Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Response to "High Tax Rates Won't Slow Growth" WSJ article by Diamond and Saez 4.23.2012

OMG! The author is a Nobel laureate! Just like Obama and Al Gore! That changes everything! Obviously MIT is not known for economics and these clowns live in the same Utopia as the first 7, now 8th Ivy League Professor, that Obama has recruited to run his economic team-and we all know how successful they’ve been. The blatant and profound lies printed in this article are so insulting; I'm shocked the WSJ published them.  “… There’s no evidence to support a case for lower growth from higher top tax rates."?  On the contrary- there is a ton of evidence, many studies and bona fide historic precedent proving that high taxes discourage growth, moreover, there is absolutely ZERO evidence proving otherwise.  Do these, double talking, Alphabet Soup, Nobel laureate Leftists truly believe we’re idiots?  Are they confusing their audience with a gathering of Obama worshipping academic ideologues?  Where are the studies to which they allude and precisely what are the parameters of these specious studies?  They brush off Arthur Laffer's fact based work, as if it proves their Utopian fantasy, when in fact it proves just the opposite.  There is no evidence? Please!  The tax policies implemented by Calvin Coolidge's during his term in office; Ronald Reagan's Tax Policies; JFK's Tax policies; the tax policy implemented during the George W Bush's Presidency, as well the deleterious tax policy changes put into law by his father, Herbert Bush;  the economic policies of post World War I Germany; Argentina in the 1970's;  Japan from 1970-2012 - all provide vivid examples, demonstrating exactly how high tax margins on what these Marxist clowns refer to as the 1%, decrease tax revenue receipts.  The scurrilous 'Sorosesque” authors of this Obama Policy promulgating, propaganda piece, incorporate some of the most common Leftist subterfuge techniques.  First, do they ever mention that 67 to 78% of their, so called, 1% are small business filing as S Corps? The same small business which create jobs, give pay increases to employees and always look to expand their businesses?  Of course these uses of revenue are trivial compared to the great things Government investments accomplish.    Next, they blather about the virtues of public investment and investing in education, as if we were asleep, the last three years, as Obama threw trillions of our tax dollars down this “Government knows best” black hole. Then they revert back to the Left’s standard specious delusion that “America did best when tax rates were 70%to 90%” after WWII.  The fact that we had a booming economy from World War II to the mid 1970’s was in spite of the fact that we had ridiculously high income tax rates which were retarding growth.  It was the fact that Japan was a cinder, Germany was ruble, England had gone bankrupt and all of Europe was lying on its back after the War.  We had zero competition for two and a half decades as a result of the Second World War.  We were the only major industrial nation, that wasn’t attacked during the Second World War and that’s why we had unprecedented economic expansion.  So it’s completely a red herring to talk about that period as the growth being the result of high taxes, it was in spite of the high taxes.  Furthermore, it was because of a historical anomaly which will never happen again.
Finally, it’s important to recognize that these Bozos, like most leftist con-men are mixing apples and oranges, they’re talking about income taxes, when the tax they’re actually talking about (IE) The Buffett Tax, is a disguised capital gains tax.  And history is clear -the reason, not just Ronald Reagan, but John Kennedy, asked for and got a reduction in the capital gains tax is that it spurs economic production and it increases the revenues received by treasury. 

Monday, October 24, 2011

ROMNEY AS PRESIDENT - Too many strikes against him: 

            It categorically impossible for someone who understands and authentically believes in conservative political theory to voluntarily take so many wrong positions.  Romney’s failure to understand Conservative Constitutional Principles is glaring.  The evidence clearly shows Romney’s abject record is unparalleled.

