Captial Gains for Dummiecrats

Let's make this so simple even Joe Biden can understand it.

You're a hardworking waitress/bus driver/ditch digger/lawyer/doctor. You save your heavily taxed, hard-earned money, trying to get ahead. You don't spend it all on computer games, beer or rock concerts. One day, you have saved enough that you say to yourself, "I have been working hard for money all these years. It's about time my money started to work for me."

You decide to invest your hard-earned money in your brother-in-law's wind-powered solar panel factory. Unfortunately, he goes broke. There goes your money. Don't go crying to President Obama: You built that, not him.

You're still an honest, conscientious, hard-working stiff. You deny yourself weekly trips to the movies and fancy clothes. You scrape together another nest egg. You invest in your friend's solar-powered wind vane making plant. Unfortunately, it also goes bankrupt, and your savings are wiped out again. Don't go crying to President Obama; you built that, not him.

You're not the type to give up when faced with failure. Surely, the third time's the charm. Again you save your money until you have enough to invest. This time, you invest in your brother Sam's widget-making enterprise. Eureka! This time you hit it big. Widgets are just the thing, the latest craze. Sam has to hire 150 workers to produce the hot items. You're raking in money hand over fist. Time to celebrate!

Not so fast, you rich fat cat. You didn't build that. Didn't you have to drive on Uncle Obama's roads that he built just for you? Better fork over 15 percent of your ill-gotten gains or visit Uncle Obama's prisons.

That, Mr. Biden, is capital gains. The rate is not 14 or 15 percent, as you dishonestly keep harping. All that money was already taxed at the regular income rate, depending on your income level. You save it up and invest it, and anything you earn is taxed again -- double taxation; anywhere upwards of 35 percent. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the regular income tax rate. And, as we have seen, if you invest it and lose it, tough luck.

The reason capital gains earnings are taxed at a lower rate is twofold. One: It has already been taxed once, at the regular rate. And Two: the lower rate encourages risk taking, which grows the economy and provides jobs, which is good. That is capitalism the way it's supposed to work.

OK. That covers the Joe Bidens of the world. Now we can talk as adults. In the real world of investing, only a few cases resemble my illustrations. More often it is people selling a second house or rental property, or even more likely, rich people like Mitt Romney buying and selling businesses and stock portfolios. But however you slice it, capital gains income has already been taxed at the regular rate, then earnings are taxed again at the 15 percent level. And when investments succeed, the economy succeeds.

Where it gets worth having a serious debate is when an individual's income comes almost exclusively from capital gains. It is still hard-won capital, but it puts a person in a different league from someone who has two houses and wants to sell one. It might be fair to consider a "progressive" capital gains tax for people whose primary source of income comes from capital gains. But the Fair Tax would be even -- fairer.

Don't like your choices?

-->

Do you trust Mitt Romney's business sense to bring us back from the brink of economic disaster, but don't like his conservative views on abortion and gay rights?

Do you like Barack Obama's liberal social policies, but don't like his deliriously dangerous deficit spending?

Are you tired of seeing rabid crowds of protesters tear down and burn the American flag? Are you tired of giving foreign aid to countries where our ambassadors are murdered? Are you tired of Americans dying in Afghanistan?

Do you actually care about the U.S. Constitution?

Consider Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President of the United States.

Johnson is to the right of Romney on economics, and to the left of Obama on social issues and foreign affairs.

Johnson would slash federal spending, shrink government, stop the wars, get the government out of the bedroom and the troops out of Afghanistan. He would allow military action only as provided under the Constitution. He would close some Mideast embassies and bring our officials home. He would concentrate on America's infrastructure, not nation building in foreign lands.

He would end the disastrous war on drugs (which has been as counter-productive as Prohibition in the 1920s) and push to legalize and control marijuana, just as alcohol is now controlled, crippling the drug cartels, ending the violence on the Mexican border, and diminishing illegal immigration.

Johnson is a fiscal conservative. He would abolish the IRS, the income tax, the payroll tax, the capital gains tax, the death tax, etc. etc. and replace it with the Fair Tax, which allows more freedom, because it taxes only what you spend, not what you earn. He would demand transparency from the Federal Reserve, and stop it from printing money willy-nilly, devaluing the U.S. dollar. Johnson would reassess the role of government, stop runaway spending, balance the budget now and stop government from interfering in areas where it has no business and no Constitutional authority.

He supports the Second Amendment rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

ENERGY: Johnson would stop government subsidies to private enterprise, but encourage entrepreneurs to develop domestic energy sources under commonsense environmental regulations.

IMMIGRATION: Johnson would encourage legal immigration and a work visa for foreigners. He would support a two-year grace period for illegals to get work permits, and establish a path to citizenship for such individuals.

