Then and Now

Found on Facebook:

But to complain about Rev Al would be......racist.

What's $300 million divided by 44?

That's the math question of the day, for those into cost/benefit analysis on Obamacare.  And for the rest of us as well.

The Oregon health insurance exchange signed up only 44 people through the end of November, according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services. Oregon was unable to reach triple figures despite receiving nine figures in federal money to build and promote its exchange. The amount of federal aid exceeded $300 million.

As Philip Klein notes, Obamacare fans can’t blame Republican resistance for the program’s failure in Oregon. The state is run by Democrats and it embraced Obamacare from the start. Indeed, its outreach program has been praised by Obamacare supporters, according to Klein.

For those who don't have a pencil handy, that works out to over $6,800,000 per signup.  And we don't even know how many of those actually went through the whole process to get functioning insurance with payment.

And for anyone thinking, we'll that's Oregon's problem - remember that "federal aid" is just code for "USA taxpayer money".  As in you and me.

Personally, I think most of the 44 would have just rather gotten the money and worried about paying medical bills from it.  You know....that might even be the rational economic thing to do.  Anyone have a phone number in Salem, Oregon to call the governor with an idea?

H/T to Powerline.

There's money in the air

If there's one thing that the OC wants everyone to take from this blog, it's "Follow the Money".  Because, when you strip away all the lofty words and emotional rhetoric, it all comes down to.....tada....money.

For as much as Congress and the DC establishment are pros at this, few hold a candle to the statist bureaucrats of the European Union.  Not content just to exert control over Europe, they want the tentacles to extend over America.  From Breitbart:

The European Union has established an Emissions Trading Scheme, which taxes all airlines including American carriers on carbon emissions, even while they are flying over the United States.

Yes, you read that correctly.  If a plane takes off in San Diego, California and lands in Madrid, Spain, an American airline would be taxed by the Europeans on its carbon emissions for the entire flight, even though the bulk of the flight occurred over the United States and the Atlantic Ocean.  Their rational?  It landed in Europe.

Read the whole story.

You and Thee, but not for me

There is just something that bugs the hell out of the OC -- the smug, sanctimonious nature of those of the Entitlement Culture.  Especially those at the top of that feeding frenzy.  News today of the International Monetary Fund's head Christine Lagarde tells of how it's one set of rules for others and a special set for those who are the "leaders".

It was called her "Let them eat cake" moment. Now Greece will be saying: "Make her pay tax".

The IMF chief Christine Lagarde was accused of hypocrisy yesterday after it emerged that she pays no income tax – just days after blaming the Greeks for causing their financial peril by dodging their own bills.

The managing director of the International Monetary Fund is paid a salary of $467,940 (£298,675), automatically increased every year according to inflation. On top of that she receives an allowance of $83,760 – payable without "justification" – and additional expenses for entertainment, making her total package worth more than the amount received by US President Barack Obama according to reports last night.

Unlike Mr Obama, however, she does not have to pay any tax on this substantial income because of her diplomatic status.

The OC remembers Leona Helmsley who said that it was the "little people" who pay taxes, not her.   As for Lagarde -- nice work if you can get it.

Read the story at the Independent.

Lovitz and Kelly

Great video of John Lovitz talking with Megyn Kelly.  I love how this lifelong Democrat has opened his eyes to Obama.  Even better, he's speaking out.  As he notes, "People are thanking me for saying what they were already thinking."  Which is so true.  Too many Americans are afraid of saying what they feel for fear of being branded as "racist" or "fascist" or any number of other slams.

Watch and share.

On Compromise

From Fred Thompson:

It’s a way to kick the hard can down the road. Compromise is one of the reasons we’re in the fix we’re in today. What is the history of the “raise taxes and reduce spending” compromise that is so popular in elite circles today? It is this: We get the tax increases but not the spending cuts.

After having already enacted major tax cuts in 1982, Ronald Reagan agreed to raise business and excise taxes in exchange for spending reductions. Taxes went up, but so did spending by $450 billion.
President George H.W. Bush cut a similar deal with Democrats. Again, we got the taxes but the spending cuts never materialized.

There is simply no proven way to guarantee that the spending-cuts part of the compromise will be implemented. Is it any wonder that Republicans are taking a hard line of this? Since spending is the source of the problem anyway, cuts must be enacted first.

Via a pointer at NRO.

PS:  I continue to regret that Fred didn't have the all-consuming fire to run the gauntlet to become President.  His communication skills are awesome and he could have easily been the kind of modern-day communicator that Reagan was in his day.

Some thoughts on Europe

From the always thoughtful and insightful Richard Hernandez at PJ Media:

France, Greece or Spain? It doesn’t matter, says Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP (European parliamentarian) who says of recent events in his commentary: “France and Greece are just the beginning – Europe is entering a downward spiral.”

The key problem, he writes, is the false choice between increasing the tax burden to retire debt and increasing the debt. Having failed to do the former, the European parties are prepared to return to the latter. “So why do voters hope to solve the crisis by accelerating the policies which led to it?”

Much of the blame must attach to the Centre-Right parties currently in office in most national capitals. Though they talk of fiscal prudence, many of them are in reality locked into Euro-corporatism. With a handful of honourable exceptions, they have presided over crony capitalism, more spending, more taxes and more debt. Their failure has opened the door to the angry and populist Left. When the ‘Right’ is represented by Samaras and Sarkozy, it’s no surprise that voters cast around for radical alternatives. After all, when it comes to the euro, the Trotskyists have been proved right. They argued all along that, while the single currency would suit the suits, working people would suffer.

Because they don’t know anything else. Because it has seemed to work for so long they don’t know how to do anything else. Because it has always been a case of “heads we win, tails the public loses”. Both the “populist left” and the “centre-right” drink from the same river of public funds. The sole distinction is that while the first fatten one set of cronies, the second fattens a slightly different set of cronies.

And the worse things get, the likelier people are to demand the high-tax, high-spend policies which caused the mess. The eurozone is now in a vicious circle,” Hannan concludes.  The cure, having caused the disease, will be used to treat the disease. 

I like Hannan's observation of the false choice of taxes or debt.  Much the same is the MSM "debate" here in the USA.  What is almost always significantly missing is that third unnamed choice; to reduce spending to have it come into line with revenues.  But it is almost as if government spending is locked into place, immovable as granite, and everything else much adapt to fit.  Can anyone say cart and horse?

Sunny Saturday

Actually, it's a bit overcast, but here is Sunny with some thoughts on taxes.  And compulsion.

Taxes are for the other guy

In other posts, I've written about how progressives are all about OPM.  Taxing the money of others.  Using the money of others.  Asserting a moral claim on the money of others.  But when it comes time to pony up their own cash....just ask Tim Geithner, or Kathleen Sibelius, or Al Sharpton.  Now comes news from Massachusetts:

Having criticized her Republican opponent for voting against a millionaires' tax measure, U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren said here Friday that she opted not to pay a voluntary higher tax rate in Massachusetts.

"I paid my taxes, and I did not make a charitable contribution to the state," Warren, who worked with the Obama administration to create the new consumer financial protection bureau, said when asked if she paid a 5.85 percent state income tax instead of the standard 5.3 percent -- a choice given to Massachusetts taxpayers.

The likely Democratic challenger to Republican Sen. Scott Brown told reporters at a press conference that "the key issue" is about "the 'Buffett rule' and whether or not millionaires and billionaires ought to pay their fair share in taxes, or should they be permitted to have a free walk and just pay a much lower tax rate than secretaries.” She was referring to the proposed minimum tax rate on those earning at least $1 million per year; earlier this week, the Senate failed to advance a bill creating the new rate. When pressed on the Massachusetts tax, Warren again said, “I paid the taxes that I legally owed. I did not make a charitable contribution to the state.”