1)  Healthcare/RomneyCare Romney led the fight for and implemented health care reform almost identical to ObamaCare which he refuses to admit was an abomination and a step in the direction of statism-forever changing the citizen to a subject of the state. Despite the fact that RomneyCare has failed, increasing health care costs dramatically. Between 2006 and 2009, cumulative costs increased by $8,569,000,000, emergency room visits are up 7.2 percent, and premiums rose 6 percent, according to the Beacon Hill Institute.
             Romney called his beta version of ObamaCare “a model for the nation”
             RomneyCare, like ObamaCare, is based on an individual mandate, which Romney continues to defend. A presidential debate in 2008 featured the following exchange:
GIBSON: But Gov. Romney's system has mandates in Massachusetts—although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.
ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work
             Romney encouraged a broader use of government forcing individuals to make government mandated purchases, saying, “Everybody in our state has to have health insurance and that’s a model which I think has some merit more generally.”
             Romney’s plan, like ObamaCare, fines those who don’t purchase insurance that is officially approved and heavily regulated through an “exchange” and subsidizes with taxpayer dollars such purchases
             Romney said of his plan, with its individual mandate, “exchange,” and heavy subsidies: “If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.” Obama and the Democrats agreed and did so.
             Despite his previous suggestion that RomneyCare is a “model for the nation”, Romney is now trying to use the excuse that it was OK because it’s a state plan and states experiment. But it’s wrong for government at any level to violate our basic right to liberty by forcing citizens to buy a product as the individual mandate does.
             Romney Care a Job-Killer Romneycare” — has cost Massachusetts more than 18,000 jobs, according to an exclusive blockbuster study
             Romney advisers actually helped draft ObamaCare White House visitor logs obtained by NBC news revealed 3 of Romney’s healthcare advisers have about a dozen meetings with senior administration officials, including one meeting in Oval Office presided over by Obama
The facts are clear. To this day, Romney remains oblivious to conservative thought, values and first principles.
Romney: My Individual Mandate Health Care Plan Is Conservative
 Last month, on 9.29.2011 Romney says Individual Mandate is a "conservative idea", thanks Gingrich

2)  Ethanol Subsidies, Green Nonsense Romney still supports ethanol subsidies, even though by all conceivable metrics, they have failed miserably
             Romney worked to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions” in Massachusetts and got Massachusetts involved in a regional climate change pact According to Sandy Liddy Bourne of the American Legislative Exchange Council, "The Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan can be compared to a slick advertisement with no price tag. It is packaged with the same doom and gloom rhetoric of the environmental activists and commits the state government to long-term contracts for renewable energy without the benefits of a free market check-and-balance system.”
             Romney supports ethanol subsidies:  Romney makes no bones about it, he supports ethanol subsidies. “I support the subsidy of ethanol,” he told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”
             Romney goes so far as to support trade barriers on ethanol.
             Romney still supports anti- Free market Ethanol Subsidies; while even environmental conman Al Gore confesses they were a mistake, done for political gain.       Let Ethanol Subsidies Die                                                                                  
Al Gore's Ethanol Epiphany
Romney wants to increase spending “substantially” on energy research Romney also supports tax dollar energy subsidies in general, unequivocally stating in his 2008 campaign platform a need for a “dramatic” increase in “federal spending on research, development, and demonstration projects that hold promise for diversifying our energy supply.”
             In 2008, Romney told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “there’s nothing wrong with dealing with global warming.”
             In 2004, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney introduced the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan to reduce greenhouse gases. The Heartland Institute finds, “Though mostly voluntary, some provisions of the plan are mandatory and will impose economic hardship on Massachusetts citizens.”
             Romney’s plan, much like the widely rejected Kyoto Protocol states its goals as:
             SHORT-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010.
             MEDIUM-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020.
             LONG-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous threat to the climate; current science suggests this will require reductions as much as 75-85% below current levels.
3)  Cap-and-Trade Romney still believes in the Man-Made global warming hoax- an insult to anyone with scientific integrity.  Romney supports a global cap-and-trade scheme and involved Massachusetts in a regional cap-and-trade pact. Romney was caught on video in New Hampshire in 2008 having this exchange with a potential voter
And Romney still believes it Man-Made-Global Warming in 2011!
Romney won praise from global warming profiteer Al Gore for saying, "I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you're seeing.
Having pushed carbon regulations Obama could only dream of, Romney uttered this line, which sounds eerily like what Obama would say, “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment… They help us accomplish our environmental goals while protecting jobs and the economy.”
Romney joined activists outside a coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. "I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people," he said.
4)  Taxes Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts in 2003.  The Bush Tax Cuts kept unemployment below 5% for 6 years and made the average unemployment only 5.2% for Bush’s entire 2 terms.   Giving tax cuts to people without Jobs is like giving snow boots to someone lying on the beach.  It is not in the DNA of a true conservative to consistently promulgate failed liberal policies which have always made a bad situation worse.   Romney’s default proclivity to support statist, left-wing policies, is a systemic trait of elitists who are impelled to force their will on others without consideration of the consequences.  Also important is how Romney, so often incorporates Leftist word manipulation, into his messages (see #9 below). In the last debate, Romney referred to his plan to extend Bush Tax rates for families earning $250,000 and individuals earning $200,000 per annum, as tax cut.   Extending the Bush Tax rates which are currently in effect is not a tax cut!  Romney language is offensive and demeaning, but worst of all, it adds creditability to Obama’s defunct Class-Warfare argument.
Our Republic and way of life is under attack like never before in history; we need a clear minded, principled conservative to not just defeat Obama but to understand the extent of Obama’s destruction and reverse it.
 On its face, Romney confused liberal record is a disgrace to the Republican Party.  Not only do the facts show Romney as unprincipled; he simply refuses to understand  economic data(i.e.)Coolidge Administration, Kennedy Administration, Reagan Administration, George W. Bush  Administration, post WWII Germany, 1970’s Argentina, Japan 1971-1996 etc. Obama is of a different sort; he is one who willfully disregards historic precedent in favor of ideology.  If we assume Romney is not ideologically driven by Leftism, the only plausible explanation for his incessant support of adverse policies is a lack of education or a refusal/inability to discern quantitative raw data.  Furthermore, one can disregard history and focus solely on the abysmal consequences of President Obama’s policies over the last 3 years alone, which epitomize the failures of centralized Big Government economic planning (picking winners & losers)  Nevertheless, Romney's record speaks volumes:

