HAS THE GOVERNMENT STOLEN YOUR IDENTITY?

by j. wright


Readers, please bear with me whilst I indulge in some make believe.

Imagine that when your next credit card bill arrives, you open it and discover that you, your wife and two kids suddenly owe $180,000 more than you thought.

“This is not right!” you say and immediately get on the telephone and call your credit card company.

You get a responsible individual on the line and ask, “What’s the meaning of this $180,000 balance in new charges that I didn’t make?”

“Oh…” the individual responds, “those aren’t new charges, this has been going on for a number of years but we never showed it on your billings. Your Uncle made those charges. He has control of your account too.

“What? Which Uncle?”

“Sam. He said he had control of your family's credit card account and he needed to use your money to help some folks who are disadvantaged and to promote some of his favorite projects.”

“You must be kidding! I never gave him that kind of control!”

“Yes, you did. A long time ago.”

“That’s unbelievable. So what is he doing with our money?”

“Well… unfortunately he mishandles and wastes a lot of it. A lot goes to people who are out of work, or simply lazy, or ill, or dying. A lot of it he spends on himself too, but he hides that from our prying eyes. He says those folks he is helping don’t have a credit card so he uses your money. He says, ‘It’s only fair and you can afford it.’”

“I can’t believe this. How am I ever going to pay this off, or is he going to pay it off?”

“Unfortunately your Uncle doesn’t have any money of his own; he has to use yours. You can’t pay it off either because your Uncle will continue to keep charging to your account. He suggested to us that you could take a second job in order to make more money available to him. Even now he is asking for an increase in your credit limit and we have to give it to him. ”

“Why?”

“Because we always have and it appears now that we don’t have a choice.”

“Well, if I can’t ever pay this balance off, who will?”

“Your children will become responsible for the balance, along with their children, and their children and their children too… unfortunately it’s a never ending cycle.”

“Isn’t there some way to end it?”

“Sure, if you can find enough people willing to replace your respective Uncles. Everyone is in the same predicament; all of you have a spendthrift Uncle Sam.”

“And if we can’t?”

“Then you live with the fact that you and your children’s children will be in debt to us forever, and not just the $45,000 each that everyone in your household owes today. Your Uncle has made promises to a lot of people, financial promises that are as yet unpaid amounting to tens of thousands of dollars; about a half million dollars more that you and every other family are responsible for, okay?”

“Okay? You must be kidding.”

~ ~ ~

So what if you woke up one day and discovered yourself in that financial mess? You don’t need to wake up; you are already there. The reality is our National Debt has surpassed $14,440,900,000,000.00 and is growing (that’s about $46,000+ for every man, woman and child). Our annual government expense will exceed our revenues this year by more than $1.381 trillion and growing and eventually added to the National Debt.

Add to that the Unfunded Mandates as reported recently; promises made by our government to seniors, veterans, the disadvantaged, etc. that stand at a whopping $61.6 trillion.

Do you agree that it may be past time to replace Uncle and get the borrowing and spending under control?

jaq~

When is a Lie the Truth?

by j. wright

It's amazing the things one can discover from listening to a few minutes of talk radio or watching some sane TV news broadcasts... certainly little the famed mainstream media cares to divulge.

I "learned" today that our president, Barack H. Obama, believes that our current federal income tax rates are the lowest in recent history, lower even than the Ronald W. Reagan era, and in his opinion it's only fair to raise income taxes on couples making more than $250,000, or individuals making more tha $200,000 annually. This he told the Republican leaders who met with him earlier this week at the White House.

While most of the Republicans present rolled their eyes at this assertion regarding Reagan's tax rates it was explained to the president that Reagan era rates were actually lower. What is different today are the loop holes in place that Reagan previously abolished. What is also true is that tax revenues today ARE LOWER than in the Reagan era, all things taken into consideration.

In explanation, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was quick to counter the president's claim on low tax rates, saying, "...actually, our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world." President Obama acknowledged that U.S. corporate tax rates are higher than most other nations.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) explained "... that's a big deal. The high rates hurts American competitiveness and job creation - so the folks that are trying to earn money, get a job, so they can pay that 'low tax rate,' they can't even do that right now because we aren't competitive with the rest of the world."

It was reported too that President Obama is not interested in slowing or lowering the incessant government spending now in place, rather he wants more money to spend, ergo the request for an addional $2 trillion to be added to our national debt limit. With that, recall that two weeks ago he requested a "clean up or down vote" on raising the debt limit. The Republican led House gave it to him a day ago and it lost big time. Some eighty-two (82) Democrats voted no including Nancy Pelosi. Afterward the White House and the Democrat leaders claimed the vote was a fraud, a joke. That after giving them what they had asked for. One radio news commentator used the expression, "You give me that apple and I'll let you paint the fence white." Too damn funny IMO.

Later, on the Neil Cavuto financial program on FOX News television, Neil Cavuto exchanged views on the current jobless rate with a Democrat House member from California who repeated several times that in order to keep our economy "growing" we must maintain the same fiscal policies that have given us a net gain under Obama of 125 million new jobs.

