The accomplishments of President Trump that Galli ignores in his impeachment for Evangelicals Christianity Today article

1. The appointment of two Supreme Court justices, 50 judges to federal circuit courts of appeal, and 133 federal district court judges (plus two other judges to specialized courts). All of them are committed to interpreting the Constitution and the laws according to the original meaning of the words and not according to their personal policy preferences. This is a good result of immeasurable benefit to the future of the country, for it guarantees that laws must be made by elected legislators who are accountable to the people, not by judges who are appointed for life and have no effective accountability to the people as a whole. Many of these judges will serve for decades to come.

2. Significant tax cuts that have resulted in remarkable growth in jobs and wages. The good results are already seen in the paychecks of millions of workers, with the highest percentage growth occurring in low income jobs, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, and the lowest black and Hispanic unemployment rates ever recorded.

3. Massive elimination of wasteful government regulations, giving a strong boost to business and job growth.

4.  Strengthening our military with passage of the largest defense budget in our history.

5. Standing up to China and firmly opposing their long-time theft of our intellectual property, including much copyrighted and patented information.

6. Moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and in general being a strong friend of Israel.

7. Supporting laws and actions that protect the unborn child’s right to life, including permitting states to defund Planned Parenthood, reinstating and expanding the Reagan administration’s Mexico City Policy which halts funding to groups that promote abortion overseas, strengthening conscience protections for individuals and organizations that have sincerely held religious beliefs about the sanctity of human life, and requiring insurance companies to disclose to customers if their plans cover abortions.

8. Building as much of a truly effective border wall as could be built in the face of intransigent opposition by Democrats.

9. Withdrawing from the misguided Paris Climate Accord, which would have significantly increased energy prices in the U.S.

10. Issuing executive orders that protect religious freedom, such as rescinding the Obamacare HHS mandate that forced groups such as Little Sisters of the Poor to provide access to abortifacients through their health care plans or face massive fines, finalizing new rules that protect the rights of conscience for pro-life medical professionals, and the Department of Justice issuing 20 principles of religious liberty to guide the Administration’s litigation strategy and protect religious freedom.

11. Revoking the Waterways of the U.S. regulation, which wrongly took control of millions of acres of people’s private property

12. Gaining approval for the Keystone pipeline, the Dakota access pipeline, and oil exploration in a tiny section of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

13. Finally retaining energy independence for the United States (we now produce more energy than we consume)

14. Rescinding Obama-era regulations that required schools to allow biological boys to enter girls’ restrooms and locker rooms in high schools

15. Driving ISIS out of large areas that it had controlled in Iran and Syria

17. Supplying Ukraine with needed weapons to defend itself against Russia

18. Persuading several NATO allies to increase their defense spending

19. Protecting freedom of speech on public university campuses by denying federal funding to institutions that do not protect student speech.

20. Promoting more ability for parents to be able to choose their children’s schools by appointing Betsy DeVos, a veteran school-choice advocate, as Secretary of Education.

https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2019/12/30/trump-should-not-be-removed-from-office-a-response-to-mark-galli-and-christianity-today-n2558657?

What market economics does not do . . .

https://www.thebalance.com/market-economy-characteristics-examples-pros-cons-3305586

Market economics does not hold that money is all that matters. . .

Market economics does not hold that the world would be perfect if only government stays out of the way. . .

Market economics does not hold that consumers, workers, investors, and entrepreneurs are fully informed and never prone to error or to personal irresponsibility. . .

Market economics does not assume that markets are perfectly competitive and that prices, wages, and interest rates adjust instantaneously.

Market economics does not assume that all foreign governments avoid imposing tariffs and paying subsidies that affect economic activity in the home country.

Market economics does not assume that workers displaced from jobs instantaneously find new jobs at pay equal to or higher than these workers earned in their former jobs.

Market economics does not assume that tax cuts are a miracle elixir, or that current taxes should be cut irrespective of the level of government spending.

Market economics neither discounts the value of work nor denies that people find meaning and dignity in their jobs. . .

https://granitegrok.com/blog/2019/12/notable-quote-prof-don-boudreaux-10  for a longer explanation.

