, and free (and although the data would be hard to come by, I would also contend that since smokers now are forced to smoke in their own homes now, there are more home fires caused by smoking and so more losses of life). And as business has fallen and sales of food and liquor have fallen due to this smoking ban, that has meant less revenue to the state to support police, fire, education, and libraries, all things that liberal Democrats pretend that they support.

From story Bar Owners Plan Smoking Ban Protest -- With Taxes:

...the group Protect Private Property Right in Michigan is proposing some pretty drastic measures to get lawmakers to take a second look at it. They want bar owners to stop paying taxes completely until the smoking issue is brought back up. And some bar owners TV5 spoke with didn't think that’s a bad idea...

“It's hurt us. I don't know anybody in the small bar industry that it's helped,” said (Co-owner of the Red Horse in Saginaw Chris) Adams. Just down the street from the Red Horse, bar owner Jerry Baleck at Patty Flemings feels the same way.


“I’m against it. I think it's private property here, and I should be allowed to say whether I want to smoke or not,” said Baleck.

That’s why a growing number of business owners are taking matters into their own hands. They love their bars and hate the smoking ban law, so some are trying to get Lansing’s attention where it hurts -- right in the wallet. A group of Michigan bar owners said they'll set up private escrow accounts and hold off on paying their taxes. “Maybe they ain't got enough money to pay their taxes in the first place with the smoking ban,” said Baleck.

“If we're not making money, why should we give them money?” said Adams. At least 200 bar owners have pledged to stop paying their taxes. It's a drastic step and owners TV5’s Liz Gelardi spoke with aren't sure if they're ready to go that far. “I don't know. I’d have to know the ins and outs and know all the particulars before I would jump in and do something so drastic,” said Adams. “But yeah, I probably will consider it.”

“Are you going to keep paying your taxes?” Gelardi asked Baleck. “Well, yeah, [I] don’t need no tax problems,” responded Baleck.

“Hopefully we can get more numbers,” said Adams. “Hopefully we can double that, you know, so we can get twice as many people together and make a statement to the state and tell them we're tired of being pushed around.”

On one hand, you have someone who provides a service to society (a restaurant or bar where people can smoke) that people freely engage in and harms no one except others who freely choose to go to those bars and restaurants. This person works hard and pays your taxes. On the other hand, you have a government official, usually a Democrat or liberal, who wants to control this person and make him make his bar or restaurant non-smoking so that he can go with his happy rich family and not have smoke in their faces, and so passes a law that results in a society that is less prosperous and free. That's the story of Michigan's smoking ban in a nutshell.

UPDATE: Thank you The Daley Gator for linking to this story!

Now that the healthcare bill has been passed, I see that the news is getting a little more honest about reporting just exactly what the healthcare bill is. For example, the Detroit News says:

The landmark legislation that Obama signed Tuesday would provide health care to 32 million uninsured people. The $938 billion, 10-year price tag would be financed largely by culling savings from Medicare and imposing new taxes on higher income people and the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

That's exactly what this healthcare bill was at its heart- a massive expansion of government welfare paid for by raising taxes (the 'savings' from Medicare are fake savings- the government telling doctors that they are going to accept less money for procedures and drugs doesn't affect the real cost of those procedures or drugs).

Welfare and tax raises- that's the Democrats solution to everything, and you can just put 'healthcare reform' in that same boat and that basically is what it is. But, Democrats are still in Washington, so today they went right back to the Obama/Pelosi Democrat plan for America- more welfare spending, more 'construction' spending, and more taxes to pay for this government largess.

A bill passed Wednesday in the House of Representatives would billions of more dollars for construction projects and welfare programs in selected states. Democrats characterized the $16 billion dollar bill as yet another stimulus program, but in reality it is more welfare and government make-work projects funded by increased taxes and fees or increased debt. This is the Democrat's only answer to every problem in society- increase dependence on the unaccountable state, increase the power of the government, increase the number of people in society working for the government, while taxes and fees and regulations go up on free people who are forced to carry the deadweight of government and its dependents around on their backs.

Democrats, like my Congressman Gary Peters, don't make it a secret that what you are voting for when you don't vote Republican is welfare and taxes.

When I was in college, the toughest class that I had was a class called Political Economy. The reason why I had such a difficult time with this class is because I opposed on a moral and intellectual level everything that it taught- it taught how to use the power of the state to guide and control companies. We learned all of the great ways and reasons for unelected bureaucrats and corrupt elected officials to deny freedoms and choices to individuals and businesses and use the power of threats of force to create an economy that protects and rewards those with political connections. Oh, of course the class never stated these aims, but they were the aims of the class regardless, and at the end of the year, the real aims of the class were revealed when we were asked for our final exam to write an essay detailing one political system that could best guide and shape an economy that was fair for everyone; I wrote an essay on the beauties and joys of the most brutally oppressive and corrupt and controlling communist system of government, and earned a 4.0 for the class.

