The Warning

Five Rules For Fighting Zombies And Liberalism

2010-11-01T23:32:00.000-05:00

It is over. The candy has all been given out, and the costumes are stored carefully away. Another Halloween has come and gone.

The horror is still very much present.

While enjoying what I can only hope will become an annual Halloween screening of one of my favorite films featuring the talents of the living dead, I was struck by the similar circumstances faced by the film's protagonist, and the would be activist against liberalism in America.

Think about it. One must face down rabid hordes of mindless bodies, propelled by the dark forces to tear from him their pounds of flesh. The other has to fight zombies. It is six of one, and a half dozen of the other as to which one is more treacherous. But there are a few simple rules that can increase the odds of success for either.

#1 - Act Quickly

There is a point early on in every crypto-socialist movement or undead infestation where decisive action by a knowledgeable few can prevent a full blown outbreak. As soon as the threat is confirmed an all out effort must be made to contain the spread, and end the epidemic before it starts.

#2 - Never Fight Alone

The greatest danger is finding yourself outnumbered. It is critical that you find like minded people to band together with, and share in each others' battles, to increase individual odds of success.

#3 - Do Not Over Extend Yourself

It is vital that you understand your available resources and skill set in relation to that of the enemy. You do not want to be forced into a battle which you cannot win by being caught out in the open. When possible, pick the time and the place of the battle to favor your strengths.

#4 - Do Not Humanize Them

Do not wonder who they are, or how it all happened to them. They may once have been your friend, co-worker or even your family. That is all over now, they cannot be reasoned with. Show no mercy.

#5 - Aim For The Head

Damaging other portions will slow it down at best. In order to stop them cold, you have to get to the brains and take them out of the equation. Do not stop until you are sure they are finished.

Sticking to these few principles, fighting with your head instead of your heart, you still may not win against Obama-zombies or regular ones. But you'll have a chance.

If You Teach A Man To Fish

2010-10-25T20:51:00.001-05:00

The world’s wealthiest man, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, has a simple message for bureaucrats and philanthropists about poverty.

Charity does not solve anything.

“The only way to fight poverty is with employment,” he said “Trillions of dollars have been given to charity in the last 50 years, and they don’t solve anything.”

This is one truth about poverty that the left is willfully blind to. They celebrate the working poor, bemoan their plight, and heap entitlements upon them with every election cycle. But they do not actually work to reduce poverty in America.

Instead they encourage poverty by subsidizing it. They placate the underclass by giving them just enough to keep them from becoming so uncomfortable in poverty that they seek to better their situation. They are kept firmly dependent on the state, and voting for the Democrat's from whose hands they are fed.

Do you think I am exaggerating? Welfare spending has grown more rapidly than any other expenditure in the federal budget. Faster than education, defense, Medicare or Social Security. Even after adjusting for inflation, welfare spending is 13 times higher today than in 1965. Yet despite 45 years of ever increasing entitlement spending, the poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged. In 1969 it was 12.1 percent, and in 2007 it was 12.5 percent.

Nothing is more important to raising standards of living and alleviating poverty, than private sector job creation. That is something the Obama regime is blatantly hostile toward. It has done everything it can to demonize wealthy entrepreneurs and thwart them with high taxes and excessive regulation. You just cannot create jobs when the federal government is out to get you.

We must encourage capital investment and the activities that create jobs, by creating an environment friendly to risk and wealth creation. That means lower taxes, less regulation, and fewer entitlements to get people off of the dole and back into the labor force.

Democrats Buying Seniors' Midterm Vote

2010-10-19T17:33:00.002-05:00

Washington bureaucrats make a habit of winning elections by taking the productivity of hardworking Americans, and awarding it to unproductive special interest groups.

In this case, seniors.

Friday's announcement by the Social Security Administration that recipients would not receive a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2011 sparked immediate outcry from the White House, and speaker Nancy Pelosi. Now the top Democrats are asking for another "one time" $250 payment to seniors. Besides the obvious contradiction in language, there is just one problem with that.

The cost of living has not increased.

The COLA on Social Security benefits is legally tied to inflation. This rule was created specifically to ensure elected officials could not engender electoral support by arbitrarily raising benefits in an election year. The rate of inflation year to date is 1.1 percent, well below the level accounted for in the 2009 COLA. What Democrats are proposing is a clear violation of the spirit of the COLA restriction, at a cost of $14 billion dollars that seniors' children and grandchildren will be forced to pay back with interest.

Entitlements like Medicare and Social Security are growing to consume an ever larger portion of the federal budget, adding to the deficit, and creating a debt crisis in America. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of Obamacare, and these entitlements will drive the public debt to $123 trillion over the next 40 years. As young workers are increasingly forced to subsidize older workers and retirees, their own ability to plan and save for their retirement is being destroyed.

Is this the legacy that seniors want to leave behind them?

Obama Libel Of Chamber Continues

2010-10-15T00:10:00.000-05:00

The Obama regime's midterm election strategy is in full swing, and pandering to wealth envy by attacking the United States Chamber of Commerce.

“Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations,”

Obama made those remarks last Thursday at a rally in Maryland, the implication being that the Chamber acts as a funnel to pour foreign money into the American electoral process. This from a man who achieved our nation's highest office on the strength of international billionaire George Soros' fortune.

The regime is trying to goad the Chamber into revealing its donors, and open them up to harassment and intimidation by leftist hit groups like ACORN and SEIU. Obama crony David Axelrod hit the Sunday talk circuit last weekend to drive the point home, making an argument to ignorance that if the Chamber refuses to open its records it is admitting guilt. They must not offer instruction in common logical fallacies in the University of Chicago's political science program.

The irony of it is, the Chamber of Commerce is not exactly a small government advocacy group. They are more than happy to have government interfere in the economy when it comes in the form of protectionist regulations and trade policies. They even campaigned for TARP, and the stimulus program. How could the Obama regime not like them?

Because they are standing up for the people the left intends to soak.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents more than 3 million business of all sizes, and 96 percent of its members are small businesses, with less than 100 employees. The group that would be hurt the most if the Obama tax hikes are implemented. About 39 percent of a proposed $630 billion 2011 tax increase on top earners, would come from business owner's income.

Our economy needs to create 20 million jobs over the next decade, just to get back on track. Adding an additional $246 billion in taxes on business at the same time is not going to help that. Follow the Chamber's example, and petition Congress to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Dead, For Now

2010-10-12T21:56:00.001-05:00

A federal judge today issued an injunction against the armed forces "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, ending a 17 year ban on gays serving openly in the military.

The federal government is currently reviewing the ruling, and the Department of Justice will have 60 days to file an appeal. However, they are under no legal obligation to do so and could simply allow the decision to stand, effectively doing what Democrat's partisan maneuvering would not.

Social conservatives have already begun to malign Judge Virginia Phillips' ruling as a judicial activist legislating from the bench. But the basis by which Phillips ruled the law unconstitutional is solid. Under DADT military personnel are prohibited from discussing subjects surrounding their sexual orientation, in clear violation of their first amendment rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Beyond that lies the question of equal protection under the law. Heterosexual members of the armed forces are theoretically bound by the same prohibition against divulging their sexual preferences, but are not discharged as a result of violating the policy. The result is that straight troops are free to speak about their relationships, and the people they love. But gay troops are not. As my friend Brett is fond of pointing out, freedom means freedom for everyone.

So, to those same social conservatives I would ask, what is your stance on Obamacare? Do you support the Florida led 20 state lawsuit against it? If so, then I must ask. Why would it be alright in your mind for a judge to rule Obamacare unconstitutional, but not to do the same for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

Why We Never Stop Trying

2010-10-11T21:35:00.001-05:00

For Libertarians, our goal has always been to win back our freedoms, not necessarily to win elections.

With at least 225,000 registered members, the Libertarian Party is America's third largest and its fastest growing political party. Yet it is still vastly smaller than either of the two major parties. Nationwide, only 153 Libertarians currently hold elected office. Only 38 of those are considered partisan offices. But why?

Fear.

The one thing the entrenched political class in this country has always been "bipartisan" about, is maintaining their strangle hold on the electorate, and they do it with fear. Corporations to immigration, terrorists to capitalists, if you are afraid of it they will trade in it. They have even made people afraid to vote their conscience for fear of throwing away their vote on a third party.

People I know are disenfranchised with the two party paradigm yet still ask me how I could waste my vote on a third party. I ask them how they can vest their power in something they do not believe in by voting for it. Can they not see that the only possible outcome of voting for the lesser of two evils is an increase in the evils of government?

We must vote for that which we believe in, not against that which we abhor. Only by speaking truth to power, and fighting unfailingly for the good, can we hope to find ourselves on the right side of history. No, we may not win major elections, but we do not have to. We only have to win enough votes to decide the election for the two major parties (10 percent or so), and they will start adopting Libertarian positions in order to get our votes.

We win by making the other parties more like us, and all it takes is the courage to "throw" your vote away.

Administration Conducting A Jobs Genocide

2010-10-08T20:25:00.000-05:00

Lack of strong reaction by the mainstream media to this morning's unemployment figures underscores a willing complicity in the Obama regime's employment killing policies.

Despite trillions of dollars worth of bailouts and stimulus spending, and the "end" of the recession in June of last year; the Democratic party's control of government has seen the economy pass an unsettling milestone. There has been 14 straight months of unemployment in excess of 9.5 percent. That is the longest stretch since the 1930's.

To the rational observer, this should present empirical evidence enough to debunk the myth of government spending as a mechanism of job creation. Yet President Obama is calling for Congress to pass an additional 50 billion dollars in stimulus to finance infrastructure projects around the country. He either does not understand what he is doing, or is deliberately hampering private sector growth and job creation. A strong case can be made for the latter.

First of all, the administration's attempted stimulus has focused solely around increasing consumption. This can increase the Gross Domestic product and give the appearance of growth, but only temporarily. Stimulus spending yields a poor return on investment, and sooner or later stimulus funds run out, leaving a deeper trough and lasting debt in their wake. Lasting growth can only be sustained by an ongoing source of capital. That means private investment.

