Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Obama’s Backward Approach to the Oil Crisis.


It comes as no surprise to me that the President’s solution to the oil crisis, which affects the poorest of Americans the most, is for those poor Americans to go and buy luxury priced hybrid vehicles.   These vehicles could be close to double the annual salary of those hardest hit.   You see, a rise in the cost of transportation, which affects every aspect of the economy, not including other things like heating oil and plastics manufacturing, is like a rising river where the poor live on the flood plain and the more well off live higher and higher up a hill.   You would think this champion of the poor and down trodden, the modern day messiah, would be more concerned about this than any other issue.  But instead of trying to reduce the water level, he’s dumping his chamber pot into the river.  The reason why I am not surprised that he would offer no real solutions is that this approach is consistent with all of his other approaches to the top issues.  Let me provide you a few examples.

1.       National Debt – To shrink the national debt, Obama increases the annual deficit to 1.6 trillion dollars.  That’s almost 3 times more money than the US brought in through tax revenue in 1980.
2.       End War – To end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and reverse Bush Policy, Obama kept Bush’s Secretary of Defense, maintained his Iraq Policy, escalated the war in Afghanistan, and started a 3rd war in Libya, yet I hear crickets from the war protestors.   Of course he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
3.       End Crony Capitalism – To end crony capitalism, Obama took over GM and has the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world as a policy maker.  I mean, you can’t get much more crony than having an active CEO in your administration.
4.       Transparency – So Obama finally revealed his birth certificate.  It is odd it took 3 years to release such basic personal information.  Unfortunately, as we look back at all policy decisions that were made, including the crucial healthcare debates, we realize this administration is as transparent as lead is to superman.
5.       End of Foreign Oil – I can’t tell you how many times Obama has said we need to end our dependence on foreign oil.  Unfortunately, while he was banning just about every means of domestic exploration there is, he went to Brazil to give them a 3 billion dollar loan and told this foreign oil producer that we are excited to be their biggest customer.  Of course George Soros was off in the background thankful that his investment paid off.

The list could go on, and it will as we have almost 2 years left with this guy.  For example, we need campaign reform, so he is setting out to raise 1 billion dollars in campaign donations……

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Gulf Oil Spill: 1 Year Later


The Gulf Oil Spill served as the first crisis outside of the deficit that Obama had to face.  With his reaction, or lack of action, we got a glimpse into the Obama that would reign over a series of disasters.   What we saw was a man more concerned over bureaucracy than results, i.e. the coast guard inspecting boats for the proper number life jackets, delaying containment vessels.  He was more concerned with advocating unions, i.e. he did not suspend requirements for unions to do certain jobs as has always been done by presidents during crisis.   He was more concerned with using the crisis to promote his green agenda, which is actually only a front for hurting American business, i.e. he suspended drilling in the Gulf, while facilitating it for other nations.  He was able to bully a corporate giant and hold the government out as the entity to get the job done, i.e. he extorted 20 billion dollars from BP for damages and replaced them as the primary claim handler.  However, many people’s claims still have not been handled, yet the extorted BP is to blame.  We saw a lack of understanding of the office of the presidency by his ignoring the plight of those in the Gulf.    We saw a man more focused on jamming healthcare legislation down the American people’s throats, even though health care reform was not on the top of American’s priorities.  All of this happened during the summer of recovery, where the only thing that we did see recover was the gulf, from the oil spill despite Obama.  Since then we have seen Obama ignore every legitimate uprising in places like Iran, while throwing his support in favor of Al Queda friendly militants in Libya.  We have seen him fly over the storm ravaged south on his way to fundraising events in the west despite knowing that 45 people were killed during an outbreak of severe weather.  We have seen him parade every manner of celebrity up to the white house while snubbing the Israeli Prime Minister.   We saw him jet off to Brazil to help expand Brazilian oil exploration through US tax payer money while simultaneously launching a 3rd war in the middle east.   We have seen so much of who Obama is, unfortunately we haven’t seen the last of what he is capable of.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Repeal the 16th Amendment: Enact a National Sales Tax

I hate the income tax and what it represents.  The adoption of the income tax signaled the beginning of the end of liberty and increase in government power.  The income tax, through rate and code, has been a tool of manipulation by politicians for nearly 100 years.  The majority of our country existed without an income tax. I propose a national sales tax to replace the income tax.  What's great about this is that even illegals pay this tax.


The power of the federal government to collect taxes from income shall be repealed.   Congress shall have the power to establish a tax on the sale of all goods or services, the rate of which shall be determined through the act of Congress.   No good or service shall be taxed at a rate different from any other good or service.  No person or entity shall be exempt from the payment of a sales tax for any good or service.   The sales tax may not increase by more than 2 percent within a 365 day period, but may decrease at any time by any rate.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Obama's Class Warfare: A Misconception of Taxing the Rich