Cavuto countered saying that they has been NO net gain in jobs. The Democrat kept smiling and maintained that Neil was wrong. What is true, Neil's staff, (along with Roger Hedgecock's of conservative talk radio using goverment stats available on line) found that under Obama, since January of 2009, the country has suffered a net LOSS of 2.5 million jobs; a 3.75 million swing from what the Democrat politician falsely claimed. My question: who informs these people?

A few weeks ago, Cavuto had a similar exchange with an Obama supporter who maintained over and over that thirty-one (31) new drilling permits had been issued for the Gulf since the BP spill, Cavuto said "No, only three (3) have been issued."

Cavuto was proven right (again using stats gleaned from .gov web sites.) My question remains; Who informs these people? Of is it their practice to lie, keep lying, and maybe convince enough folks that a lie is an actual fact?

If the financial crisis that caused this ongoing recession was brought about under President George W. Bush, it's also true that this "recovery" (or lack of same) belongs to Obama. It ain't working.

jaq~

Another Federal Government Power Grab...

by j. wright~

The arrogance of our federal governmental agencies in their continuing quest to retain power regardless of impending job losses is overwhelming. If you enjoy paying $4.00 or more for gasoline and support President Obama's suggestion that the Saudis produce more oil for our consumption, stop reading right now.

Taken from http://pearce.house.gov, Roswell, NM (April 28, 2011) “An estimated 750 New Mexicans attended a rally tonight in Roswell to oppose the listing of the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard as an endangered species. The listing threatens to have a devastating effect on the oil and gas jobs in New Mexico.”

Like the Pacific NW's Spotted Owl, the California Snail Darter and Sand Flea (orchestoidea californiana) among others, the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard addition to the growing list as an endangered species will possibly cost 20,000 oil and gas jobs in New Mexico. When the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service was asked if they had taken into consideration the potential job loss, they brushed it off as incidental. Congressman Steven Pearce, R-NM says, "My office has asked for data from Fish and Wildlife on how jobs will be impacted, and they claim they don’t have the information."

Reportedly, the only way to determine if any New Mexico Dunes Sagebrush Lizard is endangered or not is to place it on it's back and count the scales located on its front legs between the armpit and the elbow: a lizard with five scales is NOT endangered; one with four scales is... no DNA tests have been used to determine if the two identical lizards are the same species, just bureaucratic scale counting resulting in potentially massive job losses.

This is definitely 'change.' The same as the fresh water that was shut off that supplied California food farms because of the endangered Delta Smelt Fish.

jaq~

Are our State Legislators Becoming Too Elitist?

by j wright

(NOTE: This is a re-print of a blog I wrote in February of 2009. It still applies today considering what is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee and a couple of other states.)

Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Are our State Legislators Becoming Too Elitist?
by jwright
.
In an recent article published here from the Oakland Press, Pontiac, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, proposed that legislative term limits (implemented by the voters in 1992) should be rescinded because the state lawmakers don’t have time to do the people’s business. Their top priority, running for reelection, takes up too much of their time. Doing the people’s business came in a distant fourth.

It’s my understanding that their “top priority” was attending to the people’s business, that of representing and governing. For that they are paid a healthy $79,650.00 base salary (the second highest in the nation for state legislators) plus benefits and perquisites; all that for investing about 800 hours annually, or about 20 normal workweeks. They refer to that as “full-time,” and in doing so, Michigan is one of eleven states that have a full-time legislature. Additionally, if they serve for six years they are eligible to receive full pay at retirement.

Bishop also proposes that the legislature only serve “half-time.” It appears that’s the case already. Would his proposal also cut their salaries and benefits in half? The article didn’t say.

If our legislators haven’t the time to tackle and solve the steep learning curve in Lansing, and if running for reelection actually is their “top priority” upon taking office, then we as voters have been electing the wrong people.

As far as rescinding legislative term limits, it was reported a few weeks ago that 2/3 of the Michigan voters still approved of them, so why should we sit back and allow a few legislators in Lansing to overturn the voter’s will, especialy when it calls for amending the state constitution?
.
Perhaps an overhaul is needed, perhaps more drastic than Senator Bishop had in mind. Like others, I’m in favor of disbanding the State Senate altogether and forming a unicameral legislature limited to a six month annual session. That would be a start.
.
jaq~

Today, in answer to some who think I'm anti uionized teachers, firefighters, and police, etc... my concern is that our public sector employees salaries and benefits exceed those on the average of our private sector employees doing the same job. It used to be that folks took jobs in the public sector or with utility companies because the job security was greater but at a lower income. Today it's upside down.

Do Liars Still Figure?

by j wright

A neighboring liberal minded individual recently submitted a "Letter to the Editor" with our local newspaper lauding the Clinton Budget Surplus and Balanced Budgets. I found his thinking clouded with errors so I responded as follows:

President Clinton’s “budget surplus” and his fiscal policies would not have mostly retired the National Debt as previously suggested here had President Bush followed Clinton’s economic lead.

