Jonah Goldberg on taxes

Catching up on my reading I reviewed Jonah Goldberg's article over at National Review called "Uncle Sam's Long Arm". Great reading as we get ready for tax season (we meaning all those Americans who earn $ to keep this government moving). Goldberg weighs in on withholding and argues that we should get rid of it.

"Get rid of withholding, a World War II measure intended as a temporary policy to pay for the war instead of putting it on a credit card. Even a system of mandatory quarterly payments for those who are self-employed is no good. Why is Uncle Sam entitled to an interest-free loan just because it makes things more convenient for him? If the feds want to borrow money from citizens, they should sell bonds."

He is absolutely right. I have family who think of withholding as some sort of savings plan and hate the notion that 15 April will come to pass and they will (gasp!) owe money. Instead we all do our taxes and claim a "refund". A refund?? It is our money that we overpaid in taxes and are asking the Government to give back to us. I would argue that there should be no withholding and instead every tax payer has to write a check to the US Government on 15 April for the amount he or she is taxed. Can you imagine having to write a check for the total amount of taxes each year? I would bet we would demand more accountability from the Government rather than bailouts, money to Europe and the various earmarks that somehow get stuck in the budgets each year (even in the era of Obama and his pledge of no earmarks or pork).

Looking at the 2009 tax rates (source is here) imagine a successful family making $150000. Not a bad salary right? That family's tax bill is $68637 (estimated) using the formula 28% on the income between $137,050 and $208,850; plus $26,637.50 (married filing jointly). That is almost a tax rate of 46%. Imagine this same family writing a check for $68K every April. No wonder the government wants withholding to continue.

Goldberg also notes amusingly, the length of time between tax day and Election Day.

"Notice how tax day and Election Day are conspicuously far apart? And note all the holidays involving gifts, booze, and sleep-inducing meals (turkey good . . . losing . . . consciousness) interspersed between the two occasions? Mightn't this be to encourage forgetfulness and reduce buyer's remorse? Of course, as they used to say in the old Time-Life Mysteries of the Unknown commercials, this is "dismissed as coincidence.""

Can you imagine having elections the day folks write the check for their taxes? What changes might that engender?

Well these are amusing thoughts…but I have to go back and work on my taxes. Looks like I am due a refund this year.

 

Outspoken Roman

How goes the world this day (21 March 2009)?

As we wake up and go off and face our day, it is beneficial to consider the state of the world. Three stories from Fox News show us that the world continues to be at a tilt toward craziness and that people should always be on guard for the encroaching debauchery and moral ambivalence.

1. Fox News reports that "The parents of a seriously ill baby in Britain have said they are "deeply distressed" by a legal ruling which will allow their "only and beloved son" to die." Some quick background, these parents (unnamed in the story) have a son that has suffered brain damage and "major respiratory failue". The British appeals court have upheld a Court Ruling giving permission for the attending doctors to allow this baby to die. The doctors felt that the boy's life was "intolerable and that his disability is such that his life has little purpose" (source was from the Times Online website). So we have Courts decided (with doctors) when a child should die over the objections of the parents. I wait for the backlash from the Abortion Rights crowd as I thought the Government and Judiciary was supposed to stay out of "personal decisions" such as this. Sure, this happened in Britain but why should we think it can't happen here?
   

   
    

2. Second story – also from Fox News with the title "Alaska and Florida Consider Bans on Bestiality". Uhh, considering? I guess what is driven adopting the ban is that "a 26-year-old registered sex offender was accused of molesting a local family's pet dog". This apparently "scared" the local Alaskan community as opposed to having a registered sex offender in the town. I can't wait to hear the arguments against the ban. The Fox News story also cites a number of cases that have caused injury or death to the animal (apparently Florida has a rash of sexual assaults against goats). I guess I am wondering why the hell we need a law against this. Isn't this one of those things that folks are born knowing (thou shalt not have sex with animals)? Sort of like the law banning texting while driving. So sure – let's pass a law banning Bestiality but if we need to pass this, how about a law requiring welfare recipients to work (or attend school and maintain at least a "B") or a law that says any illegal immigrant caught by law enforcement is sent back to their country of origin. These also seem like slam dunks. I wonder where Britain stands on Bestiality?
   

