Black infant death rate in Ohio—Columbus Dispatch

It’s high.  Infant mortality applies to age up to one year.  If they counted pre-born black infants who are killed in abortion, the figure would be much, much higher.

I hope someone at the Dispatch digs a little deeper and looks at something beside race in today's story about high infant mortality among blacks in Ohio. For instance, adjust for marriage, education, employment, age, entitlement programs, etc. Instead, someone will ask for more government money.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/11/29/black-infant-deaths-worst-of-bad-news.html

And much of the solution, they said, will come from officials who don’t work in the fields of maternal and child health, but rather in local, state and federal government; housing; education and early-childhood education; and those focused on family well-being who haven’t traditionally focused on birth outcomes.

For example, Mario Drummonds, executive director and CEO of the Northern Manhattan Perinatal Partnership in New York, cited new housing as making a positive difference in infant mortality by providing a better environment in which to raise infants who suffer from asthma.

Which taxes are involved? All of them.

“. . . let's be clear about exactly what the threat is, though we have explained it here before. Going into effect on January 1 are increases in the tax rates for virtually every major federal tax. That is primarily because the tax increases of Obamacare go into effect, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which President Obama refuses to renew for the nation's job creators, investors, and successful small businesses (the English translation of "the rich").

As a result, the top two federal income tax rates will jump by nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, the income tax rate on dividends will nearly triple, the Medicare payroll tax rate will explode by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers, and the death tax will rise from the grave with a 50% rate increase.

That is all on top of the corporate income tax, now featuring a top marginal rate of nearly 40% on average, counting state income taxes. That is now the highest in the world under President Obama, except for the socialist one party state of Cameroon. Even Communist China and Vladimir Putin's Russia have lower marginal corporate income tax rates, as do the social welfare states of the European Union, mostly at 25% or less.”

And there’s more. . .

Elections have consequences, and so does postponing tough decisions while leading from behind.

Tax cuts for the rich?

“. . . under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before.

There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or is shipped overseas. At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output and rising incomes. Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower. Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions.

This is not just a theory. It is what hard evidence shows happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, from the days of Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.”

So, it’s not about revenue, but about Obama’s idea of “fairness,” i.e., that rich people should have their money taken away from them and given to the government, not the low income.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/11/28/an_overdue_book

It’s a whole lot more than $16 trillion

“The full extent of the problem has remained hidden from policy makers and the public because of less than transparent government financial statements. How else could responsible officials claim that Medicare and Social Security have the resources they need to fulfill their commitments for years to come?

As Washington wrestles with the roughly $600 billion "fiscal cliff" and the 2013 budget, the far greater fiscal challenge of the U.S. government's unfunded pension and health-care liabilities remains offstage. The truly important figures would appear on the federal balance sheet—if the government prepared an accurate one. . .

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. ”

Cox and Archer

A terrific Christmas tree

Why not take 100% of households over $250,000

They probably stole it. Taxing them will only get about a week, so why not just take all of it?

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Alright! Take that, fat cats! Our $1.412 trillion windfall has us covered for the next 141 days. . .

Iowahawk

Note: if you give him money for a few more days he’ll just ask for more

Obama is leading from behind again, because it's been so successful. He wants his people to pressure Congress to raise taxes so we can go further in debt and run the government for another week.

Obama is to travel to Hatfield, Pa., Friday to visit toymaker K'nex Brands, "a business that depends on middle-class consumers during the holiday season, and could be impacted if taxes go up on 98 percent of Americans at the end of the year," the White House said.

The tax increase refers to George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire Jan. 1. Obama wants to preserve the Bush-era tax rates for incomes up to $250,000 but increase the marginal rate on taxable income above that threshold.

Obama was to play host Wednesday to middle-class Americans the White House said would be affected by the tax increases if Congress does not act to avoid the fiscal cliff's more than $500 billion in annual automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to kick in after New Year's Day.

Obama also was to meet with 14 chief executives from big businesses, the White House said.