How Obama blamed backward and forward

Although President Obama complained for 6-7 years about President Bush and the economy he inherited, you didn't hear him mention the recession Bush inherited. Not the falling economy after 9-11, but the 2000 recession. The reason he didn't use Bush's method to restore stability was Bush had used a TAX CUT, not stealing from Peter the employed to pay Paul the unemployed.  Bush’s method didn't give Washington more power over our lives. Democrats hate, hate, hate for you to keep more of your money to make your own decisions.

Specifically, EGTRRA of 2001:

*Increased the tax-deductible contributions people could make to their IRA accounts.
*Doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000.
*Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
*Provided greater tax deductions for education expenses and savings.
*Reduced the gift tax.
*Provided relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax.
*Phased-out the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes so that they were eliminated in 2010.
*Reduced the “marriage penalty” by doubling the standard deduction for married couples. It also doubled the income threshold for married couples for the 15 percent tax bracket. *Those measures made the tax rates equivalent to what the couples would have had if they were single.
*Eliminated the planned phase-out of personal exemptions for those earning over $150,000, and the phase-down of itemized deductions for those earning over $100,000.

And the burst housing bubble of 2007-2008? You can thank the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Our wise politicians actually believed that if you put a low income worker deeper in debt for a housing mortgage, you could lift the family out of poverty with just the appearance of affluence. They new better than local bankers. What? Require 20% down like our first home loan in 1962? You must be a bigot. And they invited speculators in. Sort of like the current education debt, which no one wants to examine, not even Trump.

Pelosi calls your bonus, "crumbs." How condescending.

In the past, she used non-union and illegal workers on her Napa Valley vineyard, and got excused from the ACA by Obama. She's such a hypocrite. She's an abortion promoting Catholic in violation of what her church teaches who's had the opportunity to enjoy her own children and grandchildren while depriving others of life.   She inherited wealth and power, and is married to wealth.  I think that's fine if one benefits from her family's hard work, but then she shouldn't smack down others trying to "do as you do, and not as you say." She probably also takes all those perks from the USDA for "struggling farmers."

Can't see her struggling for words--she's losing it.

What the new tax plan does for many income levels

This is an interesting article even if you skim--fast food workers will get a better reduction than librarians. I'm waiting for my liberal friends and relatives to refuse their reduction in taxes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-senate-take-home-pay-changes-every-income-level-2017-12

Fast Food Cook
Average salary: $20,570; Current tax: $1,059; Tax under the Republican plan: $857; Percent tax cut: 19.1%

Paralegals
Average salary: $53,180; Current tax: $5,753; Tax under the Republican plan: $4,999 Percent tax cut: 13.1%

Zoologist
Average salary: $64,890; Current tax: $8,156; Tax under the Republican plan: $7,575; Percent tax cut: 7.1%

Mathematicians
Average salary: $105,600; Current tax: $16,296; Tax under the Republican plan: $15,105; Percent tax cut: 7.3%

CEOs
Average salary: $194,350; Current tax: $35,541; Tax under the Republican plan: $35,457; Percent tax cut: 0.2%
and so forth. . .

Bonuses for Christmas after tax cut bill passes

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/employee-bonuses-tax-bill-wells-fargo-fifth-third-bank/2017/12/20/id/832986/

"You're going to see the economy take off like nothing we have seen in a generation," Louisiana GOP Rep. Steve Scalise, the House majority whip, predicted, The Hill reported.

According to Axios, Fifth-Third Bancorp will raise the minimum wage of its workforce to $15 per hour — a move that'll increase the payout to 3,000 of its workers who make less than that. Axios reported the company made $1.5 billion in profit last year.

Resentment and envy

Thomas Sowell's story (from 2000 and told in several versions through the years) about Boris and Ivan isn't about Russians, but about envy and resentment. The Democrats don't care that under the new tax plan there will be a higher deduction for children, or that the middle class will have more money to spend or invest. No. What enrages them is that the already wealthy might pay fewer taxes (they already pay the bulk of the taxes, so the cuts will obviously apply to them). So, hurt everyone is their plan, just so the rich can't get a break from onerous taxes. 