             Romney strongly opposes the pro-growth Flat Tax.
              So much so that he, as a “concerned citizen” ran a newspaper ad opposing it.
             Romney said, "I'm probably not going to be recommending throwing out the code and starting over” and using Marxist, Obama verbiage called the flat tax is “unfair.”
              In 2002, while Romney was running for governor, limited government activists in Massachusetts were supporting Ballot Question 1 to eliminate the state income tax. Forty five percent of the voters supported eliminating the tax, Romney opposed eliminating it.
              When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he refused to sign a no-tax pledge. “I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth."
             Romney enacted $432 million in fee hikes and $300 million in higher taxes as governor of Massachusetts.  
             Romney’s claim to not have raised taxes is called “mostly myth” by Cato Institute.  In a recent "Fiscal Policy Report Card" on governors, The Cato Institute gave him a "C." As far as the image Romney cultivates as "a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge," Cato called it "mostly a myth." As evidence, they cited the hefty fee increases and business tax hikes achieved through the closing of loopholes.
             Romney proposed a tax shift that would have increased taxes on SUVs.
              Romney instituted a 2-cent-per-gallon increase on a special gasoline fee that takes in $60 million per year.
5)  Spending As Governor, Romney proposed a budget in 2007 that was an outrageous 8.5 percent higher than the one he proposed the year before.   Romney’s 2006 budget v. Romney’s 2007 budget 
             Romney, despite calls from many fiscal conservatives to keep everything on the table when looking for spending cuts, recently stated that “I’m not going to cut the defense spending.”
             Romney parroted discredited Keynesian economic thinking when he wrote in No Apology, “The ‘all-Democrat’ stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.”
             Romney sounds a lot like Obama when he says in an op-ed to what was surely a fawning New York Times audience:
"I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research—on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like—that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today."
6)  Stimulus Romney thought Obama’s stimulus would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.   Although the cumulative text of Romney’s 2010 book, “No Apology” does state that the 1 Trillion dollar stimulus will help, but not as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives;   Romney fails to understand economic theory, which is inexcusable given the Keynesian model’s unequivocal record of failure.
             Below is an excerpt written by Romney in his 2010 Book “No Apology,” hardback version:
"The all Democrat Stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery" Mitt Romney's 2010
Here’s what he changed the passage to for 2011 “No Apology,” paperback version:
The “all Democrat” stimulus passed in early 2009 has been a failure. 