Under Democrats like President Barack Obama, Senator Debbie Stabenow, and Congressman Gary Peters, our nation is fully embracing a 'Political Economy', which is an economy that is ruled over and controlled by those connected to the political process. In this sort of economy, those industries that political elites do not like or understand are to be taxed and controlled and driven out of business, and those companies that donate to the correct political elites are to be rewarded and given tax breaks. It is an economy where the guiding principle is not how efficiently can a company or industry produce a good that is most valued by citizens making free choices, but rather the guiding principle for these Democratic elites is whether or not you donated money to them to help them get in office and gain more power and wealth. It is only the right-wing nuts and crazy tea-party people that restrict these people from becoming completely corrupt; even still, the evidence is piling up that the best way to become wealthy in our nation is to get a job as a low-paying Congressman and than retire a millionaire several terms later (the millions all being earned 'under the table'), or donate to these sort of Congressman so that your company can be given loopholes and tax breaks so that you pay nothing in taxes.

Let us to perfectly frank here- there is little to no money to be made by supporting Republicans or Tea Party candidates- they push for limited government and free choices. Even the whole 'George Bush took us to war in Iraq to reward his oil buddies' rhetoric only reveals that those uttering that rhetoric have no idea what they are talking about since most of the oil contracts in Iraq went to non-US companies. Nope- the real money to be made is in donating to and supporting Democrats, who will then give you waivers for healthcare or create tax breaks so that you pay no taxes.

A great example of what I am writing about is GE. General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010, in spite of the rest of the nation struggling. The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, with $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States. The United Stats has a progressive corporate tax rate that punishes companies that are increasingly successful with higher and higher taxes, and for companies making more than $18 million, the corporate tax rate is 35%. So, one could reasonably assume that GE's tax bill in 2010 was $1.785 billion, but they would be wrong.

You see, GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama. GE-owned NBC recently joined Hollywood in inserting environmentally-friendly messaging into network programming. Furthermore, NBC promotes two annual campaigns — “Green Week” and “Earth Week” — that focus on environmentalism. GE recently found a loophole and became the biggest benefactor of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, a federal bailout initiative. Over $192 million was recently given to GE in government-sponsored projects. GE has created a new “joint venture” called Greenhouse Gas Services (GGS).  GGS invests in and seeks to manage greenhouse gas credits, and without the government stepping in to restrict greenhouse gases, GGS cannot turn a profit.

After doing all of these things, the reward is that GE does not pay any taxes. Yep, zero. GE not only didn't pay over a billion in taxes this year as you'd assume, but it actually was given an additional tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

Koch brothers eat your heart out! That's how you game the system and screw American tax payers- not be supporting limited government, libertarian, freedom of choice, and constitutional powers, but by backing good old-fashioned done-a-hundred times crony capitalism and government corruption of power.

Oh, and no, this never happened under George W Bush, and George W Bush hasn't been our President for several years either, so I doubt even deranged leftist liberals can pin it on him.

UPDATE: Today my youngest kid was watched, fascinated, as my wife smoothed cold cream on to her face. 'Why do you do that, mommy?' he asked. 'To make myself beautiful,' my wife said, and then began removing the cream with a tissue. My kid watched for a second and then said 'What's the matter mommy, are you giving up?'

UPDATE II: Powerlineblog has a powerful post that is perhaps even better than mine- I suggest you all go read John's post Free Enterprise vs. National Socialism:

GE strikes us as a "modern" company, in that its business strategy consists largely of exercising political influence. In truth, however, the concept is not new: the virtual merger of Big Government and Big Business has long been a hallmark of national socialism.

One can hardly resist comparing GE with another American company--one that has steadily increased its American workforce, rather than cutting it. One that has never gone to the federal government for a bailout. One that lobbies out of self-defense, as all companies do, but not to secure special privileges for itself at the taxpayers' expense. One that pays lots of taxes. One that not only advocates free enterprise, but lives by it, competing for business with superior products and services.

A number of companies would fit that description, but I have in mind Koch Industries. Koch is smaller than GE, although not radically so--$100 billion in revenues vs. $150 billion--but it pays a whole lot more in taxes. One might think that a company like Koch would be honored and respected compared with a company like GE, but that is not the case--not on the left, anyway. On the contrary, it is Koch's very integrity that makes it public enemy number one for the Democratic Party.

So the questions are posed rather starkly. Which company should Americans respect, the company that lays off more and more Americans, or the one that keeps hiring them? The company that dodges taxes, or the one that pays them? The company that makes money by partnering with government to force uneconomic products on an unwilling public, or the one that sells top-notch products that consumers want, without any compulsion from Washington? The company that stands for a Big Business-Big Government partnership, or the one that stubbornly defends, and practices, free enterprise?