   
    

3. Final story, from Bucharest, Romania, courtesy of Fox News "Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe". Romania follows France, Spain and Portugal in potentially not prosecuting consenting adults for incest. One person that supported this legal move was quoted in the story as saying "If brothers and sisters want to have fun, why should they be imprisoned? It is nobody's business what I do in my bedroom,".
   

   
    

A quick survey of the state of our world today, 21 March 2009 as this civilization teeters at the brink of abject corruption because we lack to stones to tell a segment of the population "You are wrong". What a Brave New World we are building.

Outspoken Roman

What is Deepak Chopra talking about?

Over at Yahoo in the opinion section, I made the mistake of reading Deepak Chopra's post that ran on the Huffington Post. Note I did not want to admit to reading the Huffington Post but I digress. Chopra decides to comment on the current flap involving Rush Limbaugh and President Obama. He starts off the post with this:

"When Michael Steele, the hapless chairman of the Republican Party, lost his bearings and called Rush Limbaugh's style ugly and incendiary, everyone knew it was the truth. But it was a perfect example of an inconvenient truth."

Everyone knew it was the truth? Did anyone get Newt Gingrich's opinion on this or Sean Hannity? By the way Deepak, I don't find Rush's style ugly so who is this everyone you are referring to? I guess they are the people that he associates with on a daily basis that don't involve any 'right-wingers'. Chopra continues his article making the point that Limbaugh is actually anti-moralistic as he is fueled by what makes him "pissed off" rather than being guided by any principles. Anyone who listens to Rush knows that is not the case. Rush has broken with the Republican party many times and is actually guided by core conservative principles that I would guess Deepak and his circle of friends find antiquated and odd.

Chopra notes:

"Under ordinary morality, the wretched plight of illegal immigrants, for example, must be considered along with the fact that they are breaking the law. Being poor, illiterate, and desperate, their human condition makes them more sympathetic than ruthless lawbreakers would be. But under anti-morality, if you hate immigrants because they are foreigners who don't look American enough, the argument is over."

Note what he has done in this paragraph. He starts talking about illegal immigrants and winds up knocking Limbaugh and his listeners for hating immigrants because they are foreigners and don't look American enough". Is this guy an idiot? The debate about illegal immigration was not without considering the immigrants plight but it was a discussion (at least on the radio shows that I listen to) about the rule of law, the ability of the United States to handle the influx of immigrants, the effect on the national culture and not the least of all, national security. I never heard someone rail against people for the way they looked but rather for the impact illegal immigrants posed to many facets of our country. What Chopra quickly does is instead try and tar and feather Limbaugh and crew as racists. Chopra believes, I guess, that there are no respectful arguments against anything but full amnesty for the 12, 15 or 20 million illegals regardless of the impact to our country. I guess concern for their plight outweighs everything else in Chopra's mind.

Chopra winds up his screed noting that Limbaugh doesn't feel the need to "understand…or try and accommodate their views" where the "they"could be feminists, gays, Muslins, etc. I guess we should follow Deepak's example as he truly tries to understand the conservative mind and accommodates Limbaugh's perspective. What?? You mean he doesn't practice what he preaches and instead of understanding and accommodating other people's views he just passes judgment on them? Sounds like he may be closer to Rush than he thinks. But don't worry everyone knows the truth about Deepak Chopra and what passes for his learned opinion these days.

OSROMAN

Using MS word to post to the blog

Wow – yes it has been awhile and appreciate the emails and comments since I have been gone. No, I have not been taken away by outraged socialists that can't stand an independent mind in their midst (the midst or should that be mist? – of liberal Massachusetts). Rather I have been recuperating since the November eleection and watching the most extreme power grab by a political party I have ever seen. But before I get there, first it is good to be back and am looking forward to waging into the fray again.

Hey it works - nice.

OS

Rush Limbaugh vs CNN

Campbell Brown over at CNN has issued a challenge to Rush Limbaugh to debate tax cuts with CNN's chief business correspondent, Ali Velshi. On a commentary posted to the CNN site Ms. Brown states "Mr. Limbaugh, you may well have a legitimate case to make about tax cuts and what they can do for the economy. But the histrionics and name-calling, they undermine anything constructive you might have to say."

Limbaugh called Velshi (on his website) "incompetent" and "a disservice to your business". But what Ms. Brown fails to note in her commentary is that Velshi was asked  to respond to the following quote from Rush's Op-Ed "'Tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back." Velshi responds by saying "This is not the economy that Ronald Reagan ever saw! We have not seen anything like this in our lifetime. Anybody who tells you this is how it works, is lying. We don't know how it works. We have never seen anything like this before."