When given the opportunity to pay more to help out her overwhelmingly blue state, Warren takes a pass.  Better to use the force of the state on everyone else.

Brown’s campaign called Warren a hypocrite for not checking the optional higher tax rate on her personal income. “The problem with running a campaign based on self-righteousness and moral superiority is that you had better live up to the same standard you would impose on everyone else," said the incumbent's campaign manager, Jim Barnett, in a statement. The Brown team said Warren earned over $700,000 in 2011, adding, “This is the sort of hypocrisy and double-speak voters are sick and tired of hearing from politicians, especially those who can't keep their hands out of others' pocketbooks."

Remember.....it's all about OPM.  Keeping their own, spending yours.  Just like a GSA employee.

Hat tip to Flopping Aces for the link to Real Clear Politics.

Watch your wallet

Fox News has a report on the upcoming United Nations Rio summit.  Those world-government do-gooders have a plan and boy will it be coming for you.

The upcoming United Nations environmental conference on sustainable development will consider a breathtaking array of carbon taxes, transfers of trillions of dollars from wealthy countries to poor ones, and new spending programs to guarantee that populations around the world are protected from the effects of the very programs the world organization wants to implement, according to stunning U.N. documents examined  by Fox News.

The main goal of the much-touted, Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, scheduled to be held in Brazil from June 20-23, and which Obama Administration officials have supported,  is to make dramatic and enormously expensive changes in the way that the world does nearly everything—or, as one of the documents puts it, "a fundamental shift in the way we think and act."

Where have we heard about "fundamental transformation" before?  Oh, yes...now I remember.  It was part of that "Hope & Change" thing.

More from the Fox story:

That  huge catalogue of taxes and spending is described optimistically as “targeted investments  in human and social capital on top of investments in natural capital and green physical capital,” and is accompanied by the claim that it will all, in the long run, more than pay for itself.

Pay for itself?  Yep...sure it will.  Just like those florescent light bulbs.  Just like those electric cars.  Just like every other governmental "investment".

Read the whole story.  And remember.  The Obama administration supports these goals of "social justice". These are those folks who know what's best for the world.  Or so they keep telling us.  Do you believe it?

Pay your share, Al

Tim Geithner isn't the only one who thinks that paying taxes is for the other guy.  From the Daily Caller:

The left-wing National Action Network Inc., headquartered in New York City’s Harlem neighborhood, owes at least $1,556,059 in federal taxes and $108,489 in New York taxes, according to the Nexis tax liens database. Tax agencies typically file tax liens only after taxes have become significantly overdue and other collection methods have failed.

Did someone say "social justice"?  Must be something other than that old "equal treatment before the law" stuff we learned in school.

Loons across the ocean

While we have our own leadership election this year to keep our attention, the French are also in the process of selecting a president.  Two of the leading candidates from the left have truly redistributionist views.  First, there is Francois Hollande, the main Socialist candidate.  He advocates a tax rate of 75% on income over €1,000,000 ($1,327,000).  Talk about a disincentive to success.

But that's a piker in the world of European left-wing thought.  Jean-Luc Mélenchon is a hard left, anti-capitalist activist who is rising in the presidential election polls.  He advocates capping "fat-cat" salaries at €360,000 ($477,000), after which income tax would be set at 100%.  Think about that.  The government says, "You have earned enough.  Anything more you make goes to us."

The scary part - there are many who think this is a good idea.  The even scarier part - many in the Democratic Party think that the USA needs to be more like Europe.

The Vote Pump

From Firewall with Bill Whittle:



Follow the money. Never truer than today.

The Beer Parable of Taxation & Tax Cuts

This has been circulating around the 'net, and the stated author (an economics professor) has denied writing it.  But it still rings true.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



I have a sneaky suspicion that the attributed author actually did write this, but later denied it to keep up his credibility in the ivory towers of academia.