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell062300.asp

"THERE IS AN OLD STORY about two Russian peasants, Boris and Ivan. Both are poor as dirt, the only difference between them being that Boris has a goat and Ivan does not. 

One day, a good fairy appears at Ivan's hut and tells him that she can grant him just one wish -- but that it can be anything he wants. Ivan says, "I want that Boris' goat should die.""

One tax proposal is not popular with college students

One guy in the Washington Post reported the tax plan could cost him $11,000! Well, how big was his subsidy that it was so high he'd pay that much? I had two graduate assistantships back in the 60s, and I don't recall the tax plan. But if I got the assistantship, someone else didn't, and may have taken a job as a student janitor, or meal server, and had to pay full taxes on that. (There weren't many fast food places then.)  Both my jobs were really cushy--one (translating medical newspapers) I could do at home and not use a baby sitter. The other was in library science and wasn't difficult at all. The student who pushed a broom or washed windows or waited tables didn't have that luxury. The student who went to a college instead of a university didn''t get those jobs, and tech school students didn't get them. I think that still applies today. There's a lot of politics and influence in who gets these subsidies, and to give some students a free ride from the federal government while the university continues to raise the costs on everyone else, is pretty fishy.

https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/

Flashback on taxes and Democrats

John Kerry and John Edwards in the 2004 presidential race ran on a platform of repealing tax breaks for the rich. Sound familiar? Wasn’t that mentioned in Tuesday’s SOTU?  They didn't like Bush's tax cuts of 2003 for capital gains despite the fact the cuts brought in a 68% increase in tax revenues. Why do tax cuts bring in higher revenues? Lowering the rate provides incentive to sell, and that means money to reinvest which means more growth, which means more jobs, which means more taxes for our Congress to spend. That makes Democrats very unhappy, because it also means the rich get richer. They'd rather everyone suffer than have the upper quintile (other than themselves) get more. Bush inherited a recession too, although he didn't mention it every time he was in front of a microphone. He just put a stop to it. Obama wants higher taxes not to help the middle class (we'll never see a penny of it), but to punish the successful.

A summary of expectations for the next four years

This summary is from Rachel, at Thoughts of a Conservative Mom, and the revelations about Petraeus and the election cover up and the bombing of Israel hadn’t even made the head lines yet (November 7).

A flood of regulations that Obama kept on hold and the media hid until after the election will start going into effect, strangling struggling businesses.

Taxmageddon – a record $494 billion tax hike – will go into effect on January 1st, 2013, plunging us into even deeper recession.

The Left will start going after the internet, citizen journalism, social media and talk radio – any competition to the Left-wing propagandist media.

Obama and the Democrat-controlled senate will begin ceding our national sovereignty to the United Nations, one treaty at a time. Parental rights, gun rights, and internet freedom are especially under threat.

Obamacare will go into full effect, bankrupting private providers and putting America on the road to single-payer, as was intended.

Planned Parenthood will expand on the taxpayer dime, preparing to perform thousands of abortions via socialized medicine.

A direct assault on religious liberty as Obama’s HHS forces religious business owners to pay for abortions, and tries to force the Catholic church – the largest competitor to the Welfare State – out of the health care industry and other charities altogether.

With the Republicans still controlling congress, Obama will simply go around them and rule by executive diktat. Republicans will have to grow the spine needed to hold him in check.

With Democrats still in control of the senate, no budgets will be passed. All of Obama’s judges and appointments will be confirmed. And if they aren’t, he’ll go ahead and appoint them anyway.

Obama will likely appoint at least two more activist judges to lifetime appointments in the Supreme Court. The senate will confirm them.

Obama will continue to block drilling and natural gas development, driving up gas prices and making us dangerously dependent on the volatile Middle East while he dumps billions more into “green” energy subsidies.

Obama’s EPA will destroy the coal industry, causing electricity rates to skyrocket, as he imposes thousands more “green” regulations on what’s left of our manufacturing and other industries.

Illegal aliens will be granted amnesty, voting rights and welfare benefits.

Our border will remain unprotected as drug cartels and terrorists invade with impunity.

Obama will continue to funnel money to the Muslim Brotherhood and weapons to terrorists.