Obama has decided to go 150% in on class warfare as his primary tactic for battling the Republican budget.  I say 150% because he has never been below 100% on class warfare.  It is such a mindless tactic appealing to the limited knowledge of the electorate on how the economy grows as well the selfish nature of man.   Let’s just get it out there and say what poor person do you know that is creating jobs and starting businesses?  What impoverished person is investing in new innovation?    What impoverished person would like a job to be able to provide for themselves and their familes.   So now let’s look at the filthy rich, making a mere 250k or more.  This can be a person or a business.   How much more likely is a business going to be to hire a person to pay their own if they have money taken from them from the government?  Logic quite easily says less.  But these are the age old arguments of class warfare.
I would like to look at what I believe is why people are likely to attack the rich even though they know the “rich” are the ones creating jobs.   I have often referenced Scrooge McDuck as the quintessential “rich” person, popularized by swimming through is large vault filled with gold coins.  His house overlooks the small homes of the city, further magnifying his wealth and status.  Scrooge is the exact person people hate, hoarding their money.    In fact, it is not biblical to be a hoarder of wealth.  So Obama’s answer is to tax the “rich”.  What is he taxing exactly?   An income tax is a tax on wealth gained through work.  That means that the money was part of a dynamic economy.   Income is fluid.  A person earns an income because they are part of production and creation.   An graduated income tax, where higher earners pay more money, is a punishment for having been awarded a larger income for what the economy deems as a more significant contribution to the economy.  People that live on existing wealth, the elites, do not feel the pains of a punishing income tax as they are not actually putting forth a contribution toward production.   They are consumers alone, which while valuable, insulates them from the class warfare.  These are often the “rich” people that are such big advocates of income tax increases.  It is their way of trying to keep people from earning their way into their social circle.  You could even say there is discrimination against the new rich, and the income tax code is evidence of that.  If people really want to enact their class warfare, targeting income is the wrong method.  What they should do is propose a tax on stagnant wealth.  Perhaps they should tax any bank account or investment portfolio over 250K.  Isn’t this the wealth they really want.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Voice of Merrill: Bringing Bar Talk to Kansas City Mornings

The addition of the Voice of Merrill to KMBZ's morning line up is brought your common bar talk to Kansas City Mornings.   I think that is good.  I am a conservative talk junkie, and the last thing I need to hear is somebody covering local issues with a tuxedo and cuff link approach (can you say Greg Knapp on 710 KCMO).  I couldn't stand listening to Glenn Beck tell me each and every day how the world was going to end this year, and to build a bunker and buy gold.  While Beck may be correct, I don't want it to start my day.  I enjoy listening to Michael Savage in the evening because it is like sitting in my wise and well read grandfather's living room.  You never know what you are going to get, but it keeps you captivated.  The Voice of Merrill is similar in that it is like going to a bar with a conservative buddy.  You sit at the bar and talk politics, but you don't do it so seriously that you feel you have your own lecture class.  You are still passionate, but want to make sure your buddy listening leaves with a smile on his face instead of a knot in his stomach.  One of the best things about the Voice of Merrill is I have yet to hear him cry.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Obama’s Budget a Poseidon Adventure

As I listen to Barrak Hussein Obama speak about his plans for fiscal responsibility and his total denial that the government programs he and those like him created have bankrupted the government, I’m reminded of the classic Gene Hackman movie, the Poseidon Adventure.  If you recall from the movie, the Poseidon was hit by a gigantic wave and flipped upside.  Most of the survivors were located in the grand ballroom, for which the ceiling was now the floor.  Gene Hackman’s character realized the situation was hopeless in that they were underwater and needed to get out as soon as possible.  He tried to convince everyone that for them to survive, they would need to take a dangerous path to the bottom of the ship.  Unfortunately, the ship’s purser (the equivalent to a hotel manager) told everyone that they would be safe and the best thing was to stay put.    Despite their obvious predicament, the purser felt staying under water was the best approach to getting out from under the water.  Does that sound familiar?
Here in 2011, our ship, America, has been flipped upside down by a wave of debt and fiscal irresponsibility.  We are now under water in debt.   There are two competing beliefs in how to get out from under the debt and survive.  We either ignore reality and stay in debt as Obama’s plan would have us do, or we take the risk to climb out of debt to freedom, even though there will be casualties.  If you have ever seen the movie, then you know how it ends.  The people that chose to ignore reality were drowned, just as we will drown in debt.  The people that went against the conventional wisdom by going to the bottom of the ship to get out were saved, just as we must crawl through all the layers of government programs and get back to the bottom of spending before we can be saved from our debt.   Will you support Paul Ryan as Gene Hackman, or Obama as the purser. 

Baseline Budgeting and Taxes


For those of us political geeks, we are very familiar with the term “baseline budgeting”.   To put it plainly, you set a financial goal for spending as your baseline.  Increases or decreases are then determined on the baseline and not previous spending.  Suppose I spent 10 dollars on bubble gum last year and I planned on spending 12 dollars on bubble gum the next year.   Now suppose I then actually spend 11 dollars on bubble gum, that means I had a spending cut of 1 dollar on bubble gum.  Doesn’t make sense at all since I actually spent an additional dollar on bubble gum than I did the previous year?  The federal government has been using this technique for decades, primarily as a means of demonizing those that would reign in spending.  I remember back in the 90’s when the Republicans fell prey to this tactic when they put forward a budget that while increasing spending, it didn’t increase it as much as the baseline, which meant that they were “cutting” entitlements. 
Unfortunately, we now see this tactic transferring over to taxes.  At the end of 2010, the tax rates passed under George W. Bush were set to expire.  The vote to keep the tax rate as is was advertised by the left as an effort to cut taxes.   Basically, the used the projected tax rates as their baseline.  Anything short of those rates equaled a tax cut.  Call me a stickler, but if we are to cut taxes, they must be at a rate lower than the existing rate.   Unfortunately, the message to the masses is still mostly controlled by the left, and such messaging is effective.   So, now in 2011, Obama will get by with saying he cut the deficit by decreasing the amount of projected increases he himself put forward.   He will also use the tax cut tactic to demonize republicans.  Let’s say I use this same tactic with my pay.  Around annual review time, I project a 30% increase in pay, but instead I just get a 15% increase in pay.   I would then come home and tell my wife that the company slashed my pay.  Do you think anyone would have sympathy for me?