You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2009.
Hysterical.
Kenneth Woodward wrote an article asserting that Obama should be welcomed at Notre Dame. He failed to mention…his son works at Notre Dame! Not only does he work at Notre Dame, he is high up in marketing. Foreshame sir. Thank you News Busters for breaking this.
For original article on the Obama/Notre Dame Scandal, click here.
During the presidential campaign, a group of Americans opposed to Barack Obama unsuccessfully sought to undermine the President’s campaign by calling attention to his middle name “Hussein,” in what I will refer to as the “Hussein Tactic.” They hoped to use his middle name to mislead Americans into thinking he was a Muslim. Additionally, they hoped Americans would form a mental association between Obama and Saddam Hussein, and thus, tarnish Obama’s image.
The Hussein Tactic was unsuccessful and probably cut against their efforts. Americans are brighter than they give themselves credit for, and they do not like cheap shots. This was clearly one. Whether you think Obama follows the tenants of Christianity, he does not follow the tenants of Islam. Further, it should be no surprise that Americans refused to connect any part of Saddam with Obama. But for their disregard for the dignity of human life at all stages, Obama and Saddam clearly are different. In fact, the only thing the two probably agreed on is that Saddam should still be in power.
Shameful or not, this was unnecessary distraction. Opponents of Obama did not need to use underhanded means to attack him. They should have simply criticized the left-leaning views that he espouses. If they did not want to do that, they should have referred to Obama as Barack “Marx” Obama or warn people about “Obamunism.” Although Marx is not his middle name, it would have been less misleading than his real middle name, and they might have earned a few smiles for making a clever connection between Obama and Karl Marx, the father of communism. Above all, such foresight would have provided increased credibility with each new day of the Obama Presidency.
If you have not read the Communist Manifesto, you should. Specifically, you should look at the pillars of communism and just see what comes to mind. The Manifesto lists ten steps for transitioning a capitalist state to a communism. These are the pillars of Marxism:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
To be fair, some American policies already mirrored Marxism before Obama took office. American has already bought into public education; it already has a progressive income tax and the estate tax; it already uses its eminent domain powers to confiscate private property; it already provides public housing; and industrial armies A.K.A. unions already exist. Additionally, George W. Bush deserves much disfavor for greatly expanding government and introducing bailout politics. Although Bush was a big spending liberal, you must credit his anti-Marxist tax policy, which temporarily flattened the tax code and nearly eliminated the death tax.
Obama, on the other hand, has taken America’s communist trend to new heights with no plus side. He wants to broaden every socialist policy that already exists and hopes to add socialized health care to it. He plans make the tax code substantially more progressive and bring back the death tax with full force. He wants to expand the industrial armies with his check card policy. His party promotes the “fairness doctrine,” which would eliminate the free press, and even if Obama does not support reimposing the doctrine, it is doubtful that he would fight it either. During his campaign, he also made a case for the need to redistribute some of the wealth, and he is using gratuitously large “economic stimulus” bills to spread it around. Additionally, Obama went well beyond Bush’s TARP bailout and seems willing to seize banks, insurance companies, and bailout any big business with a union presence, particularly big auto. With centralization and redistribution being at the heart of so much of Obama’s policies, you might wonder if the President is looking to the Communist Manifesto to solve our nation’s problems. We are only a few months deep in Obamunism and things seem to becoming more communist by the minute. Even if we had not gotten distracted by the Hussein tactic during the campaign, I do not think we would have foreseen so much socialism in so little time — maybe it is just communist manifest destiny.
In the game of gaining influence with the President, few currently enjoy as much success as Robert Wolf. As the new administration solidifies its leadership and style of government, Mr. Wolf is the one person above all others that you need to watch intently. Mr. Wolf is the closest thing to a human “tea leaf” that anyone will find in the foregoing economic crisis. To read said “tea leaf” we need to examine how his interests relate to Obama’s policies.
Robert Wolf can appropriately be thought of as George Soros’ politically affluent protege. Mr. Wolf currently serves as President of the UBS Investment Bank, and is Chairman and CEO for UBS Group for the Americas. After being snubbed by the Clinton machine, Wolf decided to look elsewhere to parlay his professional status into political influence. He found his answer in a young junior Senator from Illinois named, Barack Obama. Just ten days before Obama announced his candidacy for President, He and Wolf met privately in Washington, DC for a two-hour dinner.
Wolf was an important “get” for Obama because Wolf’s prominent status both on Wall Street and within Democrat fundraising circles lent credibility to the campaign. Now that the dust from campaign fundraising has settled, Wolf is widely considered to have been Obama’s top Wall Street fundraiser. This despite the fact that UBS was specifically targeted by a Senate Investigation regarding their practice of shielding wealthy investors’ assets from federal taxes. In addition to the investigation, the IRS has filed a lawsuit against UBS in a Miami court to obtain the names of 52,000 depositors that it suspects benefitted from the tax havens.
Wolf’s UBS has also received nearly $5 Billion from the government as a counter-party to AIG’s TARP payout. Due to popular pressure, Andrew Cuomo, New York’s Attorney General, is investigating the flow of funds through AIG to banks such as UBS. Sounds like Wolf and UBS are in a bit of trouble doesn’t it?
Now, let’s return to the relationship between Obama and Wolf. Mr. Wolf was able to raise funds for Obama with a particular fervor, perhaps the fervor of a Wall Street CEO who knows his troubles. Wolf was able to put together several significant fundraising events for Obama during the campaign cycle. It is reported that Wolf raised in excess of $1 Million dollars for Obama’s campaign. Wolf’s ability to cozy up to Obama during the campaign has led to a continuance of their special relationship during Obama’s Presidency.
Wolf was rewarded for his fundraising efforts with a seat in the President’s newly-formed economic advisory council. An extraordinary contradiction for a President who swore that lobbyists need not apply for a position in his administration if they had lobbied in fields of policy that related to the job. However, no mention of major fundraisers and ethical positions was made by Obama. A curious exception to his ethical stance on outside influences.
Obama recently made another curious exception that just so happened to benefit Wolf and UBS. That exception was made with regard to taxes on executive bonus payments for companies who accepted government money. The oft glossed over exception provided that companies who took $5 Billion or less from the government were exempted from any penalty taxes on bonus pay. Wouldn’t you be interested to know how they arrived at that arbitrary line? As a suggestion, UBS took nearly $5 Billion from the Government as a counter-party to AIG. Hmm… Is it strangely coincidental that arguably Obama’s top personal finance advisor happens to run a company that is exempted from the proposed stiff tax penalties?
Though we are still inside the first 100 days of Obama’s term as President, his cast of characters is beginning to fill in. If Obama’s policy proposals are any indication, Mr. Wolf’s best interests seem to be well cared-for. Does this mean that UBS is de facto immune to any future investigations by the administration? It’s too early to tell. But we are starting to see the potential benefits of raising ‘mas dinero’ than anyone else on Wall Street.
In the wake of our now highest viewed article, the one covering Notre Dame , and because of the fact that the petition to un-invite Obama from Notre Dame has now reached over 200,000 signers (in one full week now), I figured I would provide some insight into what is happening in our country with Conservatism and Catholics. You probably won’t hear this elsewhere, unless you speak academe and read things like George Weigel for fun (a.k.a. you are a nerd like myself).
Many of my friends on the Christian right are probably wondering: what in the heck is wrong with Catholics? At least I would be, as I list off Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy (God Bless his health), John Kerry…yes, I can keep going, but you get my drift. Well here is what is happening:
About 40 years ago the Catholic Church in America went through a tremendous change. This change, is largely the result of a Church Council now familiarly called “Vatican II.” This Council, a Council of the major leaders in the Church, revisited the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church. While the revisit was warranted, and the Council’s decisions consistent with tradition (and far from revolutionary), it was used very many in the American Catholic Church as something it wasn’t: a reason to throw out Church Doctrine and replace it with other ideas. This terrible decision made by American Catholics leaders was outside the boundaries of Vatican II, and has had VERY poor result to say the least. Not only do we have very poor spiritual formation in people like Pelosi, but consider this: before Vatican II, the Catholic Church had the highest number of Seminarians in the nation’s history. After Vatican II was misused, this number plummeted, and now we have serious problems getting seminarians in (a fact that is quickly changing with the reemergence of orthodoxy).