UPDATE III: Koch Industries is clearly the good guy and GE is clearly the bad guy if you look at the world through the lens of life, liberty, and property protection, and yet as is typical now of the bizzaro world of the left, right is wrong and wrong is right. Today via memeorandum I saw two more posts attempt to make light dark- Adam Sewer at the 'American' Prospect takes a couple drive-by shots at David Koch or Politico's The battle to define Charles and David Koch which tries to redefine good as bad.

According to a recent poll by CBS, most Americans believe that taxes on millionaires should be increased in order to reduce the deficit. When asked "should taxes on millionaires be raised in order to lower the the deficit," 64% of those responding to this poll said "yes." This is exactly why our founding fathers rejected a democracy in favor of building a republic.

When our founding fathers built our nation, they knew from history that democracies inevitably fail. Democracies are governments built on majority rule, where the majority has the power to decide what to do with your property, your liberties, and eventually your life. In a democracy, votes are held, and if the majority decides that they want to take more of your money, property, wealth, or business in order to 'lower the deficit', that is exactly what happens. Although those who are voting played no part in you earning this wealth and those who are voting did not expend any effort for you to gain this wealth, they derive their power from the fact that there are more of them than you, and majority rules. On this basis, they feel that they can gather as mobs and demand higher taxes on you and more control over your choices, simply because there are more of them than you. This sort of mob rule is exactly the sort of rule that was common in ancient Greece and common at the end of the Roman Republic, and eventually both of these republics-turned-democracies slide into governments ruled by Caesars and Tyrants.

Our founding fathers knew this was the nature of man and knew that although democracies and majority rule have some favorable aspects to them, the only way that people's lives, liberty, and property could be properly protected is by building a republic. A republic is a government where political power is limited by the law, which sets up a government of limited powers that is frequently checked by separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. In a republic, minority rights are protected and the government is unable to threaten your life, liberty, and property because it lacks the power and capacity to do so- it does not rule on majority rule, but rather rules based on the majority properly running a firmly established and defined political entity which performs certain needed tasks well, such as national defense and establishing police services, but which does not have the real power to inject itself into tasks which it can not do well, like setting up social values and controlling the free market of exchange. In a republic, the government lacks the capacity and power to take money from those who earn it simply because they have it- rather, taxes are raised on people because it is argued that those people benefit the most from the services of the state so should pay more. This argument only works to a certain point, and assumes that even the poor pay taxes into the system to a rate comparable to what the services that they receive from the state- it is not just 'loot the rich because they have money and there is more of us than them.'

Our nation is approaching a key election in 2012, much as Rome faced a key turning point in its history when Lucius Sergius Catilina attempted to overthrow the Roman Republic by playing to the lures of democracy and populism. Catiline rallied the poor to his banner by arguing for debt relief for the poor people of Rome, and many supported him because there are always more people who are poor than there are people who are truly wealthy. Because of the destructive policies of the government, which had collapsed the housing market and had taxed and regulated the small farms and small businesses to the brink of destruction, there were many people out of work who listened to the siren song of 'support me, I'll claim majority rule, and take from those who have wealth and give to those who do not.' Thankfully, Rome had an ardent defender of the Republic in a man like Cicero, and the conspiracy was foiled, but I believe that it had come close enough to succeeding to inspire men like Julius Caesar and Pompey to try again soon after, and they were successful in harassing the forces of democracy to institute a dictatorship over the masses.

So, after reading that the majority of Americans believe that taxes on millionaires should be increased in order to reduce the deficit, I once again thankful that our nation is a Republic- if only we can keep it that way.

I'm confused.

The United States Congress, under both Republican and Democrat, has from time to time established a 'debt limit' in order to force our government to recognize that there is a limit on the total amount of debt that our nation can amass. The purpose of this debt limit or debt ceiling was to put a limit on how much the government could spend in deficit spending once the limit was reached- in other words, our nation brings in $2 trillion in taxes and if the debt ceiling is hit, it should spend that $2 trillion and not more. Once long ago (15 years ago), our nation was able to do that- once, under different times (5 years ago) our nation only added $500 billion or so a year to our debt and so the debt limit looked a long way away. But that was different times, before the utter madness and insanity that is the Obama administration teamed with a liberal Democrat Congress.

We all know the story now- Obama has added more to the nation debt in the first term of his administration that almost every administration in the history of the United States combined (yes, even more than two term Presidents Reagan+Bush). His budgets (when they aren't being laughed off the table) project the utter bankruptcy of the United States in the near future, especially when massive new entitlements like Obamacare kick in and explode the cost of healthcare and dramatically increase unemployment while attacking the life, liberty, and property of the citizens of our nation.