The Clinton budget surplus Democrats often refer to was created primarily by overtaxation, a massive defense budget cut, plus other revenues collected in a given year, all weighed against federal expenses. Ergo, in the last year of Clinton’s tenure, the government spent fewer dollars than it collected. The National Debt never got close to being paid off, it actually increased about $1.3 trillion.

To the Clinton Administration's credit, and with the able assistance of Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and House Appropriations Chairman John Kasich, the National Debt did show a marginal increase of a mere $18 billion in Clinton's last year in office as opposed the the "normal" mega billion dollar increases. Based on past results, when sane Republican adults control the nation's purse strings, fiscal responsibility can happen, not always, but it's possible.

Clinton’s surplus was partly a result of the Republican’s austere Contract With America, the so-called Peace Dividend (huge defense department budgetary cuts) and the treasury being substantially fattened by incoming receipts from the previously bailed out Savings and Loan associations; funds Republican President Reagan had previously ordered returned to the taxpayers.

Figures obtained from the United States Treasury Department web site and Polifact.com show that Bush and Congress increased the National Debt about $4.97 trillion, contrary to $6 trillion increase previously suggested here, an average increase of about $621.3 billion annually from $5.73 trillion to $10.7 trillion. Part of that was a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the ensuing wars against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't have the figures available but it was once reported that the Obama "Stimulus" bill cost us more to date that the war in Iraq. Go figure.

Since President Obama took office two years ago, the National Debt has increased by $3.431 trillion, growing at a rate of about $1.715 trillion annually, more than twice the Bush average. Those numbers almost make Bush look good. For certain, those huge increases erode the argument that “budget deficits are a Republican strategy to bring America to its fiscal knees.”

Where does the responsibility lie for the growing deficits and massive indebtedness? Certainly there is enough irresponsibility to go around. Besides Obama's two years in the Oval Office, the Democrats had total control of both legislatures and of the government’s purse strings from January 2007 through early January 2011 but both parties have spent like fat drunken sailors in the past. Recently the National Debt reached $14.131 trillion. George Bush added his share but his successor is fast outpacing him.

jaq~

Why All of the Obamacare Waivers?

by j. wright


Is Obamacare that faulty?

Last year it was reported that the Department of Health and Human Resources (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a few entities from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul, titled The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, aka Obamacare.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, medical director and cousin of President Obama wrote in the Washingtontimes.com on January 25, 2011, “That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.”

“Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

“How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama’s campaign efforts.” That’s what SEIU did in 2008. Frankly, many of us will face increased health insurance premiums, but special interests like the unions will not.”

It was President Obama himself who said on October 25, 2010, “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends (who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”) Apparently he looks at many of us as being “enemies.” How pitiful. The 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Apparently that doesn’t apply to President Obama and Obamacare.

My question is relatively simple: If Obamacare is so great, why protect it from presidential cronies and special interests? If anyone deserves a waiver from Obamacare, then we all do: give every American a waiver. Support the Repeal and Replacement of Obamacare.

The source for Dr. Wolf's quotes is: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/28/tawdry-details-of-obamacare-420960137/


jaq in Cadillaq~

Watching D.C. "Double-speak" in Action...

by j. wright

Today for my first time I saw the current federal tax rates referred to as the “Bush Tax Rates, not the “Bush Tax Cuts.“ Strange why the main stream media and the liberal Democrats continually refer to them as “Tax Cuts.” Neither of them chose for years to call the marginal rates increased by President Clinton, as a result of VP Al Gore’s tie breaking vote, as the “Clinton Tax Hikes.” Not exactly “fair and balanced” in my opinion, just another example of D.C. double-speak..

We have proposed legislation in the pipelines now to re-institute the Estate Tax and at a high rate. My estate wouldn’t qualify, I’m far too poor… but for those that do it amounts to this; an individual works lifelong and accumulates moderate wealth, all on the leftover dollars that the feds, state and local governments did not collect. If an Estate Tax, or "Death Tax" is implemented, the feds will line up following that individual’s death with outstretched hands demanding a large portion of what ever the individual chose to bequeath to his heirs. In many cases in the past, the heris are forced to sell the property or business in order to pay the taxes.

The Estate tax opponents shout, “Double taxation! The individual paid taxes on his income when alive. His bequest is what was left over...”

The proponents scream, “The individual isn’t paying anything; he’s dead.” Pretty lame, but that's how our liberal friends choose to think.

Then there was the silly argument that if the ”Rich” are allowed to keep the current marginal rates it will increase the federal deficit. Now Obama's White House is calling an extension of all the rates a "Stimulus." Good grief, that's a 180-degree turn-around. To me, both expressions are a clever but stupid play on words. Unfortunately a lot of good folks, even some politicians, are buying into the clap-trap.

As far as increasing the federal deficit, for what it's worth, the deficit can only increase when the government spends more than it takes in during a given fiscal period. It’s exactly like overdrawing your personal checking account; writing checks without sufficient funds but only the spend-happy D.C. politicians can get away with it. Keeping more of your own after tax income does not add to any deficit.


jaq~