The president's campaign-like push comes as top Democratic and Republican leaders were at a standoff on the issue.

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/11/28/obama_begins_campaignlike_fiscal_cliff_effort.htm

Not mentioned during the campaign . . .

"On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74). This new federal law states that the amount of Federal Pell Grant funds a student may receive over his or her LIFETIME will be reduced to the duration of a student's eligibility from 18 semesters (or its equivalent) to 12 semesters (or its equivalent). This new law applies to ALL Federal Pell Grant eligible students effective with the 2012-2013 award year beginning July 1, 2012. (DCL-GEN-12-01)"

The cut in grant eligibility has serious ramifications for non-traditional students. Part-time students who do not receive a full semester grant may lose out on funds if they do not earn an undergraduate degree within 12 semesters. Adults who go back to school, including retraining for a new career, will also have limited access to grants.

The amount of the grant varies based on family income (with a current yearly maximum grant of $5,550). If a student gets a grant less than a maximum, and a year later finds their income level has been reduced, they will not be able to recoup the difference in the lower amounts earned in a previous year. The cut in eligible semesters makes it difficult for students to make up that gap in later years.

http://www.examiner.com/article/college-students-learn-of-obama-s-secret-pell-grant-cuts

The money for the Dream Act (DACA) has to come from some place, so why not from native born students?

Too many Republicans and Christians don’t vote

No free stuff, no bus rides to the polls, no deceptive ads.  How do they expect to win?

Susan Rice, the little lady

Do Presidents not learn from history?

Actually, President Obama has learned the lessons from the 1930s Great Depression well.  The Great Depression was extended by FDR who raised taxes each time there appeared to be a fragile recovery.  FDR also campaigned against the high government spending of Hoover (like Obama and Bush), and to this day Hoover is blamed.

By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. Unemployment remained high, but it was slightly lower than the 25% rate seen in 1933. The American economy took a sharp downturn in mid-1937, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 percent and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938.

The top tax rate in 1938 was 78% and on capital gains it was 30%. They were 24% and 12.5% in 1929.  Who knows how quickly the country could have recovered if Hoover and FDR had none thrown the federal government into the mix?   Even some of the programs put in place by FDR were declared illegal or ran out, but he launched a “progressive” socialist plan that we have to this day.

http://top-federal-tax-rates.findthedata.org/

Blame the job creators

If you’ve raised a family or taught in a classroom you know that trying to make things “fair” is the first step in creating jealousy and unhappiness.  When you start that you have everyone checking the size of her slice of the pie or the award for being the best speller or the fastest runner, especially if Johnny came in 2nd or 3rd.  Then to really hype the hate, start comparing the two or three or groups, and complain and gripe about the achievers.  Oh yes, that really works.

“The US unemployment rate has been pretty lousy for a while. Luckily, no one blames President Obama for this, as the recent election showed. And why should they? The government has done everything right: It enacted a huge stimulus, built infrastructure, passed ObamaCare to make sure employees are healthy and it supplied businesses with millions and millions of people just standing around waiting for work.

So if the government has done its part, and there still aren’t enough jobs, then who should we blame? Obviously, it’s the fault of those lazy, good-for-nothing businesses and job creators.”

Read more here.

The Fiscal Cliff

Let Obama take us over the Fiscal Cliff (he's out campaigning for tax increases right now) so people know what he's about. Of course, he will blame the Republicans who want cuts in spending to reduce the debt, but his proposed tax increase which he thinks you voted for will only pay for the government about a week. That’s useless and he knows it.  The purpose was to create class resentment, not revenue.  Then he'll have to come after YOUR paycheck.

http://www.cfr.org/economics/fiscal-cliff/p28757?cid=ppc-google-grant-fiscal_cliff&gclid=CNLQn8na8bMCFYpFMgodhmIAmQ

One of the easiest and most sensible cuts is to raise the age of receiving Social Security and Medicare. It can be gradual so people have plenty of time to prepare.  And which party has shot down that idea consistently—the Democrats.  They want nothing to do with a program that will take power away from the government and put it in the hands of the citizen.