Interesting that Ms Brown didn't point out that Velshi called Limbaugh a liar in her obviously holier than thou commentary on CNN's website. Maybe before Ms Brown lectures the rest of the media about histironics and name calling she should start cleaning up her "side"  first.

Outspoken Roman

Obama is avoiding divisive stands?

Yahoo News just posted an AP story about President Obama and the new tact he is following. The story's title is "Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands" (very nicely placed under the Yahoo Video banners that is entitled "Obama's order to close Guantanamo spurs debate"). But I guess the writer of the AP story can't imagine how anyone could have a problem with closing of Guantanamo and revoking "a ban on federal funding for international groups that provide or promote abortions." I don't see any controversy there.

Moreover there was scant internet ink given to Obama's admonition to the GOP to move away from folks like Rush Limbaugh (noted on this blog here). I guess I think that is a divisive stance. Also what about the racist ranting of his inaugural benediction? That isn't divisive?

The AP is in the tank for him and folks should get ready to have the world's most positive spin given to a President by the media.

The Yahoo News story stated that Obama's first couple of days was in "sharp contrast with Democrat Bill Clinton, who set the tone for an ideological presidency when he tried to overturn the ban on gays in the military. It pleased liberals, enraged conservatives and angered both the military and Congress, neither of which was consulted."

Note to Yahoo – as reported on 21 January 2009 – "Some troops unhappy about Obama pledge on gays" where the story notes that "Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, when asked whether the new administration planned to scrap the law, replied on the president's transition website: "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'yes'.""

Yeah – no divisive stance there.

As more and more of the expected leftist agenda is enforced, I am sure there will be more stories of the new tone in Washington and how these stands aren't really divisive. Where are the real journalists these days?

OS Roman

GOP at a crossroads

So instead of posting something about the inauguration (I have my thoughts – I especially loved the racist benediction by Reverend Lowry "…when white will embrace what is right". Yeah, there is a new tone in Washington and change some can believe in) I have been watching the news and the GOP struggling with the losses of the last election. In the news there have been reports of finger pointing (from Colin Powell and others) that folks like Rush Limbaugh are guiding the GOP in the wrong direction.

So Fox News has a report today entitled "Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done". Here is the gist of the story – Obama warned GOP lawmakers that "if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration" they need to basically turn off Limbaugh.

Let me be clear – this would be the death knell of the GOP. It would in effect bring one party rule to Washington leaving conservatives (social or government minded) with no real alternative. This is exactly what the Dems want by the way. They want to impose their agenda on the country with no loyal opposition to their policies. President Obama is actually encouraging GOP to abandon their base just for the opportunity to co-sign or co-sponsor legislation that their base would (probably) disagree with.

Many in the GOP leadership seem to believe that the real successful approach to politics is some "middle way", not being conservative and pushing "right thinking" policies and instead want to push a "Democrat Lite" agenda. The GOP who adopts this approach adopts a party focus that will put them right out of existence. In fact John McCain represented this sort of middle way and of course we see where that got him.

Dems are laughing at themselves thinking of how many GOP leaders actually are considering moving "leftward" and it is a reflection of the strength of their party that the Dems not once thought they had to muddle their agenda to get along with President Bush. They saw themselves as obstructing the Bush agenda not put in place to agree with it (or to support it just to "get things done").

The GOP better wake up and revitalize the base with principled opposition to the Obama agenda. Look to organizations like Heritage to help in that regard and embrace the power of talk radio like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and others to bolster the base. This isn't to say that the GOP should oppose Obama on everything (if President Obama comes out for Tax Cuts or extending the Bush Tax Cuts – by all means support it) but now is not the time to go wobbly as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to say. The GOP base will not long support a diluted party and when all the talk is done about big tents and all that, recall you don't see the Democrats talking about changing their policies. The Dems are in lock step with each other and don't countenance any dissent. For example – tell me the last time a pro life democrat spoke at the convention and then recall the numerous pro-choice candidates who speak at the GOP convention.

The GOP have been sold a bill of goods that is harmful in the long run and before they go off and crow about how they are working with the new administration they should realize the deleterious effects their placid acquiescence is visiting upon this republic.

OS Roman