What’s news today?
There’s lots of interesting stuff today, so let’s get to it.
Boehner’s last day as Speaker? From CNSNews
“I have confirmed with a group of Congressmen that House Speaker John Boehner will not be reelected Speaker tomorrow.
He will either resign or be forced out tomorrow.”
Also, from HotAir
“Ah well. A member of Boehner’s team tells NRO they’re in touch with caucus members and not worried about the vote. Read Joel Pollak’s piece at Breitbart last week to see why. When push comes to shove, there’s no reason to think anyone else would do a better job of uniting moderates and tea partiers or getting Obama to agree to serious deficit reduction except maybe Paul Ryan, and he’s the last person who wants Boehner’s job now.”
“Update: A friend with a Democratic source on the Hill says his source has heard the rumor about Boehner too and hints that Democrats might vote for him as Speaker tomorrow if his election appears to be in jeopardy. The thinking is that if the GOP dumps Boehner, it might remove some of their fingerprints from the fiscal cliff deal that just passed and Democrats don’t want that. Plus, they’d rather deal with the devil they know than the devil they don’t. There are no potential successors who’d be more agreeable than Boehner is. But this is all premised on him going forward with his nomination as Speaker even if he can’t secure a majority of the GOP caucus. Unlikely.”
_____________________________________________
More on the Tax Cut That’s Not, aka The Fiscal Cliff Deal.
From Bloomberg
“The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.
More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday.”
Only in Washington is this considered a success. And in 2 months, this manufactured crisis again rears it’s ugly head, because they didn’t fix anything.
_____________________________________________
The Supreme’s will have to decide this one, especially since we have now have conflicting judgements.
From TheHill
“A federal judge has ordered a temporary halt on the Obama administration’s birth-control coverage policy for Tom Monaghan, the Catholic billionaire who founded Domino’s Pizza.
Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff issued the decision Sunday, less than two days before the policy would have taken effect and exposed Monaghan to fines for non-compliance.
“Plaintiff has shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion,” Zatkoff wrote.”
_____________________________________________
This one isn’t shocking at all. From Reuters
“The number of FBI background checks required for Americans buying guns set a record in December, indicating that more people may purchase one after the Connecticut school massacre stirred interest in self-defense and prompted renewed talk of limits on firearms, according to FBI data.
The FBI said it recorded 2.78 million background checks during the month, surpassing the mark set in November of 2.01 million checks – about a 39 percent rise.
The latest monthly figure was up 49 percent over December 2011, when the FBI performed a then-record 1.86 million checks.”
_____________________________________________
Here’s another interesting read on the subject of gun control.
From PJMedia
“‘Gun Control Fails,’ Say Statistics from … Gun-Control Advocates”
“I personally believed in civilian disarmament until an acquaintance in law enforcement challenged my gun-banner’s assumptions with questions and points I could not rebut. This began a research journey limited only by my decision to exclude any data cited by the NRA. At the time, I was convinced only caring people like the Brady Campaign would present the truth.
Surprisingly (to me, at the time), I found no dataset proving civilian disarmament made anybody safer.”
Do note: all data cited below are from sources supportive of gun control.”
_____________________________________________
Wandering Views 
Looks like the Illinois State Democrats are moving to ban all long guns including pump action shotguns with no grandfathering. This is just the beginning of the Communist elite. I have already had two offers for my AK 47. If I get a big enough offer, I may buy the 338 Lapua
LikeLike
For all their demonization of those evil rich people and corporations, the Democrats sure did give them a lot of breaks in this latest fiscal stupidity bill:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578216583921471560.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t
LikeLike
Hasta La Vista Boehner. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Traitor.
LikeLike
Do you have trouble giving liberals/Democrats reasons why the US is in bad straights fiscally? Can you give them reasons why borrowing more money is bad for the US? Is there an easily shown reason why adding to the national debt is the wrong choice? Have you been able to tell them why we absolutely have to cut Entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare and the Prescription Drug Benefit?
Following is a repeat. Cut it an paste it to your liberal friends, without comment.
Post it at work, without comment.
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $385
Just to further the discussion,
$10 an hour for 40 hours a week is $400 a week.
$400 a week for 52 weeks year is $20,800.
LikeLike
Bob,
I like the illustration. I always have.
But then the liberal/Democrat replies with: what about the defense budget? Does it need to be so large? What about the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan? (etc etc.)
LikeLike
Has anyone else heard anything about this?
My husband says that the European Union Times is reporting that Hilary Clinton did not suffer a fall in her home leading to her concussion, but rather she was in an airplane crash in Iran that also killed a Navy Seal (who was reported to have committed suicide).
My initial thought is that this is just some wacko hooey. What do you all think about it?
Here’s the link he sent me…
http://www.eutimes.net/2012/12/clinton-injured-us-navy-seal-killed-in-secret-us-mission-to-iran/
LikeLike
Wow. That’s quite a story, Karen.
What an odd world we live in–whether it’s true or not.
LikeLike
Yeah, Michelle, it is an odd & crazy world we live in. And so much misinformation out there – from both liberals & conservatives. Don’t know who or what to believe anymore.
Except the Bible. I believe that. 😉
LikeLike
#5 Make It Man
Yes, they do. Then they need to figure it out. What do they suggest we cut? How do they suggest we pay for those entitlements?
I agree, they haven’t thought far enough to answer, except More taxes! (More government! unless it is run by conservatives/Republicans)
LikeLike
The blame for the increase in payroll taxes should be placed on the Republicans. The original Democrat proposal set the maximum for the continuation of the tax cut at 250k with a continuation of payroll tax cuts instead you have a maximum at 400k and no payroll tax cuts.
Here’s an interesting letter from michael moore about supporting the troops.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/those-who-say-i-support-troops-really-dont
Bob, I’m not a big fan of household budget comparisons simply because governments and households have too many differences but …. instead of budget cuts how about increased revenue. And even more importantly any household with that budget would simply file for bankruptcy or a whats called here a consumer report (you keep the house and car but lose at least 40% of unsecured debt). In any case a household or business has options to eliminate debt that are different than the federal gov’t.
LikeLike
the above should be from me
LikeLike
#10 hwesseli
From a Republican point of view, here are a few questions I would like answered before we start.
1. What should be the highest tax rate?
2. Should Social Security pay for it’s self?
3. Should Medicare pay for it’s self?
4. Should everyone pay some income taxes?
5. Should taxpayers support people who don’t work?
6. Is it the government’s job to take money from one person to give to another?
7. Do you borrow money to live on and legally bind your daughter to pay it off?
Remember, Democrats think Republicans are evil.
Republicans think Democrats are…
LikeLike
HWESSEL, every time revenue is increased, Congress spends it.
There is only so much money. They are already taking more than they need.
LikeLike
Hwesseli. I would like to suggest that households and governments are not as different as you think. The problem is that our political leaders have failed to realize that there are an infinite number of good things we can do, but we can’t afford to do them all. There is simply not enough money to do everything the government is trying to do. This type of irresponsible spending is not sustainable, and the longer it continues the more painful it will be to try to work out way out of the hole we have dug.
LikeLike
1. The highest tax rate under Eisenhower was 91% Nixon 70% Reagan 50% (until 86) Clinton 28 to 38% Bush 35% and today 39.6%. If you use any income above 400K to apply this rate, I personally have no problem with 91% but perhaps that would be too much of a shock. Reagan’s 50% would be just fine.
2. Social Security already does or would if the premiums weren’t “borrowed” for the budget. Secondly if you raise the maximum contributions to the first 100K earned, it would be solvent into the next century.
3. I don’t know enough about medicare to answer that. I favour single payer as opposed to the insurance giveaway the US will impose. Ontario now has single payer but used to have a mandatory govt insurance scheme with premiums based on income not risk. The latter does pay for itself but cost more to administer than single payer.
4. No. However if you eliminate or cap some tax breaks, more people would pay taxes. The mortgage deductible encourages sinking money into stationary capital and benefits people who can afford larger and larger homes. In other words its an regressive tax break which delivers very little societal benefits. Either eliminate it or cap it so it only benefits the lower mortgages. Im sure there are other subsidies which can be eliminated especially corporate welfare. Corporate taxes in reality are almost non-existent after subsidies or breaks.
5. Of course, why would you ask that? Its inhuman not to support your fellow man.
6. The government exists to provide law and order, defense, and socio-economic stability. In carrying out these tasks, it may tax some residents and give benefits to others. The majority of American spending is the military industrial complex which means the rich and middle class given their money to the elite corporate-govt elite. This of course is wrong and doesn’t fulfill a gov’ts mandate. Current military spending is far more than necessary for defense. I don’t include Social Security since its an insurance scheme that if administered properly should pay for itself.
7. I hope my debts are fully paid by the time I die. However, there’s insurance. In the case of the federal budget, the analogy doesn’t hold since the differences are far greater than its similarities. Iceland arrested its bankers and refused to pay its debts to foreign banks despite IMF threats. It now has one of the best economies in Europe. A govt can tell banks to shove it and not only survive but flourish.
LikeLike
#15 hwesselius
“Iceland arrested its bankers and refused to pay its debts to foreign banks despite IMF threats.”