Secondly, the administration has done everything short of outlawing it to discourage private investment. Stimulus grants to capital seekers crowd out private investment, by preventing many of them from seeking a lender in the first place. Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank labyrinth have left lenders unwilling to part with their excess capital until regulatory footing stabilizes. Also, the White House is adamantly opposing any action by Congress to put a halt to the Obama tax hikes that go into effect January 1st. This will erode the bottom line of many small business in America, eliminating profits they would have re-invested to expand and hire workers.

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and by accident or design, the far left wing of the Democratic party is retarding economic growth and job creation. Please keep this in mind as you step into that voting booth on November 2nd.

I Am Pleased To Meet You

2010-10-07T21:09:00.000-05:00

Since I introduced the contact page, I have been getting little bits of reader feedback and correspondence; so I thought it time that I formally introduce myself.

My name is Casey Head.

I am a combat veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom 3, and experienced a political and philosophical awakening in my time running convoy security operations out of Ar Ramadi, in the heart of the Sunni triangle. Though a civilian now, I maintain the oath I took to support and defend The Constitution of the United Stated against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I am now a proud libertarian, activist, and president of Des Moines' chapter of Liberty on the Rocks - a grassroots freedom movement. I write this blog, and host a personal on-demand broadcast of the same name on Des Moines Amplified Network. As Iowa's only Libertarian voice in talk, I am committed to working toward maximizing individual rights, while minimizing the role of the state in our lives. I want to thank you for reading, and for listening.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.2

Firefighters Justified In Letting Home Burn

2010-10-05T21:35:00.001-05:00

Last week a Tennessee fire department refused to respond to a call, after informing the caller that he had not paid his bill.

Lacking its own fire department, residents of the state's rural Olbion County must pay a $75 annual fee for fire protection to the nearby city of South Fulton. Homeowner Gene Cranick says that he had "forgotten" to pay.

“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,"

When firefighters arrived at the scene to prevent the fire from spreading to neighboring properties that had paid, Cranick pleaded with them, offering to pay whatever it would take for them to extinguish the blaze. His offer was refused however, in accordance with departmental policy.

Of course, all of the talking heads on the left are having a field day with this. In one of his trademark hyperbolic fits the Olbermensch decried the incident as a look at "the America envisioned by the Tea Party..." You see to this bunch of public nannies, nobody should ever be so unfortunate as to have to suffer the negative consequences of their own poor decisions making. Progressive policy is more or less an attempt to smooth out the learning curve, and a hundred years of it has destroyed America's character and prosperity.

They were completely justified in refusing the call.

No human lives were threatened. The service was available at a reasonable cost, and in choosing not to pay for it Mr. Cranick was telling the South Fulton Fire Department "I do not want it", with the expectation that he could change his mind after the fact. That is not the way it works. Would he stop paying the premiums for his homeowners insurance, and still demand compensation after his policy had lapsed?

If people fail to purchase a service, but you provide it to them anyway by allowing them to pay after the fact, what incentive do they have to purchase it in the first place? Soon only those who have fires will be paying for the fire department. Cost would need to rise dramatically to meet expenses, and before long those at the bottom of the economic spectrum simply would not be able to afford it.

Now I am not saying the Fire Department's response was ideal. Had this been a privately contracted fire service and not government employees, the spirit of entrepreneurship might well have uncovered a third solution. For instance, continue to charge the $75 annual subscription fee, but also offer a higher one time response fee to non subscribers. The exact amount would be subject to operating expenses and a reasonable profit, but say that is was $750. That is ten times the annual rate. This maximizes the consumer's choice and protection.

As long as we have a system that encourages it, people will be trying to get a free ride. Only by removing their meal tickets will we make people independent again.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.2

Solving The Tea Party Conundrum

2010-10-04T22:15:00.000-05:00

Even as the progressive left half-heartedly marshals its forces in an attempt to arrest some of the Tea Party’s momentum, a far greater force looms as a threat to its continued effectiveness.

Success.

Lew Rockwell’s piece in today’s Mises Daily brought back to me an old worry that has been gnawing at the back of my mind for some time. The gist of Rockwell’s argument is that the Tea Party is less an expression in favor of liberty, than it is of contrarian populism spawned by Washington’s failings, and much of what has made it successful will be destroyed by its taking power.

Think about it. The movement lacks a central ideology and the political sentiment of its participants range from the libertarian to the staunchly authoritarian, and encompass many with stances that are intellectually incompatible with liberty. Antagonistic national defense, preference for closed borders, limitation of marital and reproductive rights; all of these things tend to limit individual freedom. These issues will come to dominate the agenda much as they did after the 1994 Republican “revolution”.

If the spirit of the Tea Party is to go on living, those who fully understand the cause of liberty must eventually leave populism behind to pursue only that which sets men free, and not that which places limitations upon them. To them I extend this invitation: Long after the Tea Party has sold out and become the establishment, the Libertarian Party will still be fighting to force government back within the boundaries of The Constitution. We would love to have you.

"One Nation" Under Socialism

2010-10-03T10:07:00.000-05:00

Thousands of people gathered at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday, hoping to energize the Democratic party's base going into next month's mid-term elections.