This seminary problem (along with the Priest scandals and such), came in part because the powerful tools of faith and reason were replaced with a VERY simplified version of Catholic teaching across American Catholic teaching. Further, “social justice” became a code word for “The poor are good and the rich are evil. To be a good person, you must be poor.” This “social justice” became a rampant problem for the Catholic Church, and remains so today.
There is yet another issue: the United States asserts individual liberty above other principles generally except life. This principle is beautiful, and is consistent with Catholic teaching. Contrary to this U.S. and also Catholic philosophy, the libertines (liberals or Statists) are attempting to redefine freedom to mean “Do what you want,” or “Consensus equals truth.” This new definition of freedom is how many in the media are treating the Notre Dame scandal.
Here’s the point: There is no “Conservative Catholics thinks this…” and “Progressive Catholics think this…” but ONLY “CATHOLICS think this…” and if you don’t think that way, then you AREN’T Catholic. That’s the deal. Further, the phrase “Conservative Catholic” has come to mean, “People who want Catholic to be defined as it always has been…” meaning “Conservative Catholic means “Catholic,” while progressive just means “Liberal that believes in Jesus.” This Progressive Catholicism has caused people to think that within Catholicism, consensus amongst the laity CAN equal truth. It cannot. If ALL Notre Dame students wanted Obama on campus, it wouldn’t matter, because within Catholicism, truth must be followed, not prestige or consensus.
Viva Ce’.
“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.”
- Dr. James Thomson, first scientist to derive a human embryonic stem cell line
“Imagine any of this generation’s Democratic establishment taking a job at Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati as a middle-manager responsible for a division of employees and its annual profit and loss. It is wholly inconceivable. Or helping an owner of an auto-parts company manage through a real crisis. They wouldn’t have a clue.”
- Daniel Henninger, in his excellent editoral on “Democrats Bid Business Adieu” from Thursday’s Wall Street Journal
So far, the Congress and the Federal Reserve have bailed out:
Now, the discussion has come to newspapers and the US Postal Service. Pretty soon, we’ll be asking who hasn’t had a bailout. Rather than letting bad businesses fail, we’d rather throw cash at them and hope that their business models and/or practices magically transform into profitable ones. This is otherwise known as “wishful thinking.”
In Obamaspeak, however, “wishful thinking” is the same thing as “investment.” Much like his “tax cuts” which were actually naked income redistribution, these “investments” are actually just cash given to enterprises in which no individual in their right mind would invest. Generally speaking, we used to call this “corporate welfare.”
So while we’re at it, I have a few suggestions for industries that need bailouts (excuse me, “investments”), all of which have seen massive losses in the past few years and are in danger of collapse:
Or, we could just save ourselves a lot of money and let the market work like it’s supposed to. What are your suggested industries for bailout?
One of President Obama’s campaign promises- one that was greatly celebrated by the bleeding hearts- was to raise taxes on those families making over $250,000 in income. The outcome of the 2008 election shows that this was clearly a popular plan. Liberal class warfare is accepted by liberals and moderates alike (and even some conservatives) because most people, even most highly educated people, do not know where they stand, statistically, or even how the graduated income tax works. While it’s worthwhile to debate how much is Leftish wealth redistribution, Obama’s proposals can really be put into perspective by examining actual tax statistics that are provided by the Internal Revenue Service. For those of you who are tax professionals or have studied the subject, this is probably no surprise to you. However, it is our responsibility as American citizens to understand the system by which the government claims our income, and it our duty to share our knowledge with our fellow taxpayers. Here are the facts:
The IRS administers a progressive income tax, meaning that higher income dollars are taxed at a higher rate. A policeman who earns $50,000 a year pays the same amount of tax on his $50,000 income as does the doctor who earns $200,000 a year. However, the doctor will pay a higher rate on his income from $50,000 to $75,000, and a still higher rate on dollars from $75,000 to $100,000, and so on. This sets up a system in which the more the doctor works, the less he is “paid” for his work after taxes are taken out. Perhaps the next time you cannot get an appointment because your doctor has chosen to take the afternoon off, you should blame the graduated tax system.
