The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for February 23rd, 2009

Is Obama TRYING to trash our economy?? Plans to raise taxes on small business.

Posted by iusbvision on February 23, 2009

In previous posts we have explained how President Hoover tried to tax and spend and protectionist his way out of a recession that became the Great Depression. Then we explained how FDR and the New Deal continued many of those policies and the result was that unemployment never dropped below 20% until World War II an FDR’s own Treasury Secretary explained how the policy was a failure.

Now Obama wants to raise income taxes and capital gains taxes. Folks, this is a disaster in the making. It is a disincentive for people to invest and it will lower the amount of revenue that will come into the government.

The Obama spin will be that this is just on “the rich”. This is a lie. The tax will hit high wage earners but there aren’t that many of them. The vast majority of those who will be hit by this are Sub. S Corporations. Sub S. Corporations pay the top marginal rate rather than the corporate income tax rate because they are small businesses. Small business does most of the buying and selling and they create 75% of the jobs in this country.

What about the rich? The “rich” like John Kerry and other hyper millionaires/billionaires make money in many ways that are not considered “earned income”. For example: John Kerry made $5,072,000 in 2003 and had a total federal tax burden of 12.34% (See Norton’s First Law).

American small and medium sized businesses pays ridiculously high taxes now and far more than most of the industrialized world. Now Obama wants them to pay 40%. This is a perscription for more unemployment and higher prices for all of us.

Obama’s First Budget Seeks To Trim Deficit
Plan Would Cut War Spending, Increase Taxes on the Wealthy

By Lori Montgomery and Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 22, 2009; A01

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from “winding down the war” in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on “overseas military contingency operations” throughout Obama’s presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent.

Obama also proposes “a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement” that would target corporate loopholes, the official said. And Obama’s budget seeks to tax the earnings of hedge fund managers as normal income rather than at the lower 15 percent capital gains rate.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Venerable CBS Newsman Bernard Goldberg: The Media Was on a Historical Mission to Elect Obama and Stole the Election from Hillary

Posted by iusbvision on February 23, 2009

Remember the phrase “selected not elected” and how the left always applied that to President Bush? But we don’t hear that phrase any more do we? Perhaps it is because Hillary won the popular vote in the primary and may very well have won the nomination if not for the “super delegates” in the Democrat nomination process that can overturn the will of the people. The media also was piling on Hillary to “quit the race it was hopeless” when it fact it was not hopeless at all until the “super delegates” shut it all down.

Ironic that the party who always talks about Democracy and even bends/breaks the rule of law when its convenient to achieve it when it suits them has the process that is the least democratic.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, John Ziegler, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

How Obama and the Democrats sneaked language in the Porkulus (that no one read) to reverse Welfare Reform.

Posted by iusbvision on February 23, 2009

Welfare Reform was a smashing success at lowering poverty. Now it’s undone. Funny how Obama didn’t mention this in his trip to Elkhart. Do you understand why he had to do this “NOW”? He had to get it done before people like you and I found out about this.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Judge Napolitano: Obama trying to avoid transparency and manipulate the Census by moving it out of Commerce Department and into the White House.

Posted by iusbvision on February 23, 2009

Folks this is one of the sleaziest power grabs in the history of American politics.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

George Will: Repeal the 17th Amendment

Posted by iusbvision on February 23, 2009

I am so excited to see this column by George Will. As my political science teachers will tell you, I have discussed the possible repeal of this amendment for many years. It took the teeth out of the states and “made them administrative extensions of the federal government”. It eliminated the check and balance of federalism by taking too much power away from the states. It made senators MUCH more vulnerable to special interests, corruption and lobbyist money. It made them minions of the Washington DC beltway and not tied on a leash by our state legislatures that are much more susceptible to the influence of people like you and I. It made the party leadership much more powerful. In short the 17th Amendment had massive unintended consequences that undermined the entire purpose of passing it in the first place.

The 17th Amendment created a situation where people and/or parties can just vote themselves, their constituent groups or the special interests lining their pockets OUR money out of the public treasury…and haven’t we had about enough of that? John McCain said that he wants to get the bad money out of politics; repealing the 17th Amendment would do that for the Senate in a big way. Instead McCain has teamed with far left Senator Fiengold to make the problem even worse….

Sen. Feingold’s Constitution

By George F. Will
Sunday, February 22, 2009;

A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.

The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state’s progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold’s solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.

The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.

The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, “the executive authority” of the affected state “shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”

Feingold’s amendment says:

“No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.”

Feingold says that mandating election of replacement senators is necessary to make the Senate as “responsive to the people as possible.” Well. The House, directly elected and with two-year terms, was designed for responsiveness. The Senate, indirectly elected and with six-year terms, was to be more deliberative than responsive.

Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 — the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government.

Severing senators from state legislatures, which could monitor and even instruct them, made them more susceptible to influence by nationally organized interest groups based in Washington. Many of those groups, who preferred one-stop shopping in Washington to currying favors in all the state capitals, campaigned for the 17th Amendment. So did urban political machines, which were then organizing an uninformed electorate swollen by immigrants. Alliances between such interests and senators led to a lengthening of the senators’ tenures.

The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the electoral college as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.

Although liberals give lip service to “diversity,” they often treat federalism as an annoying impediment to their drive for uniformity.Feingold, who is proud that Wisconsin is one of only four states that clearly require special elections of replacement senators in all circumstances, wants to impose Wisconsin’s preference on the other 46. Yes, he acknowledges, they could each choose to pass laws like Wisconsin’s, but doing this “state by state would be a long and difficult process.” Pluralism is so tediously time-consuming.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »