Democrats are convinced that the United States needs more taxes to dig us out of the current recession, unemployment problem, and run-away national debt.
Nancy Pelosi claims that the "tax cuts for the rich" cannot be continued because it would be "too costly." Former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey says, "Demagoguery beats data" in politics, here are some data to help us evaluate the Democrat claim.
The first big cut in income taxes came in the 1920s, at the urging of Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He argued that a reduction of the tax rates would increase the tax revenues. What actually happened?
In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes-- and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue--and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes.
How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.
High tax rates which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.
The New York Times reported in 2006: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."
This country needs LESS taxation, not more!!
(This blog post was excerpted from Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com, 11/16/10)
Monday, December 13, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Common Sense at the Airport Body Scanner
I have just passed through the Transportation Security Administration passenger inspection routine at the Denver and Detroit airports; and I have some advice to offer my readers.
The body scanning devices being used in airports are low voltage X-rays that read the scan by backscatter from the radiation contact. They deliver about the same amount of radiation as an ordinary chest X-ray; there is a difference, however. The scanners at the airport do not deliver deeply penetrating ionizing radiation—all of the radiation is concentrated in the skin and the tissues immediately under the skin. Therefore, the radiation exposure is concentrated in that area, resulting in a significant amount of damaging radiation there—more than a chest X-ray. The scan reader sees the body in what appears to be its naked state.
The people running the scans told me that there is no ionizing radiation exposure, but they are mistaken in this matter. The scanners are X-ray machines.
In going through the airports, I have opted to have the “pat down” instead of the body scanner. That procedure was more invasive than the “wand” procedure used to check passengers who fail the metal detector test; but I did not find it to be offensive or objectionably invasive. For this reason, I recommend that my readers refuse the body scanner and have the “pat down.” My wife, also, chose to have the “pat down;” and she did not find the procedure offensive, either.
It was interesting to me that in Detroit, the airport had provided a Muslim woman to do the “pat downs” for other Muslim women. This was obviously because Muslim women are taught to demand higher levels of modesty than other women. I am fairly sure that most women feel modest, too. We seem to think in this country that Muslims deserve special privileges. Never mind the fact that if it were not for Muslims and their suicide bombs, there would not be any bomb danger in airplanes in the first place.
The body scanning devices being used in airports are low voltage X-rays that read the scan by backscatter from the radiation contact. They deliver about the same amount of radiation as an ordinary chest X-ray; there is a difference, however. The scanners at the airport do not deliver deeply penetrating ionizing radiation—all of the radiation is concentrated in the skin and the tissues immediately under the skin. Therefore, the radiation exposure is concentrated in that area, resulting in a significant amount of damaging radiation there—more than a chest X-ray. The scan reader sees the body in what appears to be its naked state.
The people running the scans told me that there is no ionizing radiation exposure, but they are mistaken in this matter. The scanners are X-ray machines.
In going through the airports, I have opted to have the “pat down” instead of the body scanner. That procedure was more invasive than the “wand” procedure used to check passengers who fail the metal detector test; but I did not find it to be offensive or objectionably invasive. For this reason, I recommend that my readers refuse the body scanner and have the “pat down.” My wife, also, chose to have the “pat down;” and she did not find the procedure offensive, either.
It was interesting to me that in Detroit, the airport had provided a Muslim woman to do the “pat downs” for other Muslim women. This was obviously because Muslim women are taught to demand higher levels of modesty than other women. I am fairly sure that most women feel modest, too. We seem to think in this country that Muslims deserve special privileges. Never mind the fact that if it were not for Muslims and their suicide bombs, there would not be any bomb danger in airplanes in the first place.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
U.S.A. Today Looks Like Rome Yesterday
As President Obama steps down the leadership role of America in world affairs and emphasizes domestic priorities, he begins to look very much like the emperors of the latter part of the Roman Empire.