So, Iceland borrowed money and is refusing to pay it back.
steal
/stēl/
Verb
Take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: “thieves stole her bicycle”.
Noun
A bargain: “for $5 it was a steal”.
Synonyms
verb. thieve – purloin – filch – rob – pilfer – sneak
noun. theft – stealing – larceny – thievery – robbery
LikeLike
Its simply not true that everytime gov’t revenue increases they spend it. Under Clinton they ran surpluses. During the same time period, the Liberal gov’t in Canada ran surpluses for years and they cut taxes every time the surplus went above a certain level. This is responsible management which is currently lacking both in Canada (now governed by Conservatives and running deficits) and the US.
Money is created by fiat, its value may be lowered by inflation but to state there is not enough money is to ignore the modern reality of money. Even without printing money, plenty of money exists in the US but is not circulating. Corporations have made massive profits since 2008 and have not reinvested nor have they been taxed properly. The money is there, its only a matter of allocation.
This is especially true in the US where massive amounts of money is given to corporations for defense spending yet the CEOs of these companies form a lobby group “Fix the Debt” to advocate cutting Social Security. Almost like taking the speck out of your neighbour’s eye while yours is jammed by a log.
LikeLike
to be accurate Robert, the Icelandic gov’t nationalized the private banks (who ran huge debts in the mortgage dividend market in Europe) and refused to pay the foreign debt created by these banks. This is no different than any corporate bankruptcy. It would be if the US had taken over AIG and Goldman Sachs for the purpose of running its bankruptcy. Essentially when you invest there is always a risk and the Europeans made a risky bet without doing due diligence.
LikeLike
#15 hwesselius
So, you think 50% would be a good tax rate. This is the first place you and I differ. 50% would be way too much, more like slavery than taxes. It wouldn’t be fair. Our government, the USA, was founded on treating everyone equally, no favors for the rich and the same justice for the poor. “…with Liberty and Justice for all.”
Isn’t Justice depicted as blindfolded, holding a scale? For me, that means everyone treated the same, equal. In the USA today some people pay 0%, as a matter of fact, they can get money back in tax refund checks while here in California the rich can pay 39.6% Federal plus 13% State. In New Math that is 52.6% on everything over $400,000.
Evidently that rate is fine with you. Why work that hard?
A wise friend of my father once told me, “Democrats think all money belongs to the government.”
LikeLike
Lets face it if you are earning more than 400K its probably not because you are working 4 times as hard as someone making 100K and eight times as hard as someone who makes 50K.
The rich enjoy far more benefits of the state then the poor and hence pay more. If gov’t breaks down and anarchy ensues, who loses the most — the rich and hence they should pay more since they benefit more. I would also argue thats is been empirically shown that everyone is better off including the rich if the gap between the rich and the poor is smaller. Taxes are part of this process of eliminating the gap.
Some may argue that justice means everyone should have a base share of the fruits of the land they live in, however, that would mean a whole discussion of what is justice and Im not going there.
I regard the democrats as the lesser of two evils for the US. Both serve the corporate world more than the common man but one throws out a few tidbits to keep the masses somewhat happy and less likely to rebel.
LikeLike
#18 hwesselius
“to be accurate Robert, the Icelandic gov’t nationalized the private banks (who ran huge debts in the mortgage dividend market in Europe) and refused to pay the foreign debt created by these banks.”
What would have happened if the private banks had gone bankrupt? Wouldn’t the owners of the banks have lost money? Wouldn’t the people that lent money to the banks have lost money?
If any of the bankers broke Icelandic law, then of course they should be prosecuted. I wonder if Iceland has laws against bad business decisions? Here in America you just lose money. How about in Canada?
LikeLike
Worth reading:
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/238329/the-culture-war-is-over-and-conservatives-lost
From the piece:
“Conservatives have largely lost the culture, and it can’t be won back by passing some landmark piece of legislation. Instead, it’s going to be a long, hard slog. The good news is that, though conservatives typically hate the term ‘reactionary,’ most conservative victory is first predicated on liberal overreach.
“It may be that if things get bad enough, America will finally start looking inward.”
LikeLike
#20 hwesselius
“The rich enjoy far more benefits of the state then the poor and hence pay more. ”
If I make $40,000 and I pay 10% I pay $4,000.
If I make $400,000 and I pay 10% I pay $40,000.
$40,000 is a lot more than $4,000.
We all drive on the same roads, go to the same parks, go to the same public schools, get the same police protection, go to the same prisons, go before the same judges.
But yes, the rich drive better cars they pay for, can afford to go to private schools they pay for, also hire private security that they pay for, and can pay for more lawyers than the poor can. But government services are the same for all!