Israel will be forced to attack Iran to prevent it from going nuclear. Obama will not support them. The Muslim world will not be afraid of action from the United States, and will feel free to join forces to destroy Israel.

Christian persecution across the globe will intensify, as the Obama administration looks the other way.

Obama’s spending spree will continue, likely bringing our national debt to a suicidal $22 Trillion before 2016.

More people will be forced into dependency on food stamps and other government programs as the Cloward-Piven strategy accelerates.

The Fed will continue to print more money out of thin air, creating hyperinflation.

We will continue on the road towards Greece. We must be prepared to feed and defend our loved ones, and care for the needy if and when the welfare state collapses.

It was a great day for America

Murray writes:

"I went to a Taxpayer Tea Party today right here in The Villages. It was sponsored by the Association of Mature American Citizens. The Village Daily Sun followed the lead of the rest of the news media by NOT publicizing the rally in advance. In order to get the word out to the villagers the Association had to purchase an ad in the newspaper. In spite of the poor advance notice hundreds of residents turned out with costume, flags and signs. The event was held along side of one of the village ponds and when the protest was over the Association tossed boxes of "stimulus tea" into the pond.

These parties were held all over America in spite of the fact that the news media remained basically silent until today. The people relied on the Internet to communicate and coordinate the rallies. This was a great day for America. It showed that concerned taxpayers were fed up with the reckless spending of their hard earned tax dollars. It also showed the whites in this country are finally standing up for themselves. I say whites because as the evening news cameras panned across the crowds that had gathered at tea parties across the country there was a noticeable lack of blacks. In fact I saw NO blacks. Now maybe, just maybe, it was a coincident and they just didn't get in view of the cameras or the cameramen were prejudice and ignored them. Hmmm? Well anyway, the silent majority wasn't silent today.

Obama countered today ( although he didn't mention tea parties ) by declaring the wonderful tax breaks he is giving the WORKING people and that by the end of the year he was going to have the whole Tax Code rewritten so the average taxpayer could understand it. Gee, have we heard that before? He also said that the rich were going to have a tax increase. Gee, he must have forgot about the AMT that has never been indexed. Obama has received millions of tea bags in the mail but refused to acknowledge them nor have any of our legislators ever mentioned the ones they received. It's kinda like when they ignore your correspondence and inquires isn't it?

Obama just doesn't get it. These rallies today were not just about paying taxes. The main emphasis was on the reckless, wasteful spending the government has been doing the last 6 months and the tremendous debt they're piling up. One little boy was holding up a sign that said " I'm only 9 years old and I'm $36,000 in debt." Yes folks, it was a great day for America. I hope it doesn't go the route of our tax dollars...wasted!"

Good points, Murray. The old Mt. Morris High School put out some smart graduates 50 + years ago who learned a little history and economics along the way--you and me, Bob C., Bill L., Bill & Gayle N., Dave B. and a few others I see on the list who don't want to see our country turned over to the enemies of capitalism. Our tax day/tea day events in Columbus got coverage from the local media--at least on TV. It was headed up by a 19 year old OSU student. However, it was cold and rainy here--something you don't have so much in Florida. I forgot to check the marginal Columbus Dispatch to see if it noticed anything was going on. I didn't watch most of the AB/NB/CB/CNN clones who are Obama's mouthpieces and marketers (did you see that horrid, awful CNN interview where the Obama sycophant op-ed female tried to preach to the person she was interviewing? "Do you realize. . .yada yada. . .")

I noticed that WSJ this morning folded the story into the Obama tax code promises. But Danny Pang and PEMGroup with its alleged theft of $4 billion, a pittance compared to Obama's, made the front page. Sorry, Mr. President. The cap and trade hoaxes, the destruction of the oil and gas industries, the coming inflation as you have to print more money, the millions of environmental and green regulations to support the phony, pantheist gods that all the beltway queens have bowed before--those are all tax increases to make the recent tax on the poor (increase in cigarette taxes) look like harmless sandbox play.