In 1930 the life expectancy for whites was 61.4 and blacks 49.2. Sixty-five for retirement (in an era when many worked their entire life) seemed extremely optimistic. But in 2010 for whites it is 79 and for blacks 75.1. A male retiree, born in 1940, will spend anywhere from 19 percent to 25 percent of his life collecting Social Security benefits (depending on whether he retired at the normal retirement age of 65 or chose early retirement), and a female born in the same year will spend 21 percent to 27 percent of her life collecting benefits.

The biggest old age problem we have is not Social Security, but a less than replacement birth rate, and many people will have no cousins and no nieces or nephews as well as no grandchildren to help them. Families are the original safety net, but the Democrats by pushing contraception and abortion are also weakening this safety net. Maybe YOU have grandchildren, but will they have grandchildren?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

Obama has no intention of saving the United States from its plunge into being Greece or a failed European state.  So don’t look for solutions—just look for higher taxes.

ANGELS in the Roman Catholic Catechism

I. THE ANGELS

The existence of angels — a truth of faith

328 The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls "angels" is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.

Who are they?

329 St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel.'" With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they "always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven" they are the "mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word".

330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.

The pre-born have a life with God

Statism

concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

No one in the Democratic party is against statism. 

Free speech in America

Obamacare layoffs widen to other fields

“It has been hailed for increasing coverage, streamlining the delivery of care, and lowering costs. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the federal health insurance law that has generated controversy since its 2010 passage, has also led to the layoffs of dozens of architects at two firms, HDR and Jain Malkin.”

It has been hailed for increasing coverage, streamlining the delivery of care, and lowering costs.

None of this has been proven.  It was a pipe dream, with dollars up in smoke as the economy stalled.  “Never waste a crisis” and he used the recession to ram through a complicated, hated law.  Just as Obamacare’s uncertainty screwed up the economic recovery, so too hospitals have had to postpone expansions, and architectural firms with heavy portfolios in that specialty, are laying off workers.

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/11/121126-Health-Care-Industry-Changes-Cited-in-Layoffs-at-Two-Longtime-Firms.asp

The rich pay far more. Is that fair?

"Taxpayers earning at least $200,000 represented 2.8 percent of all people filing tax returns in 2009, according to Internal Revenue Service data. However, they donated 37 percent of the $158-billion in itemized charitable gifts made that year."  The president not only wants to raise their taxes, but he wants to take away “charitable” loopholes.

http://philanthropy.com/article/Does-the-Charitable-Deduction/129212/ .

"There are 133,000 male heads of households and 143,000 female heads of households who make more than $200,000 a year." Obama calls them rich and wants to increase their taxes. Oh my goodness, a gender difference in income--but the female high earners (who need free stuff like birth control from the government) exceed the men.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0710/Obama-tax-proposal-Who-makes-more-than-250k-and-are-they-rich-video

I was looking at the table by the CBO of “Share of Federal Tax Liabilities for all Households, 1979-2009” and noticed a lot that wasn’t “fair.”  The top quintile (20%) in 2009 had a tax liability of 67.9% (55.3% in 1979) and the lowest quintile had .3% (2.1% in 1979).   The top 5% had a tax liability of 39.6% (28.1 in 1979) and there is no comparable figure for the bottom 5% because I think it is a negative number.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373

Charles Murray points out the top earners in the United States also tend to be college educated, industrious, married, and participate in a faith family.  And what does Obama reward?  High college debt, sloth, single women and spits in the face of the religious.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646.html

Elections have consequences

The Kitchen Cabinetreports:

The U.S. Treasury borrowed over $24 billion the day after Thanksgiving. That's $211 for every household in America...in ONE DAY. So $211 goes on my bill on Black Friday and I didn't even go shopping? Obama could take every dime of every person earning over $200,000 (about 5 million people) and he wouldn't have enough to run the government for one year, plus then those people would have no money to fund the state and local governments where YOU live.