 7)  Big Government Regulation of Private Sector In April 2009, clueless Romney told The Hill newspaper that: “We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t like regulation. We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective.” (In practice, always performed by appointees with absolutely zero experience in industries they regulate)
8)  Government Bailouts/ The Wall Street Bailout Romney thinks it’s OK for companies to ask for bailouts, stating in a New York Times op-ed about the auto bailout, “It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition”
              Romney supported the Wall Street Bailout/TARP program. In his book No Apology he says:
"Secretary [Hank] Paulson’s TARP prevented a systemic collapse of the national financial system."
"It was intended to prevent a run on virtually every bank and financial institution in the country."
"Had we not taken action, you could have seen a real devastation."
             Romney reaffirmed this position in 2009 saying, “I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses.”
             Tax Payers are still on the hook for $102 -$190 Billion they may never recoup.
 7)  Education Romney supports the Department of Education and somehow believes that the Federal Government helps States hold down the interests of Teacher’s Unions in favor of the kids and the kid’s parents first. Please explain to me on what planet Romney has experienced this phenomenon?  Romney’s failure to understand the anti-Democratic and destructive nature of government unions on our Republic is inexcusable. Does anyone remember Obama sending Governor Christie help to fight the teachers union in NJ?  (4.28)
This is inexcusable for a Republican Presidential candidate, given that even (D) FDR understood this in 1937.

8)  More Mitt:   record, character, ignorance
              Romney distanced himself from Reagan and Reagan’s policies.  During his Senate debate with Ted Kennedy, Romney made it clear he was not a fan of Ronald Reagan. Kennedy said to Romney, “Under your economic program, under the program of Mr. Reagan…” to which Romney responded, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
             Supports Affirmative Action and requirement that all public companies should be required to report the number of minorities, women and their income working in the company.
             Romney opposed the highly successful Contract with America which is another example of how Romney has no clue concerning the overriding goal of Democrat policies.  Romney didn’t like the Contract with America, saying “…it is not a good idea to go into a contract like what was organized by the Republican party in Washington laying out a whole series of things which the party said these are the things we are gonna do. I think that's a mistake.”
             Romney supports reappointing Ben Bernanke to chairman of the Federal Reserve On Neal Cavuto, January 28 2010
             Romney ran on raising the minimum wage and putting in place automatic increases by indexing it to inflation. A socialist, anti-free market idea which has helped teen and minority unemployment to skyrocket.
             Romney defends his welfare wheels from  GOP outrage
             Again, anyone with a whiff of economic knowledge, who’s spent 3 minutes researching the consequences of this deleterious lunacy;  could not have missed the plethora of data on this issue, going back to Milton Friedman, 40  years ago
             Romney signed into law a Statist smoking ban.
             9)  Last Debate Romney agreed with Obama!  Romney only wants to keep Bush Tax cuts in place for those making $250,000 or less!  This is Obama‘s Class Warfare Argument and another example of Romney’s profound ignorance.  $250,000 was the number, most frequently chosen by participants at far-left, Democrat affiliated focus groups, in response to the question of who respondents considered ‘rich’.  Most likely, $250k corresponded with family income and $200K was the mode selection pertaining to individual earnings What makes the Democrat Party’s choice to base its platform on this premise particularly egregious is that participants in these focus groups, like most Americans, uniformly lack an understanding of the Tax Code and the IRS definition of a small business.  Ergo, the Democrats are using skewed polling results to justify ideological dictate. 
Romney’s mindset:
Given Obama’s history, past/present associations and now his presidential record; it is clear President Obama is a leftist.  There are but two alternatives: Romney agrees with Obama or Romney is oblivious to Obama’s underlying ideology.  Either one is enough to disqualify him from consideration.  Not to digress, but it is important to remember what Obama revealed in his answer to this tax question, during his 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton (cited below), in this primary debate with Hillary.  Since everyone reading this is intelligent, all of you will understand my point when you listen to then Senator Obama’s own words.  This clip may shock you, but it should serve to erase any remnant of good will you may harbor for our President, his policies and anyone who agrees with his tax policies.  Here you will see clear evidence that Obama‘s primary aim is to redistribute wealth and not to improve the economy.  Romney shares this mindset, evident by his tax policy platform.
 10)  ROMNEY's Illegal Immigration Record;

