What You Could Buy with the Average Tax Increase
What's $1,635
per year more in taxes for tens of millions of households? That's just
$136.25 taken from a family budget per month. Like prudent mobsters,
President Obama and Speaker Boehner are just skimming a little from your
earnings to keep the nation from falling off that awful fiscal cliff.
As patriots, on the order of 1984, we should all rejoice that Big Brother knows best.
Let's see what a paltry $1,635 buys annually, shall we? And, dear reader, feel free to add to the list. How about a...
How about groceries? Read this from Daily Finance (and weep):
The average varies by state. But in 2011, the average monthly outlay for gas and electric power in blue state Michigan was $199. In blue state New York: $184. And in bluish Pennsylvania: $187. That's $2,388 annually in the Wolverine State; $2,208 in the Empire State; and $2,244 in the Keystone State. Of course, those costs all increased in 2012 and may well do so again in 2013.
How about gas pump costs? As USA Today reported last November:
You say: "Well, comrade, we must all sacrifice a little for the benefit of the great American collective. So you buy a cheaper frig or fix the one you've got. You take the bus and leave that gas-guzzling car in the garage. You eat a little less, just like they did in the Ukraine back in the 30s. Comrade Stalin, far-sighted as always, knew something about weight-loss programs, eh? You wear a couple of sweaters more around the house in the winters. Cozy - no?"
The Obama-Boehner tax hikes have consequences - to manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers... to their employees... to their suppliers. Consumers and families are stuck stretching budgets to meet monthly needs.
"Bah! It's only the rich - those capitalist-roaders - who will pay this trifling increase in taxes."
No, no, Comrade Equality & Compassion. Every American not on the dole will pay for the Obama-Boehner tax hikes - one way or the other.
Let's see what a paltry $1,635 buys annually, shall we? And, dear reader, feel free to add to the list. How about a...
- 1. Whirlpool 26.4 cu. ft. Side-by-Side Refrigerator Stainless Steel. On sale at Sears for $1,348.99;
- 2. Sony - 46" Class (46" Diag.) - LED - 1080p - 240 Hz - Smart - 3D - HDTV. At Best Buy: $1,599.98;
- 3. GE Profile Harmony 4.5 cu. ft. Top Load Washer in White. At Home Depot: $1,079.10. Add a GE 6.8 cu. ft. Electric Dryer in White. Home Depot priced: $430.20. Grand total: $1,509.30;
- 4. Samsung 24" Dishwasher (Energy Star® compliant). Samsung's price: $949.00;
- 5. Dell Ships Fast Latitude E6430 laptop computer. Dell's price: $1,399.00
How about groceries? Read this from Daily Finance (and weep):
The Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion estimates a moderate weekly grocery bill for a family of four with school-age children at roughly $236.60, which translates into an annual family budget of approximately $12,300 for food consumed at home.How about basic household gas and electric costs?
Assuming the anticipated 5% increase in food prices next year, a family of four is looking at an additional $615 on their annual grocery bill in 2013.
The average varies by state. But in 2011, the average monthly outlay for gas and electric power in blue state Michigan was $199. In blue state New York: $184. And in bluish Pennsylvania: $187. That's $2,388 annually in the Wolverine State; $2,208 in the Empire State; and $2,244 in the Keystone State. Of course, those costs all increased in 2012 and may well do so again in 2013.
How about gas pump costs? As USA Today reported last November:
Gas prices have pinched consumer wallets already this year [2012], and now they face tax increases and government spending cuts in 2013 unless Congress and President Obama can forge a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" before year-end.
[Gas prices] are down from a high of $3.93 a gallon in April. Thursday's national average of $3.41 a gallon is 11 cents more than it was a year ago on the same date, according to the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report.USA Today got it half right: consumers got the tax shaft without significant federal spending cuts (cuts that the libs at America's short-read, hotel-motel giveaway newspaper-of-record clearly object to).
You say: "Well, comrade, we must all sacrifice a little for the benefit of the great American collective. So you buy a cheaper frig or fix the one you've got. You take the bus and leave that gas-guzzling car in the garage. You eat a little less, just like they did in the Ukraine back in the 30s. Comrade Stalin, far-sighted as always, knew something about weight-loss programs, eh? You wear a couple of sweaters more around the house in the winters. Cozy - no?"
The Obama-Boehner tax hikes have consequences - to manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers... to their employees... to their suppliers. Consumers and families are stuck stretching budgets to meet monthly needs.
"Bah! It's only the rich - those capitalist-roaders - who will pay this trifling increase in taxes."
No, no, Comrade Equality & Compassion. Every American not on the dole will pay for the Obama-Boehner tax hikes - one way or the other.