Rome was the only world superpower in the late 2nd Century, A.D.; but 100 years later Rome was terminally ill, weakened first by internal corruption and unsustainable spending and then destroyed by the emergence of multi-polar contenders for power. Roman currency had been debased; and inflation was out of control. In those 100 years, the Roman bureaucracy grew about 35 fold. Military spending and commitments were scaled back, and Roman citizens were demanding all sorts of government programs to give them the things they desired. Moral life was deteriorating and Roman citizens were being entertained by the most horrible, violent, and degraded forms of sport.
External forces sensed Rome’s weakness, including its shrinking military and its lack of will. Persia’s ruler judged an unusually favorable peace offering from Rome as a reason to attack rather than negotiate. Other enemies reached the same conclusion.
By the mid-5th Century, multiple powers contended for world leadership; and it took 1000 years before the world matched the stability, technological progress, and prosperity enjoyed under Rome’s leadership.
Do you see any similarity of the United States to the situation that pertained in ancient Rome?
(This blog post was excerpted from a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal 11-2-10 by Mike Hall of Gainesville, Fl.)
Rome was the only world superpower in the late 2nd Century, A.D.; but 100 years later Rome was terminally ill, weakened first by internal corruption and unsustainable spending and then destroyed by the emergence of multi-polar contenders for power. Roman currency had been debased; and inflation was out of control. In those 100 years, the Roman bureaucracy grew about 35 fold. Military spending and commitments were scaled back, and Roman citizens were demanding all sorts of government programs to give them the things they desired. Moral life was deteriorating and Roman citizens were being entertained by the most horrible, violent, and degraded forms of sport.
External forces sensed Rome’s weakness, including its shrinking military and its lack of will. Persia’s ruler judged an unusually favorable peace offering from Rome as a reason to attack rather than negotiate. Other enemies reached the same conclusion.
By the mid-5th Century, multiple powers contended for world leadership; and it took 1000 years before the world matched the stability, technological progress, and prosperity enjoyed under Rome’s leadership.
Do you see any similarity of the United States to the situation that pertained in ancient Rome?
(This blog post was excerpted from a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal 11-2-10 by Mike Hall of Gainesville, Fl.)
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Bathroom Bill Comes Home to Roost
The American Family Association of Pennsylvania has contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to protest its recent decision to allow men and women who have not undergone sex reassignment surgery to identify as the sex of their choice on drivers’ licenses and state-issued identification cards.
“[In late August] media reports indicated that PennDOT has changed its policy concerning those sexually confused individuals who believe they were born in the wrong body,” said Diane Gramley, president of the group. However, she said the issue is not addressed on the government Web site.
In response to the policy change, Gramley wrote a letter to Department of Transportation secretary Allen D. Biehler. She included the account of a Western Michigan University nursing professor. The woman found a man who thinks he is a woman standing naked next to her in the shower area of a health club. The victim wrote that she felt violated and worried about her dignity and privacy, even having nightmares that the man was in her house.
“As we noted in the letter to PennDOT,” Gramley said, “citizens should at minimum be able to trust their state government to tell them the truth. This is a fundamental honesty-in-government issue.”
(The above was copied from the American Family Association Journal December 2010 p.7.)
It should be noted that this kind of transgender threat to women’s shower rooms is legal in Colorado according to the recent Senate Bill 200, which passed the legislature and Governor Bill Ritter’s signature in June 2010. http://bit.ly/dsVEMC
“[In late August] media reports indicated that PennDOT has changed its policy concerning those sexually confused individuals who believe they were born in the wrong body,” said Diane Gramley, president of the group. However, she said the issue is not addressed on the government Web site.
In response to the policy change, Gramley wrote a letter to Department of Transportation secretary Allen D. Biehler. She included the account of a Western Michigan University nursing professor. The woman found a man who thinks he is a woman standing naked next to her in the shower area of a health club. The victim wrote that she felt violated and worried about her dignity and privacy, even having nightmares that the man was in her house.
“As we noted in the letter to PennDOT,” Gramley said, “citizens should at minimum be able to trust their state government to tell them the truth. This is a fundamental honesty-in-government issue.”
(The above was copied from the American Family Association Journal December 2010 p.7.)