The Romney campaign’s effort to portray Romney as a Tough Guy on Immigration is complete and utter NONSENSE!
 As governor, Romney talked about giving troopers the power to arrest on immigration charges early in 2006; but he did not sign the necessary agreement with the federal government, until December 13, 2006, when he was already considering a run for President.  Here’s the rub: Romney left office January 4, 2007, after Governor Elect, Deval Patrick had already said the program was a "bad idea" because troopers were busy enough as it was.  Hence, Patrick rescinded the agreement within his first week and Romney’s order never took effect.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Governor Romney ever took a hard stance against Illegal immigration in Massachusetts’ at any time during his 4 year term.  During Romney’s tenure, at least four Massachusetts cities enacted or renewed legislation declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants.  Brookline and Cambridge reaffirmed their longtime status as sanctuary cities; while Somerville and Orleans didn't officially deem themselves "sanctuaries," but Somerville affirmed its "long-standing policies in support of all immigrants," while Orleans forbade city officials from turning in illegal immigrants without probable cause.  For all intents and purposes, Governor Romney’s state had no fewer than 4 sanctuary cities, which he never objected to!  Conversely, even though Texas doesn’t have sanctuary cities, Perry designated the abolishment of sanctuary cities as an emergency item in January 2011 is a left leaning Democrat site.  However, Romney’s illegal immigration record is sourced with links on the same page.

Liberal Mitt's Greatest Hits: What Romney Doesn't Want You to See.
In unison, all Obama supporting liberal pundits continue to say that "Romney is the most electable". Does anyone "of sane mind" actually believe that these people want to help us pick the candidate who's most likely to beat Obama?

Listening to Romney is as bad as listening to Warren Buffett talk about anything other than making money on Wall Street.  His record is indistinguishable from the record of a moderate 1980’s Democrat and depicts someone with absolutely no understanding of Constitutional Conservatism. If we are forced to support Romney for anything other than playing the Role of President in a Hollywood movie; America is screwed and so are we.  Even with a true conservative at the helm, the systemic damage leveled by Obama and his minions will take no less than a decade to root out and even then some of it will be irreversible.  Ergo, someone as vacuous in conservative reasoning as Romney, will at best temporarily slow down the rate off America's destruction, only for it to be picked up again by the next Democrat or confused Republican who comes to power.

Mitt Romney is not a social conservative. He is a center-leftist who will say anything in order to get elected in 2012.  Nothing he says can be trusted – he adapts himself to any environment  of the moment when campaigning – he says what people want to hear, and it is not at all what his actual record shows.

Romney is ridiculous:  1) He still believes in the Man-Made Global warming hoax.  2) He still Supports Ethanol Subsidies which have failed 100% by all conceivable metrics .   3)  He refuses to acknowledge that he screwed up with ’RomneyCare because he fails to understand the Conservative Constitutional Principles on which our nation was built; and that government intrusion into this area , serves to permanently change the relationship of Americans and their Government from “Citizens”, to “Subjects” of the State.  4) Like Obama, Romney uses the same Marxist class division verbiage to determine that Americans making under $200K need a tax break. How the hell will a tax break help people without a job or those who are underemployed? 
It’s virtually impossible to find a candidate, who everyone agrees with on each issue. What’s most important is to elect a leader.  It is always better to have a President that stands up for and intellectually supports a position (even if you disagree with it), than it is to have one without conviction, who flip-flops based on the latest poll.  Only the former is a “Leader".  For example, in the 1980’s, I had no opinion on the Abortion issue.  However, based on the advances in science and the ability to remove viable fetuses at earlier times during a pregnancy, I became fervently Pro-life.  Hence, with the mountains of information on this issue coming to light over the last decade, everyone, particularly a public figure, had what was necessary to take a position.  The Abortion issue is not a social program experiment or an economic disagreement.  For Romney to be so over-the-top Pro-Choice until less than 2 years ago, when the polls suddenly showed more than 50% of  Americans were Pro-life than Pro-abortion, leads me to question his character, his principles and his backbone.

Last month, on 9. 29. 2011 Obama spokesman, Jay Carney Quotes Mitt Romney Saying Individual Health Insurance Mandate ‘A Conservative Idea’

 Romney said “The Mass. Healthcare mandate was a conservative idea”?   Last Month, in defense of ObamaCare, President Obama said “All we did was copy the model of Mass made by its elected Republican Governor