In their infinite wisdom Congress has foreseen a time like this, and so the debt limit was put in place to stop the madness of King Obama. The limit has been reached- it is now time to stop spending money and live within the government's massively ample means. Or, if this means the utter collapse of America, then kick up the debt limit another trillion in return for a budget that adds a massively mind-blowing $500 billion in debt this year (we're still dealing with this year's budget since the Democrats in the House and Senate passed no budget last year when they controlled those institutions, and the Senate Democrats aren't even pretending any more to propose a budget for the current year even though they control that institution), $500 billion in debt next year, and a balanced budget given to the next President.  I'm okay with that kind of a deal, signed on by both parties.

Here is where the confusion strikes- neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are negotiating for this objective or anything like it.

President Barack Hussein Obama (Democrat, Illinois) and the Democrats in the House (Screechen' Pelosi) and the Senate (which they still have control over because idiots continue to vote Democrat), as far as I can gather, wants the debt limit raised $4 trillion (which will get him into his hypothetical next administration) in return for unspecified cuts of whatever amount that will occur long after he has left. The only concrete proposal that I have seen from him is a measly $200 billion cut for Medicare, a Medicare program that he cut $500 billion out of already as part of making his Obamacare screw-over laughingly 'budget neutral'. Other than that, there big solution is more taxes- they feel that they can take money from people who are currently earning it fairly based on their hard work and effort and innovation because there are fewer of these people and that's what tyrannies do- beat up on the few to give meager handouts to the many. They are proposing higher taxes on those who make over $250K year- not those who are already wealthy or who inherited their money, because those people are the super-rich hereditary elite who are increasingly ruling over us- but rather that those who are earning and making their money and working their way up are beat down, punished, discouraged, and driven back downwards to the bottom, creating a permanent class of rich who have and poor who have not.

Both Democrats and Republicans also have been talking about cutting 'tax loopholes' or cutting 'spending through the tax code'. Don't fall for this kind of stuff- the sorts of things that the government considers 'spending through the tax code' are tax credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, deferrals, and preferential rates. Examples of 'tax expenditures' include the mortgage tax deduction, the 'Bush' tax cuts, the 'Obama' tax cuts, having pensions be tax exempt, dividend taxes, exclusion of taxes your employer pays on health care, tax credits for children, the elimination of the 'marriage penalty, and many more. Cutting this sort of spending will raise taxes on families, employers, home owners, retirees, and many more, in order to transfer wealth to low income earners and other politically favorable groups who will be exempt from such devastating automatic tax increases.

The Republicans also talk about wanting the government to cut spending back to the bloated, inefficient, and massive levels that it existed under big-government Republican President George W. Bush, combined with 'reforms' that are meaningless mishmash of poor words thrown at a wall doing nothing for the future.

It is simple- the limit has been reached, government should only spend the unbelievable amount that it takes in, and figure out something for next year. I don't understand why everyone else is so confused about this issue.

Democrats and liberals have uniformly come out against Paul Ryan's budget proposals and have responded by playing the Marxist class-warfare card and demanding higher taxes on the rich. Whenever questioned about what to do with the current budget and debt, they reply 'increase taxes on the rich'. Over at blogs like Balloon Juice, a typical liberal blog that I occasionally troll on to, they cry out 'raise taxes on the rich' and anyone who says otherwise is 'brainwashed by Glen Beck'. It's the sort of nonsense that demands a serious look and some mathematics, and thankfully, someone who is good at math did that.

In Why we can't tax ourselves out of the deficit problem, Steve McCann crunches some numbers:

The tax year of 2008 was the last to date that the IRS has done this kind of analysis. In 2008 the highest marginal tax rate of 35% applied to all AGI above $357,700.00. In that year the total amount of AGI subject to the highest rate was $622.8 Billion. The government collected in taxes $218.0 Billion (35%).

In 2011 the annual budget deficit will be nearly $1,665.0 Billion and in 2012: $1,100.0 Billion. If the Liberal Democrats in league with the Socialists, the Unions and the Communists, succeed in raising the highest marginal rate, how much more would Washington D.C. receive, assuming no change in behavior and a general eagerness to pay more?

If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1,665.0 Billion. So, let's raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1,260.0 Billion in the hole for the year.

Obviously by confiscating at 100% of all the income of the so-called rich above a predetermined level, there would never again be an incentive to earn above the highest tax rate threshold.

So, in summary, if the federal government takes all of the wealth of the evil rich people in our nation who have innovated or invested or taken risks or worked hard for their wealth, then the federal government will only be stealing an average of 1 trillion dollars a year from my kids and grandkids (ie, debt).

We can not tax ourselves to prosperity. We need to cut, and not just cut a little bit, but cut a lot. Liberals and Democrats refuse to do that, and so next election, they and any Republicans who agree with them, must go.