It should be noted that this kind of transgender threat to women’s shower rooms is legal in Colorado according to the recent Senate Bill 200, which passed the legislature and Governor Bill Ritter’s signature in June 2010. http://bit.ly/dsVEMC
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Illogical Result at Planned Parenthood
A clearly distressed new mother, seeking to take leave of her newborn under North Carolina’s Safe Surrender law, made the mistake of leaving the child outside the entrance of her local Planned Parenthood clinic. Tragically, the premature infant did not survive the abandonment; it died on the doorstep.
The clinic’s reaction was, to put it gently, twisted. With its workers apparently distraught after having encountered the dead infant, the clinic closed its doors the following day and sought counseling for staff members who witnessed the child’s last moments. Employees whose business it was to snuff out the lives of infants just weeks or months younger than this poor abandoned child needed counseling when they witnessed an unvarnished reminder of their trade. It figures.
(The above account was copied from First Things November 2010 p87.)
It seems to this writer that, logically, they should have rejoiced at the death of another baby, since that is the product of their business. Except…for the fact that they did not make any money from this one.
The clinic’s reaction was, to put it gently, twisted. With its workers apparently distraught after having encountered the dead infant, the clinic closed its doors the following day and sought counseling for staff members who witnessed the child’s last moments. Employees whose business it was to snuff out the lives of infants just weeks or months younger than this poor abandoned child needed counseling when they witnessed an unvarnished reminder of their trade. It figures.
(The above account was copied from First Things November 2010 p87.)
It seems to this writer that, logically, they should have rejoiced at the death of another baby, since that is the product of their business. Except…for the fact that they did not make any money from this one.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Effect of the Stimulus on Foreign Trade.
The United States’ activity in stimulus financing is drawing sharp criticism from the Euro zone, China, Japan, and Brazil. What is it about U.S. stimulus money that is making our allies and business associates so uncomfortable? The money chain policies hold the answer:
1. In order to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the U.S. prints lots of money and spends it on projects that require jobs. This, theoretically, puts money for spending in the private sector into the pockets of the American people. (So far, almost a trillion dollars of spending has not produced much of a dent in the unemployment rate.)
2. With lots of dollar bills floating around, prices are predicted to go up in an inflationary response. So far, inflation is not going up very rapidly—1.4% per annum when last checked in September. However, the rate of inflation is bound to rise considerably with all the newly printed money in the economy. This inevitable inflation is what is worrying the leaders in other countries.
3. The large amount of money in the system will make each dollar worth less—at home and abroad. For that reason, Americans will not be able to buy international products as freely as before. That will cut into the sales for exporter counties, such as China, Japan, Germany, several other Euro countries, and Brazil. Neither Americans nor foreigners will be happy with that result.
4. American products will become more affordable to foreign buyers, because their currency will be worth more relative to the dollar value of our products. This would be a desirable thing for the U.S.
5. To compensate for the loss of U.S. sales, other countries will be tempted to print more money and thereby devalue their currency to support the sales of their products. (This is exactly what the U.S. is doing, now.)
6. This whole process is likely to produce a domino effect on world economies. Each country will try to devalue its currency just to keep up with the sales deficit they will experience when other countries cannot afford to buy their products.
7. Worldwide inflation will be detrimental to everyone in the end. Devaluing currency is only a temporary fix for a sick economy. The huge effect the U.S. has on other nations’ economies could tip the whole world into a dangerous situation. I think it is a bad idea.
In the long run, a free economy without the tough government regulations seems to me to be a better idea. The fix will be difficult for many in the short term; but free markets have performed better in the past; and I think they would perform better now.
1. In order to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the U.S. prints lots of money and spends it on projects that require jobs. This, theoretically, puts money for spending in the private sector into the pockets of the American people. (So far, almost a trillion dollars of spending has not produced much of a dent in the unemployment rate.)
2. With lots of dollar bills floating around, prices are predicted to go up in an inflationary response. So far, inflation is not going up very rapidly—1.4% per annum when last checked in September. However, the rate of inflation is bound to rise considerably with all the newly printed money in the economy. This inevitable inflation is what is worrying the leaders in other countries.