Steyn: Congress Spent “Two Months Negotiating 10 Hours of Savings”
Writing in the Orange County Register,
conservative-leaning political commentator Mark Steyn explains -- and
exposes -- the utter frivolity of the latest “fiscal cliff” compromise.
Here’s the most galling excerpt:
They’re just doing what they do best: kicking the can down the road until the next crisis comes along, while taking all the credit for averting a man-made catastrophe they themselves created. Brilliant.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/01/05/steyn-congress-spent-two-months-negotiating-10-hours-of-savings-n1479692
PK's NOTE: I don't have a Chick Fil A in my town so I couldn't do anything then. I supported Hobby Lobby today, did you?
Cash for Clunkers actually hurt the environment
Tell me this isn't a government operation:
In other news, a furniture company touted by the president during the election campaign as an example of the economic recovery has - you guessed it - closed its doors:
I wouldn't buy a used car from him, that's for sure.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/cash_for_clunkers_actually_hurt_the_environment.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/government_criminality_exposed.htmlWashington keeps proving the point. The political class has just spent two months on a down-to-the-wire nail-biting white-knuckle thrill-ride negotiation the result of which is more business as usual. At the end, as always, Dr. Obama and Dr. Boehner emerge in white coats, surgical masks around their necks, bloody scalpels in hand, and announce that it was touch-and-go for awhile but the operation was a complete success – and all they've done is applied another temporary Band-Aid that's peeling off even as they speak. They're already prepping the OR for the next life-or-death surgery on the debt ceiling, tentatively scheduled for next Tuesday or a week on Thursday or the third Sunday after Epiphany.
No epiphanies in Washington: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the latest triumphant deal includes $2 billion of cuts for fiscal year 2013. Wow! That's what the Government of the United States borrows every 10 hours and 38 minutes. Spending two months negotiating 10 hours of savings is like driving to a supermarket three states away to save a nickel on your grocery bill.It sounds foolish, doesn’t it? I mean, the Congress literally spends months debating the ins and outs of an impending “compromise” -- only to wind up with a deeply flawed bill that does virtually nothing to solve the greatest challenges of our time. (There’s also a zero percent chance that members of the upper chamber actually read every page of the legislation before they voted on it). Nice going, guys. Meanwhile, there’s also this important little nugget:
On Monday, 300 million Americans did not know what their tax rates would be on Tuesday. That's ridiculous.
Then, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spent the night alone in a room with Joe Biden (which admittedly few of us would have the stomach for). And when they emerged they informed those 300 million Americans what their tax rates now were. That's unseemly.
Then, in the small hours of the morning, the legislature rubber-stamped it. That's repulsive.No, no it isn’t. But at least now I fully understand why Congress’s disapproval rating has been hovering at -- or around -- historic lows since 2011. In any case, the point is how is it even possible that on Monday night pretty much no one -- except, of course, for those in high national office -- knew what their tax rates would be when they woke up the following morning? Is this really the way the founders expected the Congress to operate and conduct the public’s business? The answer is no, of course, but that doesn’t seem to bother them in the slightest. And why should it?
There's a term for societies where power-brokers stitch up the people's business in back rooms and their pseudo-parliaments sign off on it at 3 a.m., and it isn't a "republic of limited government by citizen-representatives."
They’re just doing what they do best: kicking the can down the road until the next crisis comes along, while taking all the credit for averting a man-made catastrophe they themselves created. Brilliant.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/01/05/steyn-congress-spent-two-months-negotiating-10-hours-of-savings-n1479692
PK's NOTE: I don't have a Chick Fil A in my town so I couldn't do anything then. I supported Hobby Lobby today, did you?
Cash for Clunkers actually hurt the environment
Tell me this isn't a government operation:
Though almost a million people poured into car dealerships eager to exchange their old jalopies for something shiny and new, recent reports indicate the entire program may have actually hurt the environment far more than it helped.
According to E Magazine, the "Clunkers" program, which is officially known as the Car Allowance Rebates System (CARS), produced tons of unnecessary waste while doing little to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The program's first mistake seems to have been its focus on car shredding, instead of car recycling. With 690,000 vehicles traded in, that's a pretty big mistake.
According to the Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA), automobiles are almost completely recyclable, down to their engine oil and brake fluid. But many of the "Cash for Clunkers" cars were never sent to recycling facilities. The agency reports that the cars' engines were instead destroyed by federal mandate, in order to prevent dealers from illicitly reselling the vehicles later.
The remaining parts of each car could then be put up for auction, but program guidelines also required that after 180 days, no matter how much of the car was left, the parts woud be sent to a junkyard and shredded.
Shredding vehicles results in its own environmental nightmare. For each ton of metal produced by a shredding facility, roughly 500 pounds of "shredding residue" is also produced, which includes polyurethane foams, metal oxides, glass and dirt. All totaled, about 4.5 million tons of that residue is already produced on average every year. Where does it go? Right into a landfill.E Magazine states recycling just the plastic and metal alone from the CARS scraps would have saved 24 million barrels of oil. While some of the "Clunkers" were truly old, many of the almost 700,000 cars were still in perfectly good condition. In fact, many that qualified for the program were relatively "young," with fuel efficiencies that rivaled newer cars.
And though the point was to get less fuel efficient cars off the roads, with only 690,000 traded in, and over 250 million registered in the U.S., the difference in pollutant levels seems pretty negligible.
In other news, a furniture company touted by the president during the election campaign as an example of the economic recovery has - you guessed it - closed its doors:
A start-up North Carolina furniture company once celebrated as a sign of America's manufacturing rebound has closed, a year after its head was hosted by President Barack Obama.
Lincolnton Furniture Company was silent Friday, a day after shutting down. President Bruce Cochrane and other company officers did not return messages to The Associated Press.
Company financial officer Ben Causey said manufacturing operations were stopped indefinitely because orders were insufficient. He told The Charlotte Observer that only a few people would remain employed and the next steps were uncertain.
Lincolnton Furniture opened in December 2011 with 60 employees and plans to grow.
Obama last year invited Cochrane to a White House event on bringing overseas job back to America and he was a guest at the State of the Union address.What is it with Obama? So many programs from housing to this cash for clunkers as utter failures while he chooses companies to show how great the economy is that go under?
I wouldn't buy a used car from him, that's for sure.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/cash_for_clunkers_actually_hurt_the_environment.html
Government criminality exposed
The
evidence is in: state officials in California willfully defrauded the
public in order to enhance their budgets. If nobody ends up in jail over
this fraud, we can expect more of it - much more. In fact, we have no
idea how serious the problem already is, but as face the possibility of a
partial government shutdown over the federal debt limit, it is
important to keep in mind the mendacity of bureaucrats who plead poverty
when dunnin g the public for more taxpayer funds for their satrapies.
The Los Angeles Times reports Iin a blog, not in the paper itself, apparently) on an official investigation, whose results were released on Friday afternoon - the best time of the week in which to bury something embarrassing:
If a private business defrauded its shareholders or customers in this way, executives would be facing jail. Why should government executives face lesser accountability? After all, they carry the force of law with them, and with that comes extra responsibility.
The Los Angeles Times reports Iin a blog, not in the paper itself, apparently) on an official investigation, whose results were released on Friday afternoon - the best time of the week in which to bury something embarrassing:
Fear of embarrassment and budget cuts led California parks officials to intentionally conceal millions of dollars in a department account, according to an investigation conducted by the state attorney general's office.
The report, released Friday, is the most detailed official narrative yet regarding the root of the accounting scandal at the parks department.
The scandal broke last summer when it was revealed that the parks department had a hidden surplus of nearly $54 million even though it was threatening to close dozens of facilities.
About $20 million was found in an account where entrance fees and other revenues are deposited. Accounting discrepancies appeared to begin innocently more than a decade ago, leading to fluctuating reports on how much money was in the fund, investigators said.
But in 2002, when the problems were identified, parks officials made a "conscious and deliberate" decision not to reveal the money to officials at the Department of Finance, which plans the state budget.I still remember vividly when the Congress under Speaker Gingrich played hardball with Bill Clinton over the debt extension, and the first propaganda moves were to "close" national parks, and have the media run sob stories about the poor families unable to use the magnificent parks. If push comes to shove this year, expect the same propaganda tricks to be used. We must be prepared to fight back with then story of lying bureaucrats closing parks to dun us for more money, when they had sufficient funds all along.
If a private business defrauded its shareholders or customers in this way, executives would be facing jail. Why should government executives face lesser accountability? After all, they carry the force of law with them, and with that comes extra responsibility.