The cost for hope and change--women and minorities hit hardest

“President Bush ran budget deficits averaging $300 billion annually. After harshly criticizing Bush's budget deficits, President Obama pro­posed a budget that would run deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq. [Where, oh where, are all the weepers and moaners who decried the cost of the war for 6 years? nb]

The President's tax policy is the only sharp break in economic policy. President Bush reduced taxes by approximately $2 trillion; President Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.4 trillion. In doing so, President Obama has rejected the most successful Bush fiscal policy. In the 18 months following the 2003 tax rate cuts, economic growth rates doubled, the stock market surged 32 percent, and the economy created 1.8 million jobs, followed by 5.2 million more jobs in the next 27 months. Not until the housing bubble burst several years later did the economy finally lose steam. Pro-growth lawmakers should embrace tax relief policies that have proven successful, while rejecting the runaway spending that has been business as usual in Washington. . . President Obama's pledge to halve the budget deficit by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The budget deficit will quadruple in 2009 to $1.75 trillion, and cutting that level in half would still leave deficits twice as high as under President Bush.” The Obama Budget

Will tax relief programs be eliminated under Obama?

Just about 2 years ago, December 20, 2006, President Bush signed the "Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006." Very little seemed to do with health except the expansion of HSAs and Obama intends to federalize health care, so not much to point out there. Most was about growing the economy through reducing or maintaining reductions on taxes on various businesses, expanding energy resources, overseas markets, and some help with college tuition. It was an economic stimulus--at a time when the President reported, "The unemployment rate has remained low at 4.5 percent, and the latest figures show that real hourly wages increased 2.3 percent in the last year, meaning an extra $1,350 for this year for the typical family of four with both parents working."

If tax cuts were considered important then to keep the economy growing, how much more important now. Will Obama cut? Expand? Increase regulations so he can by-pass Congress? Obviously, the markets are very afraid of him, as investors see the growth and tax benefits of the last 8 years slipping away. These were the provisions:

1) Extend the deductibility of tuition and higher education expenses
2) Extend and modernize the research and development tax credit; allow businesses to deduct part of their R&D investments from their taxes to encourage innovative products, medicines, and technologies
3) Extend vital provisions Of The Gulf Opportunity Zone (GO Zone) Act (signed 2005)
4) Keep in place key tax credits passed to help rebuild Gulf Coast communities
5) Expand and diversify alternative energy, including clean coal technology (remember during the campaign Obama promised to destroy the coal industry through cap and trade which will seriously impact Ohio, VA, PA, KY, WV)
6) Access to key portions of America's Outer Continental Shelf to reach more than 1 billion additional barrels of oil and nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
7) Authorize permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam
8) Extend a series of programs with other developing nations to give duty-free status to products they export to the United States
9) Bring Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) within the reach of more Americans by raising contribution limits and make the accounts more flexible

View letter to President elect Obama.

Obama votes pro-growth 0%; McCain 94%

Take a look at your portfolio if you are over 50. Does it have time to recover with a 0% growth President?

These are pro-growth issues. These issues are what will keep you and yours employed, traveling, attending good schools, enjoying a night out, redecorating your home, buying that new car, having a nice retirement, keeping the lights on, reading new books, buying the grandkids some great toys at Christmas and birthdays, choosing what you want to listen to on the radio or watch on TV, what indoor temperature you prefer, what doctor you’ll go to, how much of your parents’ estate you’ll inherit, and a multitude of other things perhaps you’ve forgotten you’ll miss if they are taken away.

1. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
   
2. Death tax repeal
   
3. Cutting and limiting government spending
   
4. Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
   
5. Expanding free trade
   
6. Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
   
7. Replacing the current tax code
   
8. School choice
   
9. Regulatory reform and deregulation

Check out the Club for Growth

Tax strategies for boomer retirees

Make sure the Bush tax cuts are kept. They are due to expire, and Miz 109 million Hillary wants to raise your taxes. And so does Mr. O-Socialist. Don't let Hillobama roll back the economy so they can take more control of your life.

The Coming Tax Bomb

The tax code changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. If they do, statutory marginal tax rates will rise across the board; ranging from a 13% increase for the highest income households to a 50% increase in tax rates faced by lower-income households. The marriage penalty will be reimposed and the child credit cut by $500 per child. The long-term capital gains tax rate will rise by one-third (to 20% from 15%) and the top tax rate on dividends will nearly triple (to 39.6% from 15%). The estate tax will roar back from extinction at the same time, with a top rate of 55% and an exempt amount of only $600,000. Finally, the Alternative Minimum Tax will reach far deeper into the middle class, ensnaring 25 million tax filers in its web.

4688

George W. Bush is right about a lot of things

Not that right is popular. Not that right doesn't bring unintended consequences. Not that right will unite the people. He's definitely right about these--either morally, spiritually, politically or economically--but not all for each. In no particular order.

1. George W. Bush is right to keep his very talented, beautiful, smart, librarian wife at his side, in the sidelines, and in the bleachers cheering him on, supporting him, but not making policy. I like Laura Bush a lot; I didn't vote for her. I didn't even realize how important this was to me until I've watched Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama in the current campaign. Way too much focus on them and what they say and think. And Hillary Clinton, too, when she was First Lady is probably the best reason for the spouse to stay by the president's side and not under foot. Part of the hostility toward her from conservatives and libertarians is the way she tried to take over important segments of the economy when she had no elected office, nor ever had one. Her "35 years" experience mantra includes her years as a President's wife and a Governor's wife. That makes her as big a cheat as her husband in my mind.

2. George Bush was the right man to lead us calmly out of the chaos that followed 9/11. In my life time, I'll probably not see two stronger leaders in a crisis than George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.

3. George Bush was right to cut taxes to release money for investing in the U.S. economy, thereby helping American workers and the global economy both, strengthening us all around. The cut in taxes put many Americans to work, and also brought increased revenue into the coffers of the federal government--which may or may not be positive considering our Congress will spend all it gets. But it is a far superior plan than punishing success and driving our investment money overseas so foreign workers benefit.

4. George Bush was right to veto the huge SCHIP increases last fall, leaving the dismantling of private health insurance to be on the conscience of the Democrats. The 1997 SCHIP was Hillary's plan to begin with and she will see to it, either as a senator or president, that we all come under the government's thumb, that all but the richest in society, or our highest level government officials, will have low level, dumbed down universal care.

5. He was right to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power and to free millions of Afghans from the control of the Al-Qaeda. We won the war, but huge mistakes were made on the clean up. The biggest mistake was not securing the borders, something Americans aren't very good at. Also, although it was not his fault, he listened to the intelligence gathered in the previous administration about WMD accepting the wholehearted but duplicitous support of the likes of Kennedy and Edwards, Kerry and Clinton. He was mistaken that they would keep their word the way he does. He cannot be moved once he sets a course; they waffle, blow in the wind, and melt in the heat of unhappy supporters. Huge mistake to trust them.

6. Bush was never better than in his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for Supreme Court. I'm still wondering if that misstep of nominating Harriet Miers was just a tease--to show he could nominate a woman knowing she couldn't be confirmed. It's not in the same category of turning over policy to your wife, but it lost him a lot of friends among Republicans who questioned his sanity! These two men, along with Clarence Thomas, are our best chance of keeping a tricameral federal government, instead of a court that makes laws, a president who keeps his wife happy dabbling in policy while he fondles female staff, and a Congress that just passes out the bacon slabs to each other, crossing the aisle with a wink and a handshake. If you think Bush has too much power, ask yourself why Hillary with "35 years experience" or Obama with the power of his charming personality, will fix it if not by usurping more power from the other branches?

7. George Bush was right about stem cell research. By forcing researchers to go back to the lab and look beyond using human embryonic stem cells of 4-5 day old embryos (pre-born human beings), he rescued our nation from a worse ethical dilemma and battle than abortion and slavery, earlier versions of devaluing life in our history. Embryonic stem cell research was never illegal, but he forced the researchers to look beyond the American people for the money--and private sources wanted to see results--but there were none. Many millions of lives will be saved because GWB stood fast.

8. Morally, he was right to be concerned about our schools failing so many of our children, leaving millions of kids behind and unable to function in our technological society. The results from NCLB haven't been great, in my opinion because the federal government's hold on education was way too big to begin with. It should not be allowed to reach into the classroom and tell a student how to behave or a teacher to teach. But that certainly didn't start with Bush. He took on the teachers' unions, even though they didn't have the answers either. Standards weren't being met. Crummy teachers and awful school administrators had protection. Well, being morally right, but wrong in outcome gets a president no friends, plus he's spent more on education than any president before him and still the kids are failing. Indirectly, he's proven once again that more money isn't the answer.