At this fine blog comes this blast from the past- long ago, America was given a vision of the future, and it wasn't the vision of hope and change and bipartisanship that produced the most un-bipartisan same-old big government spending Stimulus Bill that people hope won't destroy America. No, this warning was different-

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed... when the roar of the crowd fades away... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot... what exactly is our opponent's plan?

What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger... take more of your money... give you more orders from Washington... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight... he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much... he promises more. Taxes are too high... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

(He) plans to raise income taxes... raise payroll taxes... raise investment income taxes... raise the death tax... raise business taxes... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.

America had a chance to listen, and choose instead to mock the person who gave this speech as uneducated and backwards. America choose to laugh at this person- sadly, no one is laughing in this country anymore. Thank you Sarah Palin, for trying to warn us about Obama- sadly, we didn't heed your advice, and now have a growing government focused on growing government more.

There are many reasons other than philosophical (see my post Fascism Healthcare) for me opposing the Obamacare legislation that is still moving through Congress. It is not yet a forgone conclusion that it will pass, and it is the most important piece of legislation moving through Congress right now, so indulge me a bit more while I lay out more reasons why you and I need to oppose this legislation.

President Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright opposes this legislation due to what it doesn't do, but I oppose this legislation for what it does do- it raises taxes, hurts employers who provide healthcare coverage right now for their employees, and will cost national and state governments a lot of money that they don't have.

In the Senate version (and probably in the final version) is a new tax on employers. Called by some the "Cadillac tax", it is a tax increase of 40 percent annually on employer-sponsored insurance policies that many businesses provide. According to the White House, it is a tax increase of over $150 billion that families and employers would have to pay for in order to provide for Obamacare- which is to limit competition, increase regulation, raise costs, employ more bureaucrats, and provide more welfare. Raising taxes on families and employers will not help our nation and led our nation forward.

Obamacare will also hurt employers who provide healthcare coverage right now to their employees. Obama and Pelosi attempted to play off one class against another and tax the rich to distribute that money to the poor, but their legislation is so bad that it ended up taxing the middle class and labor unions too. According to the AFL-CIO, 31 million insured employees are going to be hit by increased taxes by Obamacare, including members of labor unions like the UAW or MEA. As the president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, says "This (healthcare bill) is a policy designed to benefit the elites."

Finally, Obamacare will cost government a lot of money. Most people are focusing on the cost to the national government (which will be 1 trillion dollars after taxing for 10 years and providing service for 6), but I am again (see my earlier post Healthcare Bill Makes States Fund Expanded Medicaid and Destroys Michigan's State Budget) going to point out that states are going to be paying a lot of money as well- money that they don't have. According to top state economists, next year's budget for the government of the State of Michigan will likely fall about $1.6 billion short. Last year Michigan made significant cuts to college grants, Medicaid reimbursements, Corrections and local municipalities, and is looking at serious cuts across the board- before Obamacare passes. After Obamacare passes, Medicaid rolls will expand, the state will have to match those grants, and it will cost a lot more money. These policies are not made in a vacuum folks- if Obamacare passes, hundreds of teachers around the state will be let go as a result- their is only so much money to go around.

Obamacare raises taxes, hurts employers who provide healthcare coverage right now for their employees, and will cost national and state governments a lot of money that they don't have- and that is why I oppose it.

As I am reading the Bible to one of my children, I read the following passage from the Book of Genesis, passages 47:23-47:26-

Then Joseph said to the people, 'See, I have bought you and your land for Pharaoh. Here is grain. Go and sow the land. And when you harvest it, a fifth of everything you get belongs to Pharaoh. Keep four parts for yourselves to be used for next year's seed, and as food for yourselves and for your households and little ones.

'You have saved our lives' they said. 'We will gladly be serfs of the Pharaoh.'

So Joseph made it a law throughout the land of Egypt- and it is still the law- that Pharaoh should have as his tax twenty percent of all the crops except those produced on the land owned by the temples.

I may be wrong in my interpretation of this, and I am not a trained Biblical scholar, but it seems to me that the deal was that the government would feed them in exchange for a 20% tax and slavery. A couple things come to mind- really, all questions that I leave unanswered here.

First, 20% taxes are very low compared to what we pay now days. Is 20% taxes, complete welfare, and slavery comparable at all to 40% taxes, no welfare, but no slavery? What is going to happen when we do have a total welfare state- how far behind is slavery after that? Wait, is the Pharaoh the good guy or the bad guy for centrally planning the economy, lording over us, and taxing us so?

Lastly, is this the vision that our Founding Fathers had for our nation? Is this the vision that our grandparents had? Our great-grandparents? Is it me, or has something gone wrong, and instead of low taxes and freedom, we now live in a state of high taxes and increasing tyranny? Is this really the best way to do things?