The event, which is being labeled by some as a counter protest to Glenn Beck's 8/28 "Restoring Honor" rally, was organized by a coalition of more than 400 left-wing organizations that operate under the name "One Nation".

While the event's organizers claim satellite photos prove the event was bigger than 8/28, the Associated Press has reported that crowds did not reach as far toward the edges and were less dense. This despite AFL-CIO and SEIU bringing in dozens of busloads of their members.

Leftist water carriers in the media have been quick to take up One Nation's narrative that this rally was a non partisan outpouring of grassroots support for social justice. But video footage from the event shows general opposition to the pro-liberty movement, as well as heavy support for the Democratic party, and for democratic socialism. Watch the video and judge for yourself.

Election Math 101

2010-10-01T22:18:00.000-05:00

There are two seasons in American politics, the legislative season and the electoral season.

Just in case you had any doubts as to which one we are in, the fact that congressional Democrats have taken off out of Washington like scalded dogs to avoid dealing with the impending Obama tax hikes, should clue you in to the fact that the legislative season has ended. For the next 32 days your best hope of furthering the cause of liberty is to go out and win elections.

Do you know what it takes to win?

If you are like most people, your first instinct is to say something like "a majority" or "51 percent" and that is a good response. It is logical, quantifiable, and completely wrong. By my calculations the truth is something closer to 4 percent. Would you like me to show my work?

If we had to win amongst all people of voting age then your hunch would be spot on. But for one reason or another, only 60 percent of them are eligible to vote. Many of those will not bother to register, which is why the major political parties are constantly holding registration drives to field more voters. About 65 percent of those eligible actually register, or just 40 percent of voting age adults. In the end, whether from laziness or disenfranchisement, just 60 percent of registered voters go to the polls each year. That leaves 24 percent of adults.

That is already a considerable reduction, if you had to win a majority now, you would be striving to win 13 percent of the votes. But that assumes everyone is in play. People develop strong party loyalties and about 8 percent of people each will vote a straight ticket for one of the two major parties, and 2 percent will vote for a third party. That means just 6 percent of the voting age public is up for grabs. This is the much courted "swing vote" that most campaign activities during the final push are organized to attract. It is the majority of these voters that matter.

It is just 4 percent of the people that decide an election.

What it takes to win an election is to meet, talk with, and win that 4 percent of people. Here in Iowa, that amounts to just over 120 thousand people, or a third of the population of the capital city of Des Moines. If you set aside an hour a day between now and the election to talk to people, that is as many as 300 conversations. So what are you waiting for?

Be Non Violent, Not Passive

2010-09-29T18:13:00.000-05:00

For those in the liberty movement that worship at the altar of the Constitution, who carry it in their pockets and hold it out as some kind of talisman to protect them, I have a message for you.

Stop hiding behind paper.

You are passive in your resistance, meekly appealing to power and relying on the founding documents to make your case for you. The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not grant your rights to you, they merely set them forth in written form as a warning to those who would violate them. As legal documents they can be misinterpreted and amended to provide justification to abridged your freedoms.

Your rights are part of you, inherent and created by your existence. Because of that, they are only as strong as your will to defend them. You must be active in your resistance. Stand up and let it be known that you pose a credible threat to those in power. If 300 million people stood up tomorrow morning and demanded non-violently but persistently an immediate end to oppressive government, it would strike such fear into the hearts of our elected officials that they would be voting to repeal half of the federal government by evening.

All it takes is courage.

But if your fear of government is too great to assert yourself before those who would enslave you, then you may as well place the chains upon yourself. May they set upon you lightly, and history forget you were my countrymen.

Fleecing The Rich Will Not Solve Spending

2010-09-28T22:26:00.000-05:00

By delaying debate on extending the Bush tax cuts until after the mid-terms, the wealth envy set is making clear their plans to attempt to stall the Federal deficit by soaking the rich, even as they continue spend recklessly and grow the size of government.

This "strategy" assumes Washington's current level of spending to be a sustainable one, and that lagging tax revenues created by the Bush tax cuts are responsible for our annual budget deficit. Of course just the opposite is true. As a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts the economy started moving again, and revenue increased by 40 percent in just 4 years. By 2007 the top 20 percent of earners were wealthier than ever, and paying nearly 86 percent of all income tax collected, despite the "low" tax rate. Whereas spending has nearly doubled since 2008.

The Obama regime claims that allowing tax cuts to expire on America's wealthiest 2 percent will increase tax revenue by $700 billion a year. This does not take into account the economic impact on small business, and the enormous opportunity cost of the Obama tax hikes. But even assuming these were hard figures, it still only covers half of the current $1.4 trillion budget deficit. Either spending must be drastically cut, or the national debt will grow until the middle class must take a hit at some point down the road.

A better strategy is to freeze all tax rates at their current levels, giving the economy time to recover and to pursue deep spending cuts. Congress must pass a balanced budget amendment that mandates spending increases be no more than the rate of inflation minus 1 percent, and that the budget must be balanced by 2025. Assuming even modest economic growth, static tax rates, and initial spending at pre 2008 levels; the time line would easily be met.

