About Me

Name:Hank Rearden
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Death and Taxes

    The election is less than a year away and the field of candidates soon will become more clear as primary season nears.  At this point the main issues that will effect this electoral cycle are not the same as they have been in the past several; namely the War on Terror does not figure to be a central issue (primarily because we are winning in Iraq).  It appears more clearly that this election is going to be about the future of the country, as just about everybody seems to be more than willing to part ways with George W. Bush.   As such the two major issues which are likely to dominate the debate are: illegal immigration and taxes.  I have addressed the former in a previous posting and am likely to expound upon it further in the future.  However, today I would like to address the other crucial issue.
    The best way to deal with this is to start with the basics.  Taxes are a necessary evil because governments cannot function without them.  The building of roads and highways, the functioning of post offices and license bureaus (such as they are), the organization of police forces and firefighters and all the rest of government agencies that exist (and I think prudently) on the local and state levels.  Federal taxation is another matter.  The constitution provides for the federal government to levy taxes for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a military force.  That is about all the constitution says about federal taxation.  However, ever since FDR gave us the New Deal, the federal government has taken on a much, much larger role in the funding of services and taxes have been increased to cover the costs.  
    At this point one might expect that I would start lamenting the growth and breadth of government largesse, and I do, but that is not the purpose of this post.  Maybe in the future I'll endeavor to list all of the worthless government programs that we would be wise to get rid of but not today.  Today I am focusing on the motivation of some politicians for whom the tax code is their holy grail.  I am not going to bore you with the year-by-year history of how the tax code and the proportionate size of government has grown.  I'll start with the modern age of liberalism circa 1980.  I was born in 1979, and throughout my entire life I have heard liberals and democrats call for higher taxes.  Why? To pay for all of these programs that apparently we just can not live without.  Again, I could launch into a tirade about the fallacy of this reasoning but I will save that for some other time.  What I am going to do is something I never do but for the purpose of this argument and the corresponding point I will make I will go ahead and accept the liberal premise that we need all of these programs to function as a society.  So every election cycle the democrats want to raise money to increase revenue for these crucial government services, and it is something that makes sense to a lot of Americans. 
    Fast forward to 2000, and the election of President George W. Bush (and yes, he was elected; Al Gore never won the state of Florida under any standard, it did not happen).  Because of the way the world was changed because of tragic events of September 11, 2001, many of us have forgotten what the major issues concerning that critical election of 2000 were.  Then Governor Bush ran primarily on the platform of lowering taxes to stimulate economic growth while now-lunatic Algore ran a campaign that included a mythical "lock box" for social security.  Bush won (yes he did), and the Bush tax cuts (which really were not all that large to begin with) took effect.  At the time of his inauguration the economy was heading for a recession (despite claims from the Clinton camp that we were running a budget surplus that was in reality a projection of future revenues based on computers models but not based on anything real).  Then 9/11 happened, and the recession was in full swing.  We then invaded Afghanistan where we are still fighting today and in 2003 of course we (rightfully) invaded Iraq.  Because of the Bush tax cuts we were able to withstand the recession, 9/11, and the fighting of two foreign wars and actually came out on the other end more robust then ever.  The stock market has nearly doubled, unemployment is basically nil, and the economy is roaring here in 2007.  
    What about government programs? Surely we had to lose some of the government programs in order to "pay" for the Bush tax cuts, because less money went to federal government right?  Not even close.  Not only has each government program actually grown  in size, but the government has taken in more money in taxation.  How can this be?  Well without getting into a dissertation on supply-side economics, it is as simple as this: More people had more of their own money which would have been otherwise confiscated by the federal government, and so they spent it.  More things were bought and sold and the result was (as it always is) an increase in revenue to the government, just like what happened in the sixties and the eighties.  There is a little more to it than that, but that also is for another day.  Bottom line, lower taxes produce greater revenues, it has been proven over and over.