Yesterday, in The Coming Tax Assault I: 2011 Destroyed by Tax Increases on Everyone I wrote:

2011, regardless of what happens in the 2010 elections, will be a bad year for America due to the avalanche of tax increases that will hit everyone, specifically dead people, married people, rich people, investors, poor people, those with kids, those who save, those who buy medications, and small businesses. New tax increases of varying amounts will be levied on these groups starting in 2011, and the result of these tax increases will be lower spending, lower saving, lower investment, lower business activity, and increasing hiding of taxable income by those that can, with the end result being falling revenues to the government and less economic activity. That will mean less jobs, less income, and a lower quality of life for you. The blame for this can be laid 100% on politicians, namely anyone who voted for Obamacare and anyone who refused to vote to make permanent the 2001 tax cuts, both of whom are almost all Democrats and who are all liberals.

My post yesterday focused on what is going to happen when the death tax comes back and when the 2001 tax cutes expire. Today I will focus on all the other tax increases that Democrats in Congress and under President Obama have implemented to take more of your wealth from you.

Via Investors Business Daily, the "second wave" of hikes, as Americans for Tax Reform puts it, are designed to pay for ObamaCare and include:

• The 'Medicine Cabinet' Tax, which includes reducing the amount that Americans are able to put in their personal health savings accounts or flexible spending accounts and a tax on health reimbursement pretax dollars used to purchase nonprescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
• The 'HSA Withdrawal' Tax. This increases the additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% to 20%.
• 'Brand Name Drug' Tax. Makers and importers of brand-name drugs will be liable for a tax of $2.5 billion in 2011. The tax goes to $3 billion a year from 2012 to 2016, then $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018.
• 'Economic Substance Doctrine' Tax. The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks 'economic substance.'
• 'Medicare Tax'. A new 3.8% Medicare tax begins in 2013.
• Finally, there is the tax (Obama said it wasn't a tax but now in court he says it is a tax) on Americans who decline to buy health care insurance.

These taxes are directly responsible to anyone who voted for Obamacare, which takes property from hard-working Americans in the form of higher taxes in order to provide government-healthcare to others- and I want to remind you that government-healthcare has death panels in it and funds abortions.

There are other taxes, so many to even discuss, as a result of a disastrous several years of Democratic control of the Congress and Presidency, that include alternative minimum tax's widening net, tax hikes on employers, the loss of deductions for tuition, the deletion of dozens of tax brakes, teachers won't be able to deduct their classroom expenses, employer-provided educational aid will be restricted, and thousands of families will no longer be allowed to deduct student loan interest.

These tax increases are all going to start to kick in over the next several years and all will grow in size as time goes on. These tax increases will hammer the US economy, sucking the life out of it by stealing property from those who earn it and giving it to those who are politically connected in society. Tyranny will increase as a mobster-like government redistributes wealth to chosen favorites, and the best and brightest realize that they would be better off ingratiating themselves to a mob-government than building new products or offering new services. The incentive to work and work hard will be less because if you do you'll be punished and if you don't you'll be rewarded. Our society will grow less wealthy, less moral, and less successful.

And it will all be because you or your friends or your family voted Democrat somewhere on the ticket somewhere in the recent past. The only hope, and it is a faint one, is that large conservative Republican majorities at every level of government will mitigate and lessen the damage of all of these taxes.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (Republican) has proposed a budget which would shift revenue from the Michigan School Aid Fund away from K-12 schools to Higher Education and Community colleges, and this is wrong. Currently the Michigan School Aid fund is fully funded and able to pay for K-12 education in Michigan, as it was intended to and designed to do so by voters, but Snyder wants to raid $895.6 million from it and divert that money to higher education and community colleges, the first time in the history of our state that the School Aid Fund is to be used in this manner.

Not everyone has an equal opportunity or desire or obligation to go to college in America. Attending college, is not part of creating a basis of education necessary for us all to be educated voters; it is not about giving everyone in America the same basic broad basis of knowledge to enable us to compete for jobs; it is not a requirement for being successful or making a decent living like passing high school is; it is not a task that everyone is up to mentally or emotionally; and it is not something that everyone can afford to do. Going to college is something that those who want to do can; those who feel that a higher education will benefit them; and is for those who can afford to, either on their own or by winning scholarships or grants or taking out loans or having the military pay for it. So the question I have to ask is why then do taxpayers assume they have an obligation to fund higher education and community colleges in a given state?

Oh, I am sure there are arguments in favor of the desire to fund higher education and community colleges- as a way for a state to stay competitive for jobs, as a community outreach program, as a way to make our state more prestigious or something, etc. Those are all good arguments for the desire to use taxpayer money to support the few with the means and inclination to go to college- but they are not convincing arguments to me of the necessity of diverting money from the K-12 School Aid Fund.

In Michigan, our K-12 school system, which does provide all children of our state with a quality education so that they all will have the same basic chances to compete for jobs and be solid citizens, is funded by state revenues including sales taxes, lottery taxes, property taxes, and other taxes which are all deposited into a fund called 'The School Aid Fund.'