Only by addressing spending can we get our fiscal house in order, additional revenue simply will not do it. Congress has proven time and again that is will spend every bit of a revenue increase that it receives, plus as much more as it can get away with. Before you vote for any candidate this November, demand to know their position on spending in specific detail, do not be placated with generalities. Remember, you are their boss.

The Government Is Making You Fat

2010-09-28T00:07:00.001-05:00

When I close my eyes and picture what evenings are like around the White House, I can almost see Michelle Obama strutting around knocking cheeseburgers out of the hands of Secret Service agents.

In a way, I actually agree with her. Our society gives a great deal of attention to the possibility of young girls becoming anorexic, or to the 1 in 7 families who struggled to get enough to eat last year. But in this land of plenty, people are more likely to have a problem with eating too much than too little, and obesity related illnesses kill 1,000 times more people. What I object to is government intervention. Besides the fact that it tramples people's rights, when the government gets involved in what people put in their mouth, they almost always get fatter.

Take for instance the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps. I have pointed out before that because people do not spend government aid as carefully as they spend their own money, people who receive a debit card to purchase food, will never be as well fed as those who receive actual food.

To that point, a 2009 study linked food stamps to weight gain and increased risk of obesity. The 14 year trial showed that the Body Mass Index of SNAP users was 1.15 points higher on average than non users. They also found that users gained weight faster than the population at large, and gained more weight the longer that they participated in the program. With more than 40 million current users, SNAP is a major factor in America's rising obesity rates.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture also offers taxpayer funded subsidies on the production of many of the foods that Americans should moderate, rendering them more affordable and encouraging over consumption. 84.5 percent of farm subsidies go to meat, dairy, sugar, oil, starch and alcohol producers; compared to the 2.3 percent that goes to legume, fruit, and vegetable growers.

Finally, the USDA's attempt at dietary education in the form of the Food Pyramid has been an unmitigated disaster. Since its introduction in the 1980's, Americans have been taught that they must reduce their fat and protein intake, and fill up on 6-11 servings of carbohydrates a day. As a result, obesity rates have risen steadily for the last 30 years, and millions of Americans have been diagnosed with type-2 diabetes.

Now I am not seriously blaming the government for any one's weight problem. I doubt that the CIA showed up at their house with a Texas Double Whopper and water-boarded them until they ate the sandwich. But it is clear that the efforts of government are not helping America's obesity epidemic, and may indeed be making it worse. It is time for government to get out of the nutrition business once and for all.

Obamacare Fallout Is All According To Plan

2010-09-24T17:13:00.000-05:00

After six months under Obamacare, another wave of regulation took effect this week. Almost immediately consumers found that their choices had been limited, as health insurance providers struggled to comply with the dozens of mandates imposed.

Three of the nation’s largest providers stopped offering new “child only” health insurance policies Thursday, due to a provision in the health care overhaul which makes it illegal to deny coverage to minors with pre-existing conditions. Because coverage cannot be denied, such a prohibition creates a perverse incentive for parents to delay purchasing insurance until their children are actually sick or injured.

A child might fall and break their arm, and their parents could purchase insurance while sitting in the waiting area of the emergency room, then call up and cancel the policy in a week after the bills had been paid. At presents rates, this virtually guarantees that the insurer will lose money, giving them no choice but to raise rates massively or stop offering policies. They have chosen the latter.

The would be cognoscenti of the left have already come out to denounce the decision as “abandoning sick children”, while conveniently ignoring the fact that all three carriers have said that they will continue to honor existing child only policies, and that parents can still obtain coverage for their children under a family policy. Of course that will not calm them, because all of this outrage is feigned.

The Obama regime has long made it clear that their ultimate goal is a single payer universal health care system, like that of Britain’s National Health care Service. When they encountered stronger resistance to the idea than expected from the American people, they passed the current half loaf version of the health care overhaul as an end run. It contains several provisions that will cause insurers to either cut back coverage, raise premiums, or simply go out of business; including an identical pre-existing conditions mandate covering adults that takes effect in 2014. Whatever happens the left gets much needed leverage to make a second push for a subsidized public option, to finish off an insurers left standing.

In casting your vote this November keep in mind that the one and only chance we have for saving the private insurance industry, and maintaining choice in our health care, is to stop this march to socialized medicine by repealing Obamacare.

Tax Hikes Threaten Your Nest Egg

2010-09-22T20:31:00.000-05:00

With 100 days until what could be the single largest tax increase in the history of the United States, debate over the economic impact centers primarily around the effect of an income tax increase on small business owners. But this ignores another hike likely to deprive small business owners of an important source of capital, and change the face of private investment: the capital gains tax.

January 1st of next year, the capital gains tax will rise from 15 to 20 percent. This alone is a substantial increase, but provisions of Obamacare will impose an additional 3.9 percent payroll tax on investment income, beginning in 2013. That is a 2 year increase of more than 59 percent.

That is not the worst part, which is that the capital gains tax is not indexed for inflation. That means that you could end up paying 23.9 percent tax on gains you never had. Say that in the year 2000 you invested $1000 dollars into a mutual fund listed in the Standard and Poor's 500 index.

$1000

Assuming that your fund shows average performance, it will have lost value slightly, because the SP 500 is down .95 percent over the last 10 years.

$990.50

But because over the same period of time inflation has been about 27 percent, though the value of your investment has decreased, the dollar amount of your investment has increased.

$1257.93

As far as the IRS is concerned, by selling your shares of the mutual fund, you have realized a capital gain of $257.93, which they would then tax.

$257.93 – 15% tax = $219.24

So now you have not lost .95 percent, you have lost 3.99 percent. Even assuming you had realized a healthier gain of say 18 percent, the amount the SP 500 gained in the 90’s, your return would still be just 12 percent after adjusting for inflation and the current rate of taxation. At the higher 2013 rate, your gain is reduced to just 4 percent. At 4 percent, where is the incentive to private investors?

All of this math is irrelevant, because the capital gains tax is an amoral form of double taxation. Assets that are subject to taxation as a result of capital appreciation are those that are purchased with after-tax funds. As the investor has already been taxed on them once, they should not be subject to additional taxation because they chose to make their money work for them, rather than allowing it to sit idle.

Take the time to contact your elected officials, and ask them what their stance is on repealing the capital gains tax.

Don't Ask. Don't Tell. Don't Vote Democrat.

2010-09-21T22:35:00.001-05:00

In what may be their most cynical moment of cowardice all year, Senate Democrats today sold out the future of gay servicemen and women in an act of partisan political maneuvering.

The Senators failed to assemble the required 60 votes needed to break a filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act, which contained a provision for the repeal of the national "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy governing United States military personnel. First enacted in 1993, the policy allows gays to serve in the armed forces, provided they do not disclose their sexual preference. Those who do can be discharged, and as many as 14,000 service members have faced involuntarily separations as a result.

As Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) filibuster was based on opposition to the repeal, Democrats would like it if you inferred that Republicans failed to break it because they held the same opposition. But you would be wrong. Also attached to the Defense Authorizations Act was a provision to pass Senate majority leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) controversial DREAM Act, which would provide amnesty for an estimated 2 million illegal aliens, forcing even moderate Republicans who would favor a repeal of DADT to vote no. Democrats now believe that they have two talking points to polarize the gay and Hispanic votes in November.

I would not be so sure. Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the leading organization in the fight to repeal DADT; the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said this:

“Today’s Senate vote was a frustrating blow to repeal this horrible law. We lost because of the political maneuvering dictated by the mid-term elections."

As a combat veteran of the Iraq war, I feel deeply ashamed that the fate of the armed forces is still being used as a political tool. When these men and women took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, they were pledging their lives to a document which makes no reference to sexual orientation; a document which guarantees their full and equal right to serve their country as American patriots. Contact Senator Reid and tell him that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" deserves its own stand alone bill, free of political manipulations, and able to provide full accountability.

Hanging Out My Shingle

2010-09-20T15:25:00.000-05:00

Entrepreneurship is the most essentially American of qualities.

It is that propensity to risk it all for a chance at something better that caused men to recognize opportunity in the new world, and leave the relative security of their old lives behind. It is optimism in its raw form, founded not on hope but on determination, and a powerful belief in oneself.

I have had the privilege over the last five months of working with a great group of entrepreneurs that have given me the platform to take The Warning's message to the next level. Naturally some of their enthusiasm has rubbed off on me.

I know from experience how difficult it can be trying to get a new blog or website off of the ground. It takes large amounts of quality content to gain any traction, and the demands of producing it in a timely fashion cause most people to quit after just a few months. I went through periods where I knew that I should be posting, but I did not have the time or the inspiration, and wished that I had someone to help me.

I can help you.

Whatever your niche or budget, I will write copy that gets you noticed and work with you to build a base of content that keeps users on your site. Contact me to give your project a running start.

Also, several readers have asked about the release of my upcoming eBook "The Obama Conspiracy", it is projected to release Tuesday, November 2nd. Remember that if you receive my email newsletter, you will get a copy free of charge. So sign up now.

There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

2010-09-16T17:11:00.000-05:00

When census figures are released next week, demographers expect them to show that 1 in 7 Americans lived in poverty in 2009; an increase driven partially by high government expenditures on social welfare programs, that have created a perverse incentive for individuals to accept a lower standard of living in order to avoid work.

While all but the far progressive reaches of the left agree that increasing budget deficits, are sending our national debt spiraling out of control; the dialogue in Washington has thus far been centered around efforts to increase revenue, not to cut spending. Democrats have made it clear they intend to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the top 2% of earners, touting the “savings” government will realize in doing so.

First and foremost, calling an increase a revenue a saving implies that the money belonged to the government in the first place, it did not. Government does not spend money on tax cuts, it chooses to take less of what does not belong to it. Second, if Democrats are so concerned about the possibility of “spending” $630 billion dollars on a tax cut for high earners, why are they not concerned about the more than $2 trillion dollars forgone by extending the middle class tax cut?

1 in 6 Americans receive federal assistance, nearly half of all Americans live in a household that receives benefits. That is the highest it has ever been in the history of our nation. Yet at the same time that more people are on the dole than ever, 45% will not pay any federal income taxes this year, and 13% of households will not pay any payroll taxes. Market research shows that as the price of something drops, the demand will increase. As more of the country now has the perception that the generous level of social services available are a free ride, more people than ever are making the conscious choice to live off of the system.

But it is not free. Entitlements are going to bankrupt the United States. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone will consume 100% of tax revenue at 18.2% of GDP by 2052. Soon we will not be able to raise taxes enough to meet these unfunded liabilities. The choice is simple, we must address spending, or forfeit our nation to insolvency.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.8

A Majority Is No Proof Of Justice

2010-09-14T21:06:00.000-05:00

A government that regards populism more highly than the rule of law, has no limits, and the people living under it have no protections.

The Holocaust is widely acknowledged as the standard by which human atrocity is measured. Lead by Adolph Hitler, the National Socialist German Workers' Party and its collaborators conducted a systematic state-sponsored genocide of 6 million Jews living in Europe.

What most people fail to realize is that Hitler was not elected by the people, nor did he seize the government through force of arms. He was a presidential appointee; and gained absolute power over Germany through a combination of guile, planning, and superior knowledge of parliamentary procedure.

Once appointed chancellor, operatives within the the Nazi party alerted Hitler to a plot by communist revolutionaries to commit acts of terrorism throughout the country; about which, he did nothing. Hitler knew that in a time of national emergency, the people would cry out for protection, and be willing to sacrifice their liberties to obtain it. Following the Reichstag fire Hitler called for a vote of the congress, and received 441 of 525 votes, giving him the two-thirds majority needed to suspend the constitution and all civil liberties. It was all "legal".

He did not begin constructing gas chambers right away of course. He knew that if he changed things too quickly, the people would revolt. He began with writing newspaper editorials attempting to tie Jews to terrorist elements, making them scapegoats for one national problem after another. It was a gradual process. He could have been stopped, in those early days, if only Jews had resisted. But soon it was too late, as he had the full force of popular sentiment behind him.

When outnumbered, never forget that your rights are granted to you by natural law, not government. They are not subject to a vote. Better to die fighting for them, than to die for having let them go without a fight.

Obama Aims To Destroy More American Jobs

2010-09-13T21:31:00.000-05:00

The Obama regime's steadfast refusal to entertain tax cut extensions for high income earners sends a clear message that progressives are holding economic recovery hostage to their political agenda.

Democratic water carriers have claimed that letting the top two Federal income tax rates expire would only affect 2-3 percent of businesses, but a little fact checking by The Tax Foundation revealed that more than one-third of the projected revenue increase would come from business income. Business owners will shoulder 39 percent of the estimated $630 billion tax increase, resulting in them paying an additional $246 billion in taxes on their businesses over the next 10 years.

While we are at it, just where did that 3 percent figure come from anyway? Not surprisingly, like so much of the shady math in Washington, this one originated in Speaker Pelosi's Office:

At least 97 percent of small businesses would not pay a penny more due to letting these upper-income tax rates expire for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

That figure sounds emphatic, and she would love nothing more than for you to take it at face value. In this case, Democrats are defining "small businesses" as anyone who filed a tax return with income listed under schedule C, to include the person who sold their old computer on eBay or sells $10 worth of Avon to their neighbor every month. While this might qualify them as a small business in the eyes of the IRS they are not organized as such, and have very little chance of finding themselves in the top 2 percent of earners. Of course, they have very little chance of creating jobs either.

Looking at pre-recession (2007) IRS data shows that of net income coming out of small businesses, 48 percent went to households earning more than $200,000 a year, and would be subject to the Democrat's tax hike. Research shows a high correlation between the marginal tax rate and patterns of activity and investment in small business. Estimates are that increasing the top rate from 35 percent to 40 percent, would create a reduction of gross receipts of 7 percent in business owners affected by the increase. That translates directly into less hiring, and fewer jobs.

The Commander-in-Thief is fueling class warfare to further his own political aims, it is weakening our economy, and dividing America against itself. Contact your elected officials and make it clear that you are in charge, and that there will be consequences should they choose to raise taxes in a recession.

Where were you?

2010-09-11T01:22:00.001-05:00

There are only three moments in my lifetime that I can remember exactly where I was and what I was doing.

When my son was born. I remember the panicked 100 mph trip to the hospital, and how terrified and captivated I felt the first time I held him.

My wedding day. I remember a warm August morning, and how beautiful she looked. I was so choked up that it was hard to get through my vows. Our reception was a brunch.

September the 11th, 2001.

It was a Tuesday. I was attending Advanced Individual Training at Fort Leonard Wood Missouri, to be a heavy construction equipment operator with the Iowa Army National Guard. We were in the road grader phase, and I was driving my grader toward the training field, wondering how I was ever going to master something with 10 levers and a steering wheel. One of our instructors came running out, waving his arms, and told us to park our graders. Not back in line. Where they were.

I looked down at my watch, it was 5 minutes to 10. It was too early to stop. I immediately felt as though we were in trouble. Maybe someone had forgotten to secure their wall locker, or been caught with chewing tobacco. My mind raced with all of the punishments we would probably receive. I parked my machine, and jumped down from the cab, double timing it the quarter mile to the classroom.