    So we come to where we are today, and that is the liberal democrats calling for higher taxes while just about every republican calling for tax cuts of some kind.  Why raise taxes? To boost revenue of course, yet as I have just explained it is actually tax decreases which boost revenue, and this is something that is plain for everyone to see.  So why, when the evidence is so clear, do democrats want to raise taxes?  Assuming that we need all of these special programs or else, and that that is the nature of their concern, wouldn't it make sense to actually lower taxes, since it has been proven that revenue will actually increase?
    The answer of course is a big, fat, HELL NO.  The democrats want to raise taxes despite the evidence that lowering taxes raises revenue.  So the question must be asked; Why?  This is the point that I have been building up to: democrats and liberals want to raise your taxes not because it will increase revenue to the federal government but because THEY WANT TO CONTROL AS MUCH OF YOUR LIFE AS POSSIBLE.  It is as simple as that.  It is one thing to claim to want to raise taxes because it will help people, it is quite another to know that tax cuts actually accomplish that goal and still call for tax hikes.  There is a reason why liberals dominate govt., academia, media, and law; it is because these are institutions where their liberalism goes unchallenged and they can assert power over as many people as enter their world.  Liberal tax policy is the embodiment of their larger elitist worldview: that they are the smartest people in the world and you are too stupid to know this so they must control you for your own good.  Of course your own good is not the same as their own good, as they never subject themselves to the prescriptions of social engineering they endeavor to inflict on the rest of us.   For them, taxation is not for any greater good, it is to keep average people average.
    It is said that the only two guarantees in this life are death and taxes.  To a liberal politician, morality is taxing people to death and then taxing what they try to leave behind to loved ones.  While there is not much any of us can do about death, we ought to try fight this insidious ideology which seeks taxation as a means of control, with the ultimate goal being a utopia that resembles the cess pool that was the former Soviet Union.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The War on Terror

    In the days that immediately followed September 11, 2001 Americans were paralyzed by a combination of grief and fear the likes of which the country had never known.  Those of us who were adults on that terrible day were forever changed.  Through the pain of our national loss we as a nation slowly regained our resolve and began to sharpen our focus on the enemy.  It was not long before we were made aware of the identity of the murderers: terrorists.  Who were these people, and why did they seek to kill us?  The bewilderment quickly turned to rage, and the desire to destroy these people wherever in the world they were became a national passion.
    That was six years ago.  In the days that followed from then until now the United States has experienced truly one of the most remarkable periods of time in modern history.  The markets that crashed almost immediately have since doubled, impressive for any time period but significantly so during a time of war.  Advancements in technology have allowed for supersonic communicative capability the likes of which have never been seen.  During this time of war this nation has experienced unprecedented prosperity.  The comforts of being an American today are such that those who lived only half a century ago could not imagine it.
    All of this has happened during a time of war.  Though the advancement of our comfort has been a national blessing it has come at a price.  Way too many of us stopped focusing on the war because they could; the comforts of being an American have been such that one could simply ignore the terrorist problem and go about their lives unbothered by the idea that a bunch of savages on the other side of the globe want to cut their heads off.  The rest of us have been divided into two groups, those of us who want to win this war and those who want America to lose.   I know that is a harsh assessment.  It is nonetheless true.  
    Some have asked the question that has been answered by the administration several dozen times yet is perpetually ignored by the drive-by media.  That question is : how do we define victory in the war on terror?  As plain as I can possibly lay it out, this is the answer:  When the advancement of terrorism is halted to such an extent that they can no longer recruit new jihadis and are therefore totally ineffective, then we have won.  How long will that take?  God only knows, but one thing that I do know is that it will take longer as long as we have leftists and media types perpetually attacking the war effort and essentially emboldening the enemy.  Such activity is UN-PATRIOTIC, and I don't give a damn if that angers someone.  Helping our enemy to literally kill more of our troops makes me angry.
    To those who say we are fighting the wrong enemy or that Iraq is not the proper battleground, I have a few questions.  Who attacked us on 9/11?  That's right, Al-qaida.  Who are we fighting today?  You guessed it, Al-qaida.  Now some make the non-sequitur argument that there were no terrorists in Iraq until we went there.  Well, even if that were true, they are there now.  It occurs to me that if we went over there to kill terrorists, and exactly the terrorists we are looking for are coming to us to be killed, then I would have to conclude that that was a pretty effective strategy.  
    Some say we are creating terrorists by our presence there.  Now I hate to call anybody stupid but I can think of no more appropriate description.  We are creating terrorists by killing them?  This is where I must come to the conclusion that the real anti-war diehards are actually anti-American zealots.  It is no coincidence that the financiers of the anti-war protests of recent years were communist organizations who have more interest in the destruction of the country rather than victory over terrorism. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

      As you all know, this past  week the immigration bill stalled in congress.  Conservative talk radio played a major role, as congressmen were deluged with phone calls and emails demanding this thing be killed, and it almost completely has been.  This is truly a remarkable turn of events; a democrat congress, combined with a willing president, were unable to ram-rod this thing through.  All because conservatives were mobilized in a way not seen since Harriet Myers was appointed to the supreme court by President Bush in 2005.  
    The outcry against Myers was so severe the President eventually had to withdraw the nomination.  It was because of conservative muscle-flexing that Myers was nixed, and the eventual outcome of that whole situation was Samuel Alito, a true constitutionalist who was head-and-shoulders above Myers in the arena of jurisprudence.  Now this immigration bill which was almost universally opposed by conservatives has also been defeated in much the same fashion.  As such, it is appropriate to ponder the possibility that from this perhaps we might see a new immigration bill that is as satisfying to conservatives as was the nomination and eventual confirmation of Alito.
    What would such a bill look like?  Well we know what the lawmakers wanted to pass, even if not all of us read the behemoth bill that has seemingly been defeated.  We have heard them say that you can not address the border without dealing with the however many millions of illegals that are here now.  Of coarse many of us have said over and over that if you just enforce the current law we can cut down the current flow of illegals.  Naturally lawmakers ignore this logic and proceed on the notion that we MUST do something right now to make the illegals legal, as if we owe these people something.  They then contend that we have to do something and that critics offer no viable solution of their own, and are racist to boot.
    Well here is my idea.  I came up with it last year when the debate was raging, and today I am convinced it is still the best idea.  We make a very public announcement, perhaps in both english and spanish.  We introduce a one year solution.  All illegal aliens are given one year to apply for citizenship.  Part of the application process will be that all such applicants are to learn english.  To be sure, they must submit with their application a three hundred word essay outlining why they want to become citizens.  It is not important that it be grammatically perfect, just that it is sincere, and written in english.  Application forms can be found at every government office in the country, so there is no excuse not to apply.  Only in circumstances of fraud or insincerity will applicants be denied, and of coarse there will be a fee so that the government can wet their beaks.  If at the end of that years time you have applied but have not yet been processed, that's fine.  At least they have demonstrated a sincere desire to become a part of this distinct  American culture.  
    Also, during that years time, employers will be given tax credit to assist those illegals who work for them to complete this program.  This is a key incentive for employers to cooperate.  Especially since after that years time the penalty for hiring an illegal alien will be a heavy fine along with a five year suspension of their business license.  A second offense would result in a permanent suspension.  In this scenario, the employer has ample time, opportunity and incentive to get their people legal and english speaking, and the employer will not have to worry about abruptly having to replace their workforce.
    Third, during that period of time we will build a border fence, one that is inpenetrable by foreign invasion.  Do not even try to tell me that we can not do it.  We are America.  We can build a damn fence.
    Finally, all illegal aliens who do not attempt to take advantage of this opportunity to become Americans will be deported.  Period.  A year is plenty enough time to at least start the process of becoming legalized citizens.  They do not have to be totally processed by the end of the year but they have to at least applied.  If they are not interested in becoming a part of the American culture then we should deport them, and do not tell me we can not deport illegals.  We are America.  We can deport illegals, we just do not.
    Oh, and one  more thing, any illegal who joins our armed forces is granted immediate citizenship upon completion of at least one tour, or short of that in the event of an honorable discharge.  So there it is.  With this plan we seal the border, we cut off illegal employment opportunity, we provide a pathway to citizenship which is predicated on their volition to assimilate.  In so doing, we would be safer, and we would preserve our distinct American culture.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »