Why Democrats really want Republicans to cave on taxes

The goal of getting Republicans to agree to raise taxes is not to raise new revenues. After all, allowing the Bush tax rates to expire for wealthier Americans will bring in perhaps $67 billion a year; Warren Buffet’s plan for a thirty percent minimum tax rate for millionaires another $5 billion. That’s spit in the ocean compared to annual deficits of $1 trillion and counting–let alone a $16 trillion national debt.

And contrary to reports from the media, the goal isn’t “to raise the morale of the middle class”by punishing the rich, or any such class warfare strategy.

The real goal is to detach Republicans from their Tea Party and conservative base, and wreck any chance of a repeat of 2010's GOP surge–not to mention recapturing the White House in 2016.

What a Republican capitulation on taxes will really mean is a future of political defeats stretching out beyond the horizon, as a disheartened base either stays home or wages bitter Tea Party versus Establishment primary fights like the ones that cost them the Senate this year.

But there’s also more at stake than elections.

What Obama and the Democrats are hoping is that GOP lawmakers will publicly abandon the no-new-taxes pledge they signed as part of their campaigns for office. The media like to blame Grover Norquist for the pledge, but he was only the instrument, and his Americans for Tax Reform the vehicle, made for the purpose. The pledge was simply a solemn promise to voters that this Republican candidate at least, when he went to Washington, would not be party to stealing more from the private sector in order to grow the welfare state.

The pledge isn’t legally binding. As Vice President Al Gore would say, there’s no governing legal authority enforcing it. The only thing involved is honor, and trust–the honor of the candidate who took the pledge to voters not to raise their taxes, and the trust of voters that this time, unlike with President George “Read My Lips” Bush, they wouldn’t be betrayed again.

Honor and trust. Breaking the no-tax pledge violates both–and it’s hard to see how either ever comes back. And the Democrats know it. That’s why they’ve focused on the pledge. They don’t just want to take away Republicans’ voters; they also want to destroy their sense of honor and integrity. They know it will make Republicans more compliant for future deals, and more alienated than ever from the voters they will need if they ever get another chance to salvage what’s left of this country.

“The greatest way to live with honor,” the playwright Sophocles said, “is to be what we pretend to be.” Republicans have pretended to be the party of no new taxes. Let’s see them live up to it–and by saving their honor maybe they’ll save us all.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/29/why-democrats-really-want-republicans-to-cave-on-taxes/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2E885yswE

Republicans Defeat Ratification of the U.N.’s ‘Rights of Persons With Disabilities’ Treaty in Senate

The Senate failed to ratify a United Nations treaty that many felt could usurp parents’ rights after a big push Monday from conservatives to call senators and voice opposition.

Many Republican senators rejected the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities treaty, which was modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act. Prior to Tuesday, a majority of Republicans had already said they would not take up the treaty during a lame-duck session.

With 38 Republicans casting “no” votes, the 61-38 vote fell five short of the two-thirds majority needed.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/republicans-defeat-ratification-of-the-u-n-s-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-treaty-in-senate/

Obamacare’s regulatory surtax on exchange insurance plans

Despite over 2,000 pages of legislative text, many key details of President Obama’s national health care law were left up to regulators to work out, with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius given the lead role. The Obama administration wanted to avoid issuing potentially controversial health care regulations during an election year, but now that it’s over, regulations are starting to roll out. In a news dump this past Friday afternoon, HHS released 373 pages of new insurance regulations, and buried on page 299 is a proposed 3.5 percent monthly “user fee” to be levied on the premiums collected by insurers who offer policies on the new government-run exchanges. Effectively, it’s a regulatory surtax that will inevitably be passed onto individuals who purchase insurance on these new exchanges.