When I walked in, half of the class had already beaten me, and taken their seats. I sat down without having to be told. At the front of the room was a television on a rolling metal cart. It was tuned to NBC, and by this time, both towers were in flames. I do not remember which one, but a male anchor was explaining that they had believed the attack just an accident until the second plane had hit minutes before.

They replayed both planes hitting, and I remember thinking how fake it had looked. I thought that they had to be playing some kind of practical joke on us. Then the first tower fell. It was not long, less than a half hour, until the second fell. We all sat in stunned silence, not knowing quite what to say. I just knew that war was upon us.

Where were you on the morning of September the 11th? Please share you stories for all to see in the comments section below.

Size Matters

2010-09-10T20:15:00.001-05:00

Of all of the misconceptions held about Libertarianism, the most commonly repeated is that it seeks to abolish government.

While this is true for a segment of the movement, the majority object not so much to the idea of government, as to the vast sway it holds over our lives. We seek to maximize individual liberty, and that in turn necessitates that we minimize the role of the state by shrinking the size and power of government. Liberty is the highest moral imperative, but small government brings with it an important secondary benefit.

It is sustainable.

In less than two years under the Obama regime, $2.5260 trillion has been added to the national debt. That is more than the total of debt accumulated during the terms of America's first forty presidents. What is worse is that as bloated as our government has become, its growth is accelerating. Every progressive proposal to lower the debt through increased taxation ignores one important fact: the rate of growth in government spending exceeds the rate of growth of the economy. That was true even prior to the current recession. If that fact does not change, the United States will face insolvency at a point in the near future.

It is the lesson of Rome.

Rome vested absolute power in its emperor, and a small group of senators. It constructed and maintained a network of public of roads and aqueducts, funded armies to garrison the empire and fight wars on several fronts, and provided free food to the poor in Rome and Constantinople. The empire raised taxes on its citizen again and again, but spent itself out of existence.

The founders were nothing if not students of history, and had learned from it. In establishing our constitutional republic they provided us simple government and formidable checks upon growth, and had the founding documents been obeyed, we would not be facing Rome's fate today.

So drop Obama a line to tell him, it is not the size of the government, but how you use it.

Marginal Utility And Social Welfare

2010-09-08T21:09:00.000-05:00

Attempts by government at economic intervention generally fail due to one faulty precept; misunderstanding of the nature of profit and loss.

For all the efforts of the planners, the regulators and the legislators, the material abundance that the United States enjoys is not the work of a central authority. Ours is a great nation because of private enterprise, because of the efforts of individuals, all pursuing their own separate interests within the framework of a profit and loss system. Where the planners go wrong is in viewing wealth as though it were a fixed thing, a pie from which everyone must take a slice, and in believing that if one person benefits it must be from injury to another.

This is at the core of most economic fallacies.

The amount of wealth in the economy is elastic, and value varies from person to person. People do not determine the amount of satisfaction they get out of a good or service objectively. They decide it on the margin. This concept of “marginal utility” is used to refer to the amount of utility gained or lost, from an increase or decrease in the consumption of a good or service. Thus it is entirely possible for two people to benefit from a transaction, by exchanging something they value less and the other person values more. This is what is known as a “mutually beneficial exchange”.

I will give you an example. I stroll into a Starbucks one morning on four hours sleep. I am thinking about ordering a tall Café Americano and I know that the materials and labor to make it probably cost less than a dollar. But at this point I am very tired, so after a moment of reflection, I decide that the boost of alertness I expect to receive is more useful to me than the three dollars they want to charge me for it. I place my order. Now Starbucks has already examined the fact that they have one heck of a lot of coffee on hand, and they know that having my three dollars is more useful to them than having the coffee in stock. They sell me a cup of coffee, and both parties to the transaction “profit”, by increasing the marginal utility of their holdings. A mutually beneficial exchange has just occurred.

What about loss? Because people do not determine value objectively, they sometimes make errors in judgment, and consent to exchanges that result in a net loss of utility. Profit is the result of good decision making; loss is the result of poor decision making. Generally people are motivated by rational self-interest, the fact that it takes place at all is sufficient evidence that both parties expect to benefit from it.

There is one notable exception: when the exchange is not voluntary.

If a mugger holds me up at gunpoint and demands my wallet, I may make some subconscious calculation weighing the marginal utility of my life vs. my money before I hand it over. But when I finally do it does not mean that a voluntary exchange took place. Once a threat of violence is made, that is no longer a possibility.

Similarly, when government seeks to confiscate my wealth and redistribute it, I have no reasonable expectation that I will benefit. Government uses its legal monopoly on force to coerce me. I must comply with the tax code under threat of violence and imprisonment. Government chooses a gain in social utility over a decrease in my individual utility, based on the fixed pie assumption that if I have material wealth, it must have come at the expense of those with less.

I think I would rather have the mugger, on the whole. Where I live, the chances of being robbed by a mugger are mathematically minute; the chance of being robbed by my government? 100 percent.