Article IX, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 establishes the State School Aid Fund, which shall be used exclusively for aid to school districts, higher education, and school employee's retirement systems. This fund was considerably adjusted by Proposal A in 1994, which was a very important constitutional amendment in Michigan that considerably changed around the way that school districts are funded.

Although the MI Constitution does include the words 'higher education,' historically the School Aid Fund was used exclusively for K-12 funding, and a search of the records and conversation of the last time that voters addressed this issue revealed to me that there was no conversation in any way of using the school aid fund for anything other that K-12 funding. In fact, the publication Michigan in Brief's seventh edition, which was sponsored by the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Council of Michigan Foundations and was prepared and published by Public Sector Consultants, Inc., describes the school aid fund this way- "School Aid Fund: A fund into which certain state revenues are deposited and from which funds may be spent only on K–12 education."- note that there is no mention of the school aid fund being used for higher or community college education, as it has never been used for this purpose in the past.

As a conservative, I have always favored this idea that voters would make their wishes known to the government, and the government would implement these wishes to the best of their abilities. Liberals and Democrats are the ones who want to rule over us and make decisions for us, not conservatives, and in this case, based on the long history of our state and the conversation regarding the last time voters looked at the issue of the School Aid Fund, it is clear to me that voters never intended the fund to be used to divert money away from K-12 schools to pay for college for rich smart kids. I am surprised that many Republicans support this idea.

As a conservative, I also believe in paying for services and using dedicated funds to pay for services. For example, I pay into social security, I pull out of the social security fund; or I pay into a gas tax, and then that gas tax is used to maintain roads; or I pay my property taxes, which are used to pay for local police, fire, and library services; etc. I'm not an anarchist or a libertarian- I do believe that government plays an important role in our society, providing order and safe-guarding rights so that we may be free and prosperous, and so I like the idea that voters decide to set aside certain amounts of money to pay for certain budget items, and if they don't like the amount of money or where the money is being spent, they can raise or lower those revenues or spending. Raiding dedicated school aid funds intended for K-12 education to pay for other services that have historically been paid for through the General Fund such as higher education and community education is therefore wrong to me and sounds to me more like a liberal idea of viewing all government money as some sort of slush fund to which to distribute gifts and buy off voters.

As a conservative teacher, I am surprised to find that I support the Michigan Education Association and the Democrats here in Michigan on this issue, and oppose Snyder's plan to divert funding from the one part of our budget that is balanced and working, the School Aid Fund. As a result of Snyder's plan, students in Michigan will face a per pupil cut of $470, which is unnecessary because the School Aid Fund is fully funded and if it is not raided to help pay for rich smart kids who want to go to college, students in Michigan would lose no funding at all. Listen to the voters and vote in favor of conservative values, Republicans, and don't raid the school aid fund.

Last week I wrote in my post Lessons from Economic Recessions- Introduction and Great Depression:

History teaches lessons- it allows those of us in the present to see how results in the past worked. Economic recessions are a great teaching tool for policy makers and average citizens, because they teach us how the recession may have happened and how to emerge from the recession and therefore inform us as to the policy actions that we must take and those that we as citizens must support.

In that post, I talked about the lessons from the Great Depression. The lessons that I drew from the Great Depression are based though not on just data from that event, but from other recessions that our nation has entered and exited. Most liberals simply say 'government spending got us out of the Great Depression', but when I ask them about all of the other recessions that the United States entered, they have a blank look, as they do not have any knowledge of other recessions or how we emerged from them as a nation.

One of my friends in the media should try this sometime- ask a liberal policy maker- President Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or Carl Levin, or Debbie Stabenow, or Gary Peters- ask them what lessons they have personally learned from the Great Depression. I am sure they will roll off some long-winded answer that sounds educated and learned but basically boils down to 'spend more money.' Follow-up that question with a question on what lessons they learned from the Depression of 1920-21, or The Panic of 1907, or the Long Depression of 1873–79, and you'll be sure to get blank looks from these policy makers, as they don't have any knowledge about those recessions and have learned no lessons from them. They might even snap back some response to you about how unimportant it is to learn about other recessions- but they are wrong, because if you only draw your lessons on economic policy from one recession, the Great Depression, and your lessons are wrong at that, than you are sure to be wrong about very big and important policy decisions that have real effects on our nation.

Of course, my blog should not be the source for your education- I would advise you to spend some real time studying some real economists- but at least the knowledge that I display here and the lessons that I draw here are likely more educated than those of the above policy-makers, including our Harvard-trained President of the United States. So let's discuss today the The Forgotten Depression of 1920.