PK's NOTE: This is a little long, guys, but really important. Get yourself informed about the debt ceiling because they're prepared to do some nasty stuff:
Obama and the Debt Ceiling
The debt ceiling is the last leverage that Republicans have to prevent out-of-control Federal spending and on various policy issues. Liberals know this: even as Senate Democrats talk of ending the right of Republicans to filibuster, liberals are seeking to defang the Republican House of Representatives as well. They are also now peddling a new theme that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional under Section 4 of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, President Obama may simply ignore the debt ceiling.The looming debt ceiling fight could allow Republicans to soundly defeat Obama's overspending. In the "fiscal cliff" deal, Republicans succeeded by making most of the temporary Bush tax cuts permanent, but failed to get spending cuts. Yet now, Republicans could use the debt ceiling vote to slash spending. The overall result could be serious deficit reduction at lower permanent tax rates. But this requires Republicans to stand united and refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment requires: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned." Liberals argue that if Congress has authorized spending, this automatically gives the president the power and even the obligation to borrow whatever it takes to spend all the money for which Congress voted. When Congress votes to spend money, this includes the obligation of the chief executive to take whatever actions are necessary to pay the debts of the United States Government. That is because "the validity of the public debt" ... "shall not be questioned." Thus, any debt ceiling law violates Section 4, they argue.
Suddenly the appeal for Washington to abandon the U.S. Constitution from Georgetown Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman in the New York Times makes sense. Seidman's pitch on December 30 that the Constitution is obsolete and unnecessary is not likely to be accepted in full. But Seidman argues that it is more important to do whatever is convenient for the moment than to be bound by the U.S. Constitution. To the liberal elites and the low-information voters, this helps prepare the debate for Obama ignoring the law "to get things done."
Barack Obama appears to have landed on this theory with both feet. On January 1, 2013, President Obama commented:
"Let me repeat, you can't not pay bills
that we have already incurred. If Congress refuses to the United States
government the ability to pay these bills on-time, the consequences for
the entire global economy would be catastrophic-far worse than the
impact of a fiscal cliff."
And:
"I
will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with
this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills, they have
already racked up through the laws they have passed."
Republicans need to be ready with a response. Like all liberal views of the Constitution, the theory seems to make sense at first, but after a little thought is revealed to be preposterous. But Obama could build up the momentum to get away with it unless Republicans act swiftly to expose the scheme.
First, Section 4 refers to public debt "authorized by law." Debts that exceed the debt ceiling are not "authorized by law." Period.
Second, the debt ceiling enacted by Congressional power under Section 5 modifies Section 4. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment provides: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." So when Congress enacted the debt ceiling, it changed whatever effect Section 4 might have here.
Third, a promise to make a gift in the future is not a debt. Planning to donate money to someone at some future time is not legally binding in the sense of establishing a "debt." Even planning to build a bridge or highway in the future is not a debt until a contract is officially signed. Even a signed contract can often be cancelled according to its own terms, especially before the work is started. Promising price supports for wheat farmers in future years is not a debt if it is cancelled long before that year's crop is even planted.
Fourth, the liberal theory involves borrowing new debt. Clearly, Section 4 does not empower the Executive Branch to borrow any more money or incur any new debt. It refers to the validity of already-existing debt.
It will be said that if the government owes a debt to a vendor, contractor or employee then the president must pay that debt to impatient creditors even if that requires borrowing money from more patient lenders. So they would swap debt for debt under Section 4. This is a strained and forced misinterpretation.
Fifth, the theory twists the 14th Amendment:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
Reading Section 4 as a whole, it is clear that it refers to the debts incurred in fighting the Civil War. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted after the Civil War to settle many of its issues. Reading the entire Section it is clear that it does not empower a president to borrow money.
Section 4 presents a contrast between debts incurred by the Confederate States in fighting against the United States with debts of the United States. The contrast clarifies what Section 4 is about. The United States is not going to pay for the war fought against it. But this does not authorize new debt.
Sixth, the liberal argument hangs on confusing "confidence" with "validity." They argue that if lender confidence is shaken, then the "validty" of public debt has been "questioned." Section 4 contrasts debts that will never get paid, because they are illegal and void, from those legally valid. It says nothing about when debts will get paid or how happy lenders may feel. Ironically, the liberal argument would mean that the downgrading of the nation's credit rating in 2011 violated Section 4, if impairing faith in the government's creditworthiness violates Section 4.
The real question is whether any State Attorney General or prosecutor or Federal judge will have the guts to enforce the law against whatever government bureaucrat is spending money in excess of the Congressional debt ceiling. Keep in mind that Obama will not personally be spending the money illegally, but lesser officials will have their head on the block.
On the other hand, the "Anti-Deficiency Act" makes government bureaucrats personally liable if they incur liabilities not legally authorized. So to get contracting officers to stick their neck out, Obama would need to give them some very strong cover. At what point will anyone in Congress have the spine to talk impeachment? Recall that Congress can impeach Cabinet members and lesser officials, not only a president.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/obama_and_the_debt_ceiling.html
Also Reads:
No comments:
Post a Comment