FOREIGN POLICY: No foreign nation building; no wars except as allowed under the Constitution. No torture; due process for detainees at Guantanamo.

HEALTH CARE: Repeal the health care reform law and allow the free market to provide health care. Reform Medicare and Medicaid. Federal assistance for those who cannot afford essential health care should be provided through simple block grants to the states, where innovation will create efficiencies and better care at less cost.

INTERNET: No federal regulation or taxation.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: Repeal the Patriot Act. Government must be neutral on personal beliefs. No restrictions on gay marriage.

ABORTION: Life is precious. A woman should have the right to make decisions up to the point of viability of the fetus.

EDUCATION: Turn education over to the local level. End the Department of Education.

If those ideas sound like something you could support, consider voting for Gary Johnson. Don't want to "waste" your vote? If enough citizens care about the Constitution, it could affect the future course of the nation, as the two major political parties will have to pay attention. Consider this quote from John Quincy Adams: "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

Clinton and the Pilgrims

In President Clinton's long defense of President Obama's failure to improve the economy, he sharply distilled the truth of today's political scene in one sentence: Democrats favor the state (Marx would call it the "collective"), while Republicans favor the individual.
Bravo, Mr. President! I have rarely heard a more succinct, accurate portrayal of the political landscape. Of course, Clinton used other words, but the meaning is the same. He said something like, "Republicans think it's every man for himself, whereas Democrats say we're all in this together."
Which idea works best?
Well, when the Pilgrims first landed at Plymouth Rock, they tried the "We're all in this together" approach. The fields were owned in common, and everyone worked the fields and shared in the harvest. Result? Starvation. Realizing their mistake, the Pilgrims allotted fields to individuals who worked their own land, harvested and marketed their own crops. Result? Plenty.

Supreme fraud

The Supreme Court has aided and abetted congressional Democrats in perpetrating a massive fraud on the American public.

Obamacare, jammed down the peoples' throats with more dishonesty than any bill has ever been jammed, has been upheld by the Court using logic just as twisted as the machinations of Nancy Pelosi, who said, "You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people." In other words, the former speaker of the House didn't care about the rules of the House or legality. She would pass that bill, come hell or high water.

Sponsors of the bill, from the president on down, said it was not a tax. They sold the bill to the American people as an individual mandate with fees for those who refused to buy health insurance. For the first time ever, the federal government would force citizens to buy something, whether they wanted it or not. To anybody with half a brain, that was clearly unconstitutional.

Four Supreme Court justices thought it was! They said that everybody needs health care at one time or another, so they were "engaged in commerce." And the government has the power to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause. But just because you may need health care does not mean you have to buy health insurance. Ever heard of paying for a doctor on your own? People do it all the time.

Well, everybody needs food at one time or another. So, using their "logic," citizens could be forced to buy any certain kind of food the government mandates.

Four other justices found that the individual mandate, and thus the entire health care reform bill, was unconstitutional. They found that the government can regulate commerce, but not force people to engage in commerce.

The remaining justice, Chief Justice John Roberts, did a song and dance. He declared the individual mandate was not justified under the Commerce Clause (whew! what a relief!). But then he did his sidestep, and declared that the bill really represented a tax, even though President Obama and all his minions promised that it wasn't.

In a truly remarkable bit of doublespeak, Roberts said the bill was not a tax for purposes of jurisdiction (taxes cannot be ruled on until they take effect), but was a tax for purposes of justification (Congress has the power to pass taxes; boy! Do they ever!). So it was not a tax, yet it is a tax, according to the Chief Justice. 

He performed a classic shell game: Now it's not a tax; look fast! Too late! Now it's a tax. Too bad, try your luck again.

Liberal pundits praised the historically conservative Roberts, saying he "salvaged the legitimacy" of the Court; he was afraid to make the Court look politically partisan.

Nope. He just made it look silly and dishonest.

Make them all play football

I recently read a liberal blog that was positively stunning in its stupidity.
Commenting on the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's health care reform bill, the blogger wrote that, at the time the health care reform bill was being pushed through Congress, it was "conventional wisdom" that the individual mandate would easily pass constitutional muster.
Really? Maybe within the hermetically sealed liberal bubble that this blogger seems to live in, but many regular folks, myself included, immediately raised the question about the legality of the federal government ordering citizens to buy something they don't want.
The blogger went so far as to say it was "laughable" to think that the health care reform bill could be considered unconstitutional.
To quote Nancy Pelosi, "Are you serious?"
Expanding on his defense of Obamacare, the blogger genuflected at the holy shrine of the Commerce Clause, and made fun of the extreme conservative position, that there is a fundamental difference between regulating activity and inactivity in the marketplace.
The infamous Commerce Clause, which has been used and abused to justify all sorts of government intervention in our daily lives, was intended to regulate trade among the states. The intent was to head off trade wars between neighboring states. West Virginia, for example, could not place a tariff on oil imported from Pennsylvania.
The Commerce Clause was never intended to force individuals to make shopping decisions.
Mr. Blogger: You say the distinction between activity and inactivity in the marketplace is weak and fallacious? Are you serious? Are you telling me there's no difference between a referee presiding over a football game and ordering everyone in the stands to play?

It's a no-brainer

It's a no-brainer.
All you have to do is ask the question: "Does the federal government have the authority to force citizens to purchase a product they don't want?" The question answers itself: "Are you serious?"
How can anyone answer that question with "yes"?
If the government can order you to buy health insurance, where does it stop?
Sales of government-run and partially owned GM are down, plus the government wants to push a green agenda. No problem, dial up Congress. Make every family buy a Volt.
Obesity increases medical costs, affecting the wallet of every American. No problem, make everyone eat broccoli and join fitness gyms (assign police to make sure they do their exercises!). Make it a felony to possess a quarter-pounder.
And yet, there are people who, with a straight face, will tell you that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is "clearly within Congress' authority under the commerce clause;" that it's not even a close call(!).
The commerce clause, which is being abused to approve anything big government wants, was originally designed to regulate commerce among the states (so that one state couldn't place a tariff on goods from another state), and between the USA and foreign governments and Indians. It was never intended to force commerce.
The government, speaking out of both sides of its mouth, now tries to say the law is really a tax. It's not. If Congress had tried to pass it as a tax, it never would have succeeded. Supporters of the law repeatedly said it was not a tax.
Beyond the obvious fact that the health reform act is unconstitutional, look at the way it has been implemented: thousands of waivers. What happened to equal protection under the law? How can you have a law that some citizens are required to obey, yet other citizens are not?
I will be very disappointed in the Supreme Court, if it fails to rule 9-0 that the law is unconstitutional.
Sadly, I expect to be very disappointed.

And the winner is...

The results are in. And the winner for best comic performance of the year is .... Davis Guggenheim! for his appearance with CNN's Piers Morgan.
     Guggenheim, the filmmaker who directed Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," has now put forward a "documentary" about President Obama entitled "The Road We've Traveled." The piece is a one-sided, syrupy love fest, not an unbiased, balanced report. Morgan pressed Guggenheim about the extremely subjective nature of the ad and Guggenheim's rose-tinted assessment of the president. He asked Guggenheim if he saw anything at all "negative" about Obama.
     Guggenheim looked taken aback that anyone should ask such an outlandish question. He appeared quizzical, shook his head slowly and, straight-faced and without a hint of irony said he honestly couldn't find any fault with the president. Not one.
     If you can believe it, Guggenheim apparently has no problem with:
     1. Killing American citizens without a trial.
     2. Governing against the will of the people (forcing citizens to buy health insurance over their objections).
     3. Selling automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords.
     4. Refusing to enforce U.S. immigration laws.
     5. Suing states that do try to enforce U.S. immigration laws.
     6. Doing everything possible to hinder domestic oil, gas and coal production, causing energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket."
     7. Instead boosting foreign oil production, notably Brazil's.
     8. "Investing" in green energy boondoggles like Solyndra.
     9. $5 a gallon gas.
     Critics on both sides of the political spectrum criticized Morgan's questions as either too soft or too harsh. I thought he did a good job pressing Guggenheim without being obnoxious. Guggenheim, on the other hand, looked plain silly, like a giggling teen-age girl swooning over a rock star.
    The fluff piece places much emphasis on Obama's "bold" decision to take out Osama bin Laden. That was a tough decision? Let's see: Should we try to kill the terrorist mastermind who killed 3,000 innocent Americans? Or should we let him slide? Duh! Vice President Joe Biden's comments on the incident were especially offensive. The decision was so momentous, Biden said, because it could have spelled the end of Obama's presidency(!) No mention of putting the lives of the Navy Seals on the line -- Biden's main concern (and perhaps Obama's?) was Obama's political future.
    Guggenheim missed his calling. He should be on the other side of the camera. He is an understated comic genius a la Charlie Chaplin.
 

Ron Paul won debate

Ron Paul was the clear winner in the Arizona debate. He won it with one word: "Consistent." All the candidates were asked to describe themselves using only one word.
     Paul backed Santorum into several corners throughout the debate. Santorum apologized on several occasions for his voting record. He admitted voting for "No Child Left Behind," among other bills, against his better judgement. In trying to explain, Santorum mumbled, "Politics is a team sport...you have to go along to get along."
     That is something Ron Paul has never done. He is famous for never voting for a bill that he views as unconstitutional (and most of the bills that Congress passes are unconstitutional).
     If more politicians took their oaths to defend the Constitution more seriously, we would be much better off.