3. The large amount of money in the system will make each dollar worth less—at home and abroad. For that reason, Americans will not be able to buy international products as freely as before. That will cut into the sales for exporter counties, such as China, Japan, Germany, several other Euro countries, and Brazil. Neither Americans nor foreigners will be happy with that result.
4. American products will become more affordable to foreign buyers, because their currency will be worth more relative to the dollar value of our products. This would be a desirable thing for the U.S.
5. To compensate for the loss of U.S. sales, other countries will be tempted to print more money and thereby devalue their currency to support the sales of their products. (This is exactly what the U.S. is doing, now.)
6. This whole process is likely to produce a domino effect on world economies. Each country will try to devalue its currency just to keep up with the sales deficit they will experience when other countries cannot afford to buy their products.
7. Worldwide inflation will be detrimental to everyone in the end. Devaluing currency is only a temporary fix for a sick economy. The huge effect the U.S. has on other nations’ economies could tip the whole world into a dangerous situation. I think it is a bad idea.
In the long run, a free economy without the tough government regulations seems to me to be a better idea. The fix will be difficult for many in the short term; but free markets have performed better in the past; and I think they would perform better now.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Why Does God Always Demand Praise?
Have you ever wondered why God frequently seems to demand that we praise Him? Is He some kind of egomaniac who seeks out praise and adulation, even though He is the one who needs absolutely nothing? That kind of self-admiration is something that we think unattractive in one of our own kind.
The Psalms are particularly troubling in this respect, for in the Psalms, we are repeatedly admonished to praise God. The Psalmists often say something like this, “God, you like praise. Do this for me and you shall have some.” It even sounds like the Psalmist is offering a bribe to God—how repulsive!! The amount of praise even seems to be important i.e., “…seven times a day do I praise thee.”
There must be a reason for this continuing demand for praise. Much of the reason lies in the fact that if we do not admire God, we shall be insensible losers; we shall have missed something beautiful and deserving of admiration. The omission of admiring God and its undesirable consequence is similar to the omission and undesirable consequence we experience when we walk by a famous painting in an art gallery and fail to appreciate its beauty—we have missed something that others have known.
Furthermore, in the act of worship, God communicates His presence to men. In our worship of God, He actually gives Himself to us in a concrete way.
It is a fact of the character of humankind that all of our enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise. We praise all things we enjoy. Those who cannot praise are the malcontents of society; and they are the ones who seem to enjoy nothing. Praise seems to be the completion of our joy and appreciation of whatever the object of our joy is. We want others to appreciate the thing we appreciate. Thus, the Psalmist calls out to others to see and appreciate the thing he sees—God.
Our duty to praise God exists so that we might have the delight of knowing God, Himself. Remember, He lives in the praises of His people. We can only know Him if we frequently praise Him.
This blog post was excerpted from C.S.Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms.
The Psalms are particularly troubling in this respect, for in the Psalms, we are repeatedly admonished to praise God. The Psalmists often say something like this, “God, you like praise. Do this for me and you shall have some.” It even sounds like the Psalmist is offering a bribe to God—how repulsive!! The amount of praise even seems to be important i.e., “…seven times a day do I praise thee.”
There must be a reason for this continuing demand for praise. Much of the reason lies in the fact that if we do not admire God, we shall be insensible losers; we shall have missed something beautiful and deserving of admiration. The omission of admiring God and its undesirable consequence is similar to the omission and undesirable consequence we experience when we walk by a famous painting in an art gallery and fail to appreciate its beauty—we have missed something that others have known.
Furthermore, in the act of worship, God communicates His presence to men. In our worship of God, He actually gives Himself to us in a concrete way.
It is a fact of the character of humankind that all of our enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise. We praise all things we enjoy. Those who cannot praise are the malcontents of society; and they are the ones who seem to enjoy nothing. Praise seems to be the completion of our joy and appreciation of whatever the object of our joy is. We want others to appreciate the thing we appreciate. Thus, the Psalmist calls out to others to see and appreciate the thing he sees—God.
Our duty to praise God exists so that we might have the delight of knowing God, Himself. Remember, He lives in the praises of His people. We can only know Him if we frequently praise Him.
This blog post was excerpted from C.S.Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