Your statement is somewhat mendacious. Maybe “bait and switch” is a better choice. How about “apples and oranges”?
LikeLike
Oops! I got too cute with the italics. Only the first sentence, “The rich enjoy far more benefits of the state then the poor and hence pay more.” should be italicized.
LikeLike
“The rich enjoy far more benefits of the state then the poor and hence pay more. ”
Yeah, I didn’t see the logic in that either.
LikeLike
“Lets face it if you are earning more than 400K its probably not because you are working 4 times as hard as someone making 100K and eight times as hard as someone who makes 50K. ”
Maybe not at the moment but often the rich, especially small business owners y work very hard, for very little, for years, taking many chances and making many sacrifices before all their effort begins to pay off. You think they deserve the same as some guy who just shows up and gives the bare minimum.
LikeLike
Robert,
I’m not sure exactly what they were charged with but Icelandic bankers did spend time in jail. I’m pretty sure the charges were related to fraud or fraudulent accounting. Canadian banks are well regulated hence we had no banking crisis, but very few businessmen go to jail in Canada even when they do commit fraud. Matt Tabbi has an interesting article on massive drug money laundering and the slap on the wrist bank executives receive as opposed to the common man and a little bit of marijuana — an other example of corporate deference.
Essentially, that is what happened in Iceland — they let the two private banks go bankrupt and only reimbursed common Icelandic accounts. The type most gov’ts have insured upto a base amount usually 100K. The IMF threaten all types of sanctions and initially the Icelandic economy was hit hard but they recovered quickly.
23
In my explanation I also mention that progressive taxation resulting in a lower inequality gap is good for both the rich and poor. Research has shown that countries with lower levels of inequality do much better for both the rich and poor in many social and economic measurements. Hence, it is in the rich people’s best interest to pay up.
But I still assert the rich benefit far more from government and hence should pay far more.
LikeLike
Donna — I would argue that the overreach occurred with many conservatives attempting a tax cut philosophy for 40 some years. With each successive tax cut, they reached further and further, now reaching the absurdity where even a small increase on .5% of the population is enough to halt a budget.
kbells — the hardworking small business person is constantly held up by conservatives but this is misleading. Most small businessman fall under the 250K income level. Your average independent tradesman, farmer, or retailer (most small businesses) earn far less. In reality, those making multi-millions a year are general in the finiance and corporate managment sector. And although the latter works hard and has expertise, they’re not worth tens of millions and as for the former, they’re parasites. Stock markets, money managers, etc are supposed to act as efficient allocators of capital but very little of this is done instead you see them betting on their own losses or stripping a company or pension fund bare in order to give themselves a bonus.
LikeLike
Can your assert how they benefit more or do just need to take your opinion as fact?
LikeLike
Russia has a flat tax – 13%. Reagan would be proud. I know the Russians think the US is full of perverts. I wonder if they also call us “Commies”.
http://abcnews.go.com/news/t/blogEntry?id=18125659
LikeLike
“they’re not worth tens of millions”
Who decides who is worth what? How do you figure athletes and movie stars in that. Since the guys who sell popcorn in the theater and peanuts in the stadium work just as hard shouldn’t they be getting more of their fair share.
LikeLike
Russia is a dysfunctional state — its hardly an example to follow.
No entertainer is worth the millions they get paid but somehow the market says they are which tells me the market is not quite as omniscient as some say it is. The popcorn vendor should definitely get a raise. Raise minimum wage — it doesn’t result in unemployment rather lower profits, lower wages at the top, and greater consumer stimulus.
LikeLike
I am glad my grandfather left Canada. It is bad enough that I live on the West
Coast but at least I now live in a town where teachers can have a Republican bumper sticker without their car being keyed.
I don’t have to hear one of the school secretaries say that George W Bush wanted to make black people back into slaves.
I no longer have to have money taken from my paycheck by a union that did not support much of anything that I agreed with.
LikeLike
Borrows half of what it spends; ruined its banking sector while almost causing the collapse of the world’s economy; starts an expensive war that is certain to hurt its own interest; promotes perversion; subsidizes uneconomical forms of energy production; fails to tell its citizens what it’s estate tax laws will be before the day they are set to change. The US is a dysfunctional state.
LikeLike
Lets face it if you are earning more than 400K its probably not because you are working 4 times as hard as someone making 100K and eight times as hard as someone who makes 50K.
That’s an assumption no one could ever, ever, prove or otherwise attempt to quantify, define, or justify. Show us how you’ve done it. It would only compound the absurdity to use that notion as a basis–at least in part–for tax law. *Assume* some inequity–as a priori (??)–then write tax code to rectify it. Total. Crock.
LikeLike