What's wrong with Mexico?

With all the ink and air time the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico has received, almost no time has been spent asking the right question -- namely, "What is wrong with Mexico?"

    The United States has been a beacon of hope for immigrants for hundreds of years. There's no mystery why people want to come here. But illegal immigrants from Canada are not swamping our northern border. Why are Canadians content to follow our immigration laws and Mexicans are not?

    Could it be that Canadians are naturally more law-abiding? More likely, there's something rotten in the state of Mexico. The problem is complicated, but at the same time, it's obvious. There is rampant corruption in Mexico, drug wars and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, with resulting poverty for the masses. Who can blame Mexicans for wanting to escape grinding poverty and improve their lives?

    The money that illegal Mexican immigrants send back home to their families has become an important part of the Mexican economy -- and at the same time, it lessens the pressure on Mexican officials to reform their society to make the acquisition of wealth more accessible to the average Mexican.

    But understanding their motives doesn't mean we can allow our laws to be flouted and our country inundated with illegals. -- And we shouldn't allow leftists, from the president on down, to mis-characterize opposition to illegal immigration as racism. What part of "illegal" don't they understand? They falsely accuse conservatives opposed to illegal immigration of being opposed to all immigrants.

    I am not concerned that the influx of Latino immigrants will degrade our anglo-saxon culture. We are a nation of immigrants. Every significant wave of newcomers has been met with opposition and even bigotry. My grandfather remembered being called a "dirty Swede," even though his family happened to be Danish. Irish and Italian immigrants have also faced their share of insults.

    There aren't any truly "native" Americans. Even the earliest American Indian tribes migrated from Asia via a land bridge. The first white Europeans who came across the sea were all uninvited immigrants, who pushed aside the Indians as they conquered the New World. The problem with accepting more illegal immigrants now is simply a matter of numbers and economy. The United States has matured and has to set limits on immigration, as every other nation on earth does.

    I have personal experience with the immigration process. I met my Chinese-Indonesian wife in Germany. We applied for a fiance visa so we could be married in the U.S. My wife became an American citizen the legal way. She had to study and thus gained a better knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. government than most native-born American voters.

    To all legal immigrants, I say, "Welcome to the best country in the world. We're glad to have you as a contributing member of society." To Mexicans so anxious to leave their homeland that they are willing to break the immigration laws of the United States instead of waiting their turn, I ask, "If things are that bad, why don't you consider fighting to make a better life for yourselves in your own country?" 

Too many voters

    There's too much voting going on out there.
    Most politicians and pundits, if they comment on voter turnout, hope for a large one, or bemoan low voter turnout. I maintain there are too many voters already – at least too many voters who haven't a clue.
    Our Founding Fathers knew that the future of the Republic was far too fragile to be left in the hands of just anybody. Voting was restricted to landowners. The assumption was that landowners would be men of means and some intelligence, and would likely be community leaders. The founders were deeply suspicious of pure democracy, which they feared would descend into chaos. That is why they wisely fashioned a constitutional republic.
    Historically, it has been left up to the states to determine, within certain bounds, who may vote and who may not. However, democratic urgings led to extending voting rights to more and more segments of society – not necessarily a good thing, if the voters don't know anything about the U.S. Constitution.
    I know what I'm advocating is heresy. If you even hint that you want to limit voting rights, the immediate reaction is: You're a racist. And with good cause: For decades, before and after the Civil War, whites, especially in the South, sought through devious techniques (poll tax, tests, etc.) to deny voting rights to blacks.
    Even today, there is a knee-jerk reaction to attempts to require voter identification. Asking voters to prove who they are is considered a new form of racism. You need a photo ID to drive a car or check out a book from a library, but you don't need one to vote? To maintain trust in the Republic, citizens need to know that elections are free from fraud.
    But beyond proving who you are, I think voters should need to prove that they know something about the country they live in and the political system that governs it. Otherwise, what are they voting for?
    My wife is a naturalized American citizen. In order to become an American citizen, she had to study materials provided by the federal government. It was a strict, but not an onerous requirement. Any elementary school student could pass the test. Why shouldn't voters be required to take a similar course, to appreciate and understand their form of government?
    In order to get a driver's license, applicants must pass a test of the rules of the road. Would you want people driving dangerous machines at highway speeds who knew nothing about what they were doing?
    The vote is more crucial, and potentially more dangerous to the fabric of the country, than a driver's license.