9. Morally, he was right to care that millions are in our country illegally taking jobs from Americans, weakening our neighbors to the south, and experience personal suffering. Trying to fix the horrible 1986 law that allowed this with bits and patches just isn't practical--it was a social experiment of the 1960s gone bad--the belief that too many Europeans and white people were immigrating and we needed more brown, black and Asian to be "fair." Plus it cost him the support at the grass roots--those Americans who do not think La Raza should come here and take back 4 or 5 states because they don't like the outcome of the 19th century Mexican War. That's history. The backing of big unions and big business really make this amnesty issue look messy for Bush, and it didn't win any friends among the Democrats. Playing fast and loose with core beliefs in a mish-mash of bipartisanship never helps either side.

10. Morally and spiritually, he was right to want to reach out to Democrats to unite the people and heal all the hostility of the Clinton years in the 1990s. We hear Obama preaching the same sermon. But that's another thing that won't happen in my life time. George W. Bush is not a true conservative, but he is a Republican, and so on both sides of the aisle, he's got problems. He's bitterly hated and opposed because of the 2000 election and no amount of good ole boy glad handing will change that. Cowboy, that's a tough dogie to rope.

11. Economically and morally, he was right to try to fix Social Security, even as his own party gave him little support and caused his good intentions to fail. All the successful retirees I know have a combination of the plans he wanted--403-b, 401-K, IRA, and private investments. Government employees have such a plan. Unfortunately, leaders of both parties fought him on this and I'm left to believe that they have a vested interest in keeping a large part of the elderly population poor and dependent on government handouts. It buys votes, is the only explanation I can come up with.

I tried to make this a tidy list of 10, but George has just done too many things right in his 7 years as president.

4208

The Bush Tax Cuts

I disagree with Mr. Bush on a lot, but every time I go to a nice store or do some traveling, I whisper quietly, "Thanks, big guy. You might not be able to string two sentences together, but you know how to help retirees."

Most retirees if they planned well and listened to all the scare stories 30 years ago about how there wouldn't be Social Security by the time we retired, have a nest egg (private investments) a 403-b, or 401-k, or IRAs, annuities, or some other vehicle other than a passbook savings account. Our economy would probably have taken much longer to recover after the bubble burst in early 2000, and then sunk after 9/11 if not for the Bush tax cuts.

But the GAP ("getting all pissed") people are unhappy. GAPists don't care how good I have it or if I worked hard, led a quiet life and saved my pennies; if it's better than someone else, if there is an identifiable gap between my pension and that of a homeless guy who drank away his income, then life isn't fair.

This morning there was a news story (not an editorial) in the Wall St. Journal about the income inequality gap by Greg Ip. This gap is very distressing for liberals (as are health gaps, education gaps, leisure gaps, everything except the marriage gap, which alone can account for a lot of poverty). The 1% wealthiest of all tax filers earned 21.2% of all income [notice the word "earned" because I don't think Ip did]. Now that is a whopping .4% more than in 2000. Yes, it took that long for this "rising inequality" to show up on the graphs, but this causes much hand wringing.

Never mind that much of this gain resulted from technological changes that benefits the smart and well educated more than the less skilled, or that a lot of it is by gains of entertainers, celebs and sports figures, the darlings of the left. And what's really ugly (Ip doesn't use this word)? More than twice as many Wall Street professionals are in the top .5% of all earners than there are executives from non-financial companies. The writer claims that this gap is fueling anxiety among American workers. Are retirees anxious that Wall Street is doing well? Not likely. Our pensions and investments are the silent guest living in our homes--who doesn't eat, make noise, tease the cat, or change the channel--just hands over his paycheck to help with expenses.

Remember the hated Bush tax cuts? The poor got bigger tax cuts than the rich (although for some, something from nothing still results in zero--millions pay no taxes at all). At the bottom, the tax rate fell to 3% from 4.6% under Clinton. At the top the 1% richest folks' tax rate (what they paid) went from 37% under Clinton to 39% under Bush, according to author Greg Ip.

Why are the liberals so unhappy? Seems as though taxes actually fell for the rich despite the tax rate increase. (He includes no information on whether taxes actually fell for the poor--again, it's hard to subtract from zero). So now, the actual gap is widening. With the boomers coming up to the retirement trough, you'd better hope those rich folks keep paying their big taxes because they are covering for the folks at the bottom to say nothing of paying the salaries of armies of government workers.

3967

Defending the Bush Tax Cuts

We all know the Democrats intend to raise taxes when they take over in 2008. It's not like they hide their plans. Mike Volpe at Proprietor Nation reminds us to beware of some of the biggest lies, myths and distortions about taxes by reviewing what he knows about basic economics:

"How many Democrats uttered the words, "tax cuts for the rich". Of course, this is an outright lie. Every tax bracket, including but not exclusively the rich, lowered their rate. The Democrats proclaimed that in dollar terms the rich got the overwhelming piece of the tax cuts. Well, in the words of any third grader, duh. The rich make the overwhelming amount of money and pay the overwhelming amount of the taxes. 3% of 50,000 dollars is a lot less than 3% of 1 million dollars. Of course, the rich got the biggest part of the tax cuts, their pool is by far larger. A millionaire pays more in taxes than most people make in income. They played the traditional class warfare, pitting the wealthy Republicans versus the middle class of the Democrats. Well as Gregg Jackson pointed out in "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies" targeted tax cuts, the kind the Democrats bemoaned, are nothing more than a form of communism, where the poor are propped up on the backs of the wealthy. Furthermore, logic tells us that it is the wealthy, not the middle class, that creates jobs. A three percent tax cut for someone making fifty thousand may put more money in their pockets, but they won't hire any new workers as a result of it. A millionaire on the other hand, is something totally different."

3469 Dear Mmes Pelosi and Clinton

Please don't raise taxes on the rich. Don't punish the entire country just cause you're angry that the Bush tax cuts helped all of us and you haven't done a thing. The top 5% of Americans are paying over 57% of the tax burden now and the folks at the bottom are paying no federal taxes at all.*

I'm just a pensioner, but I've benefitted from a lot of wealth transfer over the years--like all my public education from kindergarten through master's degree, all the highways and interstates I drive, the bridges (some to nowhere), the tax incentives so Wal-Mart and Target can build near my home and employ our locals who will then pay taxes, the state and national parks I enjoy, the set asides for the railroads, the subsidies to the farmers so I can have cheap milk and staples, the public libraries, and the airline bailouts so I can enjoy my vacations, not to mention the clean up of Lake Erie where I have a second home. The rich people don't need this stuff, and the poor don't use them as much as the middle-class, so lay off the rich guys, will ya? Don't mess with your cash cow.

Our investments have done so well in the past five years, that it's like having a third person in the household who gives us his take home pay but never opens the frig or forgets to fill the gas tank or asks me to do the laundry.

I know you're mad that the Bush policies have proven wrong every bad thing you projected in the economy, and you want to hide from the fact that you too read the intelligence of the former administration about the threat of Iraq, but don't punish the rest of us who've been living a pretty nice life having the rich pay taxes and invest in America.

*Especially the Mexican nationals sending money home, making their USA dollars the second highest source of income for Mexico, with tourism third and oil first.

Tax cuts soak the rich

Not really, but the tax cuts on capital gains of 2003 increased tax revenues by 68%, according to the Congressional Budget Office. I've been looking for a good summary rather than the huge report for a link. But here's a graph of just how far off the CBO has been in their estimates. The forecast for 2006 was $57 billion, but actual receipts were $110 billion. Maybe they were weather forecasters in an earlier life?

So what happened? Lowering the rate, according the WSJ, provided incentive to sell, and that meant money to reinvest which meant more growth, which meant more jobs, which meant more taxes for our Congress to spend.

Even if it means more tax money, it still makes Democrats mad because they don't want anyone in the top percentage of wealth (except Kerry and Edwards) to get a break. So they're still talking about repealing the "tax break for the rich." They'll have some 'splaining to do since the rich now pay even more.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts. Check the full story at Heritage Foundation

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.