Thursday, August 23, 2012

Obama and His Economic Fairness

Four years ago the President Obama based his election on a promise of hope and change. Interestingly enough no one in the liberal media ask then candidate Obama what he planned on changing. Today there is little doubt that the American people feel more hopeless than they did four years ago. The change seems to be the consolidation of power for the executive branch, ignoring and actually voicing his disdain for the constitutional  separation of powers. While the huge deficits brought on by President Obama are certainly nothing new,  the rapid increase of governmental spending and debt has been mind boggling. Another issue totally ignored by the liberal media was candidate Obama's call for a “Civilian National Security Force;”   “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.”No one even bothered to ask  why the US would need a federal civilian army that is as big and well supplied as the US Armed services,  yet the size of Homeland security continues to expand exponentially.

Now we have the President running on Economic Fairness. Most believe that this is a plan to raise taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth down to the poor, but as Charles Krauthammer explains,  "The tax plan on which the President is basing his economic strategy is a 4.6-point increase in the marginal tax rate of 2 percent of the population". The President has admitted in one of his more candid moments, that raising taxes on the rich is only for fairness not help the economy. This is the same as when candidate Obama said  for the purpose of fairness, he would raise the tax on Capital Gain even though it would reduce the amount of revenue collected in taxes,.

What can not be disputed is Economic Fairness is a brain child of Marxist communism; it is a call to end capitalism and the free market by using draconian economics to force equality. What made the US the success is what has been coined the Protestant work ethic (which has no real connection the Christianity); the Protestant work ethic  is based on hard work, thrift, and efficiency in one’s worldly calling and the lack of a work ethic has economic consequences. Economic Fairness says success via the law of supply and demand is simply not fair, so the government needs to mandate wages; not a Living Wages, which is only a minimum wage on steroids, Economic Fairness would determine the fair wage of every worker is only possible in a socialists society. Calling someone a socialist is neither a pejorative or a conspiracy theory, it is simply the belief in a certain world view of Economic Fairness.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Obama's War on the Middle Class Part 2

President Obama may make speeches to the contrary but suburbia is one of his main targets; suburbia represents to Obama all that is wrong with America. First the flight to the suburbs took with it funds that had been used to fund inner city schools. Second the lavish comfort of a single family in a suburban home is the kind of inequality and flaunting of capitalist success that runs contrary to his socialist’s roots and the gas wasted driving to and from the suburbs. The President has reacted by letting gas prices double in 3 years, a plan to increase taxes on those making over $250,000 and allowing middle-class healthcare to increase substantially . The president believes that except for the government elite, the preferred method of housing is small high rise apartments near ones work as the President has praised in China.

 The NYT recently performed an accidental act of journalism with an article titled Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many.

Remember those immortal words by Nancy Pelosi, “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it?”; well there has been more “find(ing) out what is in it”. Turns out when determining what is affordable healthcare Insurance, the IRS says the dollar amount should be based solely on the cost of a single employee and not his family; family insurance usually cost 3-4 times that of individual insurance. Healthcare advocates say this will result in millions who are currently insured, not being able to afford healthcare for their families or afford private insurance from the “State Exchanges” and will not qualify for any subsidies;  further those that are being priced out of their health insurance, will now have to pay a fine for not buying health insurance!. The Democrats who pushed the Healthcare bill through late on Christmas Eve despite the public’s dislike, believes this “interpretation” of the Healthcare law is wrong. But the IRS who has been tasked to implement ObamaCare, simply says their interpretation of the health care rules were drafted by, “our legal experts — career civil servants who are some of the best tax lawyers in the world,” and if the IRS runs out to be wrong, even though $70 billion @ year is already being gutted from Medicare, the cost of ObamaCare will once again increase substantially. In affect the ObamaCare, which was supposed to make healthcare available to millions of uninsured Americans, will take away affordable healthcare from millions of employed lower middle class families that previously had insurance but won’t be able to afford healthcare under Obamacare; and the uninsured will be primarily women and children which advocates say will “unravel much of the progress that has been made in covering children in recent years”.

This continues President Obama’s war on the middle class and perpetuates the belief that ObamaCare was designed to fail so the electorate will be more receptive to socialized healthcare. Apparently President Obama’s belief in the redistribution of wealth is not restricted to the rich, unless you consider those that make $30,000 @ year, rich.

If you're going to have a war, it's better if your opponent is unarmed.The recent mass shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin are beyond tragic; but the idea that somehow the lack of gun control is the cause, is political correctness at its worse and admittedly will not stop the killing. The simple fact is small arms make terrible mass causality weapons compared to what else is available to terrorists. In the United States with its gun culture, a semi-automatic firearm is the weapon of choice. However in countries were fully automatic firearms are common, terrorists use bombs. The reason is very simple; a bomb will kill and injure 10 times that of a firearm. Further, all that’s needed to stop an armed terrorist is an armed citizen. If gun control is taken to its logical extreme, we will have to rely on government to protect us, something the police admit they cannot do, as all they can do is respond after the fact.