The Depression of 1920–21, which was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States that lasted from January 1920 to July 1921, which at 18 months in duration is longer than any of the recessions after WWII, and which saw a GDP decrease of anywhere from 3% to 7%. The recession of 1920–21 was characterized by extreme deflation- anywhere from 13% to 18% — the largest one-year percentage decline in around 140 years of data. Unemployment jumped anywhere from 4 to 6% in one year, the AT&T Index of Industrial Productivity showed a decline of 29.4%, and stocks fell dramatically during the recession. It was a very bad recession that led many in society to question the stability and future of the American system of capitalism.

At the time, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — later President Hoover- urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover, as we all know now, was a progressive Republican who believed that active government response by government officials who were smarter than the rest of us could shorten a recession and led to economic growth. Hoover advocated the same policy responses in 1920 that he implemented in 1929- increased spending by the government, increased taxes especially on the evil rich, increased regulation of businesses, bailouts for banks and 'too big to fail' companies, continued support to labor unions, and more government agencies and boards to organize and improve our existing economic system.

As you can see, the responses that Hoover advocated in 1920 and implemented in 1929 are very nearly the same policies that President Obama implemented in 2009. The results of these policies are seen today and were seen in 1929- but not in 1920 because President Warren Harding ignored Hoover and did the exact opposite as what he recommended. Whereas Hoover pushed for more government spending, Harding decreased it; when Hoover wanted more regulation, Harding put in place less; for every board of smart elites that Hoover proposed to control human action, Harding cut boards and agencies so that the common man could be more free; and Harding ignored demands to raise taxes and instead slashed taxes.

The result of Harding's more conservative approach to the severe recession of 1920-1921? The recession ended quickly and ushered in an amazing period of robust economic activity the continued throughout the 1920's as Harding and Coolidge continued conservative policies. It is no surprise that the limited government, balanced budget, low taxes, low regulation, and unleashing of human freedom led to the Roaring Twenties, an amazing period in American history of social, artistic, and economic dynamism, while the active government, increased taxes, massive government spending, and more regulation of the progressive Hoover and liberal Roosevelt led to the Great Depression.

Thomas E. Woods (author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, and Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse) recently wrote a great post on this subject called The Forgotten Recession- I advise you to read the whole article, but here are several important pieces of it:

...It is hardly necessary to point out that Harding's counsel — delivered in the context of a speech to a political convention, no less — is the opposite of what the alleged experts urge upon us today. Inflation, increased government spending, and assaults on private savings combined with calls for consumer profligacy: such is the program for "recovery" in the 21st century.

Not surprisingly, many modern economists who have studied the depression of 1920–1921 have been unable to explain how the recovery could have been so swift and sweeping even though the federal government and the Federal Reserve refrained from employing any of the macroeconomic tools — public works spending, government deficits, and inflationary monetary policy — that conventional wisdom now recommends as the solution to economic slowdowns. The Keynesian economist Robert A. Gordon admitted that "government policy to moderate the depression and speed recovery was minimal. The Federal Reserve authorities were largely passive.… Despite the absence of a stimulative government policy, however, recovery was not long delayed."...

...There was nothing at all unusual about the pattern of American wealth in the 1920s. Far greater disparities have existed in countless times and places without any resulting disruption.

In fact, the Great Depression actually came in the midst of a dramatic upward trend in the share of national income devoted to wages and salaries in the United States — and a downward trend in the share going to interest, dividends, and entrepreneurial income. We do not in fact need the violent expropriation of any American in order to achieve prosperity, thank goodness...

...Harding's inchoate understanding of what was happening to the economy and why grandiose interventionist plans would only delay recovery is an extreme rarity among 20th-century American presidents. That he has been the subject of ceaseless ridicule at the hands of historians, to the point that anyone speaking a word in his favor would be dismissed out of hand, speaks volumes about our historians' capabilities outside of their own discipline.

The experience of 1920–1921 reinforces the contention of genuine free-market economists that government intervention is a hindrance to economic recovery. It is not in spite of the absence of fiscal and monetary stimulus that the economy recovered from the 1920–1921 depression. It is because those things were avoided that recovery came. The next time we are solemnly warned to recall the lessons of history lest our economy deteriorate still further, we ought to refer to this episode — and observe how hastily our interrogators try to change the subject....

Read the whole article- the logic, the understanding, the theories, and the explanation are all in there, and go into economic terms and theories that I am only beginning to gain an understanding of.

The lessons that I drew regarding the Great Depression are supported by the lessons that one can learn from the Recession of 1920-1921- that economic recessions are worsened and lengthened by a government that takes away human liberty, treats people as numbers to manage, takes wealth and property from those who have earned it, and that in every other way violates the Founding Principles of our nation (limited government, federalism, and separation of power). It is up to policy makers to learn those lessons and to vote accordingly on future legislation facing our nation.

Keep reading my blog regularly for future posts on this subject, and I continue becoming educated and drawing lessons from other past economic recessions that our nation faced and overcome.