The statistics tell of an even more insidious effect. The top 50% of earners shoulder 97% of the tax burden, meaning that the bottom 50% of earners pay about 3% of all taxes. To be in the top 50% of earners, a person need only make $30,881. Furthermore, the bottom 50%, in addition to paying almost none of the tax, are the citizens likely to be receiving government benefits (retirees, welfare moms, disabled people). Not only do these people get a free ride, but we’re paying them to take it.
In 2005, the most recent year for which such statistics are available, total individual income tax collected was $934,703,000,000 and the average tax rate was 12.45%. The statistics are compiled by return, meaning that a married couple is treated as one entity (so if the income is $40,000, this includes unmarried individuals who make $40,000 as well as couples for whom the combined income is $40,000). Also, the income amounts, in dollars, are pre-tax dollars (meaning that taxes are paid out of this amount).
• The top 1% of income earners paid an average tax rate of 23.13%.
• The top 5% paid an average tax rate of 20.78%.
• The top 10% paid 18.84%.
• The top 25% paid 15.86%.
• The top 50% paid 13.84%.
• Keep in mind that the top 50% rate includes and is averaged with the top 1% rate. So someone in the 50th percentile actually pays less than 13.84%, because his rate is averaged with the higher rates of those who earn more.
What is truly ridiculous is that the share of income that each group earns does not line up with the corresponding share of the taxes that the group pays. While the top earners do have a larger share of income, they pay a share of taxes grossly out of proportion with that income.
• The top 1% of earners claimed 21.20% of all income but paid 39.38% of the total income tax. These earners paid a share of tax equal to almost double their share of income.
• The top 5% of income earners made 35.75% of the income, but paid 59.67% of the taxes.
• The top 10% of earners got 46.44% of total income earned by individuals, but paid 70.30% of taxes.
• The top 25% of earners had 67.52% of the income but paid 85.99% of the taxes.
• The top 50% of earners claimed 87.17% of total income but paid 96.93% of the taxes.
• The bottom 50% of earners claimed 12.83% of income but paid only 3.07% of income taxes. People in this category were also significantly more likely to be receiving government benefits (getting money back from the government).
Liberals like to say that the “rich” get more income so they should be taxed more. The Left loves to write about taxing “the rich,” but “the rich” is a class they leave largely undefined. The statistics below show that “the rich” is not limited to those people featured by Robin Leech on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but “the rich” actually encompasses much of the middle class.
• To be in the top 1% of income earners, a taxpayer need only earn $364,657. A person in the top 1% will pay an average tax rate of 23.13% of his income (almost 1 out of every $4 goes to pay income tax).
• An income of only $145,000 qualifies one to be in the top 5% of income earners.
• The top 25% of income earners includes those people who make $62,068 per year. These earners pay 85.99% of all income taxes.
• To be in the top 50% of earners, one need earn only $30,881.
• To really put this in perspective, a person in the top 50% of earners, but not in the top 25% of earners, makes between $30,881 and $62,067 dollars per year and pays 10.94% of all taxes.
So what’s the point of all of these numbers? Basically, it’s to show that the vast majority of the “rich” to whom the Left refers are not business tycoons with houses on every continent or Paris Hiltons who shop at Gucci and live for the next fashion show. The “rich” are people who have nice house that’s by no means a mansion. The “rich” are people who work hard every day. The “rich” are people for whom raising the tax rate a “mere” 2% may seriously compromise their ability to send their children to the college of their choice or to obtain a necessary medical procedure that their insurance does not cover. The “rich” is you.
Statistics can be found at: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html
Tags: Class Warfare, Income Tax, Tax
Recent Comments