When Obamacare was written, Democrats envisioned new health care exchanges in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, in which individuals (based on their income level) would receive subsidies to purchase insurance that met federal regulatory specifications. Under Obamacare, no federal funds are supposed to be used to help run the exchanges after January 1, 2015 (this refers to operating costs, such as providing customer service, rather than subsidies helping individuals pay for insurance coverage). The initial assumption of lawmakers was that states would have to figure out a way to make these exchanges self-sustaining. But now, at least 17 states have decided to let the federal government set up exchanges in their states, and several more are expected to follow suit. So, HHS has now devised this new surtax to pay for the costs. An HHS spokeswoman insisted to the New York Times that the fee wouldn’t translate into higher premiums. But basic economics teaches us that instead of absorbing these costs, insurers will pass them on to customers.
Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute has questioned whether the administration even has the authority to impose this new tax. In proposing the regulation, HHS claimed that the text of Obamacare “contemplates” such a user fee. But as Cannon points out, the law actually only suggested user fees as a possible option for the states, while making no mention of the federal government. The relevant portion of the health care law reads: “NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CONTINUED OPERATIONS. —In establishing an Exchange under this section, the State shall ensure that such Exchange is self-sustaining beginning on January 1, 2015, including allowing the Exchange to charge assessments or user fees to participating health insurance issuers, or to otherwise generate funding, to support its operations.” Now that HHS officials are struggling to find ways to pay for exchanges — a cost they thought they’d be able to foist on states — they are claiming authority to impose these fees.

Regardless of whether this authority exists, it’s another example of how the Obamacare’s true costs are only going to become known over time. When the law was written and it said “no federal funds” after January 1, 2015, as far as the Congressional Budget Office was concerned, that meant the exchanges won’t impose recurring costs on the federal government. But, now it’s clear that there will be ongoing costs, which the federal government will impose on insurers, who will in turn raise premiums on exchange consumers who receive federal subsidies.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacares-regulatory-surtax-on-exchange-insurance-plans/article/2514944?custom_click=rss#.UL58KGeaKSq

Teacher: Hurricane Sandy a Result of 'Massive Theft of Atmospheric Commons'

Social justice activist teachers see natural disasters like the recent Hurricane Sandy as opportunities to bring their political agendas into the classroom.

And they rarely miss an opportunity.

Writing for the far-left Zinn Education Project (named for the late communist professor Howard Zinn), Portland, Oregon high school teacher Tim Swinehart opined:

“Hurricane Sandy, and the superstorms that will follow, are not just acts of nature—they are products of a massive theft of the atmospheric commons shared by all life on the planet. Every dollar of profit made by fossil fuel companies relies on polluting our shared atmosphere with harmful greenhouse gases, stealing what belongs to us all. But if we don’t teach students the history of the commons, they’ll have a hard time recognizing what—and who—is responsible for today’s climate crisis.”

He goes on to blame the “massive theft” on private companies that pollute the environment, and complains that textbooks have a bias toward treating the buying and selling of land as “normal” and even “inevitable.” In other words, private ownership is bad. Do you see where this is going?

So what is his solution? To begin teaching students that there needs to be a renewed effort to reclaim “the commons” for the collective benefit of all and drive a stake through the heart of those that profit from the earth and its atmosphere.

Because of that profit-making – or “theft” – we’re now experiencing global warming, melting ice caps and more destructive storms like Sandy, according to Swinehart. So students should learn about “the culmination of hundreds of years of privatizing and commodifying the natural world,” he believes.

Another radical education organization, Rethinking Schools, wrote that the “climate crisis” is an “education crisis” and teachers must take action in the classroom and school districts must lend full support.

“We can do a lot in our individual classrooms—but not everything. We need our professional organizations and school districts to provide professional development that is cross-disciplinary and that deals forthrightly with the climate crisis. We need administrators and educational policy makers to recognize that ‘skills’ that can and must be taught in the context of a curriculum about things that matter, including the climate. We need our districts to demand curriculum materials, including textbooks, that are honest and that equip students to understand what’s at stake.

“For education activists this work is part of a broader struggle to critique and oppose the equation of academic achievement with scoring well on tests. That schools seem to be sleepwalking through the climate crisis is one indication of the overall lunacy of the data-chase that became institutionalized in No Child Left Behind and embraced with gusto by the Obama administration.

“The fight for a climate-relevant education is part of the broader fight for a critical, humane, challenging, and socially responsive curriculum. It’s work that belongs to us all.”

So they’re telling us that schools should ignore the academic development of students (as measured by comprehensive testing), and should instead focus on teachers leading students into the freaky and drug-stained world of left-wing protest on behalf of Marxist causes.

Never mind that their theory of global environmental change is not accepted by everyone, and their proposed solution – the banning of private enterprise – is largely rejected in the United States. They want the right to ram their ideas down our children’s throats.

Be on the lookout, parents, because the organizations that peddle these bizarre ideas have national reach, and they work to influence K-12 classroom teachers across the nation. Don’t let your unsuspecting child fall into their trap.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2012/12/04/teacher_hurricane_sandy_a_result_of_massive_theft_of_atmospheric_commons/page/full/

7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism

Given what we know in 2012, saying that capitalism will make a society richer than socialism should be about as controversial as saying the earth is round, not flat. Yet, a recent Gallup poll shows that more liberals have a positive view of socialism than capitalism. This is only possible because there are so many perverse incentives that drive the promotion of socialism. If you're a politician, socialism puts power in your hands while capitalism takes it away. If you want to use the government to control people's lives, socialism is a wonderful vehicle to do just that while capitalism robs you of that opportunity. If you would rather live off the dole than to work or alternately, prefer to make money off "who you know" instead of "how good a service you provide," again socialism works better for you. Now take into account the fact that there are no pure socialist or capitalist economies left and it becomes very easy to muddy the water and keep people from realizing the obvious economic superiority of capitalism.

1) Socialism benefits the few at the expense of the many: Socialism is superior to capitalism in one primary way: It offers more security. It's almost like an extremely expensive insurance policy that dramatically cuts into your quality of life, but insures that if worse comes to worse, you won't drop below a very minimal lifestyle. For the vast majority of people, this would be a terrible deal. On the other hand, if you're lazy, completely incompetent or alternately, just have a streak of very bad luck, the meager benefits provided by socialism may be very appealing. So a socialist society forces the many to suffer in order to make it easier for the few. It's just as Winston Churchill once noted, "The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

2) Capitalism encourages entrepreneurship while socialism discourages it: A government in a capitalist economy can quite easily give everyone equality of opportunity with a few basic laws and regulations, but socialism strives to create equality of results. This should frighten people who value their freedom because ultimately, as F.A. Hayek has noted, "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." You can see this happening in America as our efforts to reduce "inequality" have led to an ever expanding government and a vast regulatory tangle that is almost unexplainable despite the fact that it is certainly enforceable. Capitalism encourages people to start a business and build a better life for themselves while socialism lays in wait with IRS agents, nooses made of red tape and meddling bureaucrats looking for businesses to control and loot.

3) Capitalism leads to innovation: Coming up with new products is often time consuming, expensive and hit or miss. Nine ideas may fail before that tenth one takes off. The less the creative people behind these ideas are allowed to benefit, the less time, money and effort they'll put into developing new concepts and inventions. Put another way, the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward has to be to convince people to take it. Capitalism offers big rewards for productive people while socialism offers makers only a parade of bureaucratic leeches who want to take advantage of their "good fortune."

4) Capitalism produces more economic growth: Capitalism produces considerably more economic growth than socialism and as John Kennedy said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." A fast growing economy produces more jobs, more wealth and helps everyone. Many people assume that capitalism isn't working if there are still poor people, but that misses the point. In many parts of the world, poverty means living in a hut with a dirt floor while in America, most poor Americans have TVs, refrigerators and cell phones. The rich may take home a larger share of the pie in capitalism, but the poor also benefit tremendously from living in a growing, thriving economy.

5) Socialism is too slow to adapt: Capitalism is extremely good at allocating capital to where it's most valued. It has to be. Either you give people what they are willing to pay for or someone else will. On the other hand, socialism is slow and stupid for a variety of reasons. Because the government is spending someone else's money, it doesn’t get particularly concerned about losing money. Political concerns about appearances often trump the effectiveness of a program. Moreover, even if politicians and bureaucrats are intelligent and competent, which are big "ifs," they're simply not going to have the specific knowledge needed to make decisions that may impact thousands of different industries. This is why capitalism may have its share of troubles, but when there are really colossal economic screw-ups, you'll always find the government neck deep in the whole mess.

6) Socialism is inherently wasteful: Milton Friedman once said, "Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own." This is very true and it means that the more capital that is taken out of the economy and distributed, the more of it that will be wasted. The market does a considerably better job of allocating resources than the government because there are harsh penalties for failure. A company that makes products no one wants will go out of business. A poorly performing government program that wastes a hundred times more money will probably receive a bigger budget the next year.

7) Capitalism works in concert with human nature while socialism works against it: Ayn Rand said it well, "America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to ‘the common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance—and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way," but Adam Smith said it better, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” A man will work much harder to take care of himself, his family and his friends than he will to make money for the state, which will then waste most of it before redistributing it to people who aren't working as hard as the man who earned it in the first place.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/12/04/7_reasons_socialism_will_make_you_poorer_than_capitalism/page/full/