"The main vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the even distribution of misery." --Sir Winston Churchill
Treasury Secretary Mellon in 1924 pointed out that the government had previously "received substantially the same revenue from high incomes with a 13 percent surtax as it received with a 65 percent surtax." It exemplifies higher tax rates do not mean higher tax revenues. “High tax rates on high incomes”, Mellon said, “lead many of those who earn such incomes to withdraw their money from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities" or otherwise find ways to avoid receiving income in taxable forms. The government actually received more tax revenues at the lower rate than it had at the higher rate. Moreover, it received a higher proportion of all income taxes from the top income earners than before.
Something similar happened in later years, after tax rates were cut under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and G.W. Bush. The record is clear. Barack Obama admitted during the 2008 election campaign that he understood that raising tax rates does not necessarily mean raising tax revenues. In these present days, monies can much more easily be sent overseas without any penalty - the Caymans, Switzerland, China, Singapore – if tax rates remain higher than high income earners are willing to pay. Why then is BO pushing so hard for higher tax rates on "the rich" this election year? Because class warfare politics can increase votes for his reelection, even if it raises no more tax revenues for the government. In other words, He’s lying.
Watching Obama campaign ads, or MSNBC, one could easily come to the conclusion that Bain Capital makes money by destroying the companies it owns. So for voters unsure about the business that Mitt Romney founded but still reluctant to trust the financial analysis offered by community organizers, some perspective might be helpful. The basic Obama-liberal critique goes like this: Bain buys a company, loads it with debt and then sucks out cash before foisting the wounded business upon an unsuspecting buyer or a bankruptcy court. In the risk-taking world of private equity such a scenario can certainly happen, and it's true that Bain likes management fees and dividends as much as the next partnership.
But then how to explain the history of Bain Capital? Romney started the business in 1984. The company bought and sold many businesses and executed thousands of financing transactions. If Bain's standard operating procedure were to hand the next owner of one of its companies a ticking bankruptcy package, how could Bain still find buyers nearly three decades later? Wouldn't word have gotten around Wall Street and Investment Companies if Bain's portfolio companies weren't creditworthy?
The liberal critique of private equity assumes that the financial industry is full of saps who have been eager to lose money across the table from Bain for 28 years. This is the same financial industry that the same liberal critics say is full of greedy schemers when it comes to padding their own pay or ripping off consumers. They can't be both knaves and diabolical geniuses at the same time. Learning about Bain successes like Staples or Gartner or Steel Dynamics confirms the logical conclusion that Bain had to be creating value along the way -- for investors, for lenders, and that means for workers too.
The constitution says 'promote the general welfare'. It doesn't say provide but promote. It has been proven time and again that lower tax rates provide higher tax revenue and increased economic activity.
Now that Romney is the nominee, it's perfectly understandable - and rational - that conservatives would want him to defeat the far worse leftist Obama. There's a difference between supporting somebody for pragmatic reasons and deluding oneself into believing he's the head of the Conservative movement. Vote for Romney but don’t let people convince you to refrain from criticizing him when he does violence to conservative principles because of the idea that criticisms will help Obama. Liberty requires critical notice of bad behavior.
Who killed the 20-30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago -- big government or big business? ... Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death -- big government or big business? ... Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state? Whatever bad big corporations have done is dwarfed by the monstrous crimes ... committed by big governments." --radio talk-show host Dennis Prager
PL Booth, The Blue Eye View of MO, 5/23/12
The Constitution Party's
Constitution Party National Committee
Last night President Obama delivered his State of the Union address, as he is required by the Constitution to do once each year. Although he covered many different areas, he concentrated on only three: the domestic economy, which includes what he called job creation, domestic policy topics such as education and energy, and foreign policy, which includes military and defense issues.
The President told us that the nation is doing well economically and is on its way to recovery from recession. Evidence of this recovery, according to the President, is the "booming stock market."
My response is that it is utterly ridiculous to say that we are well into recovery because the stock market is booming. Tell that news to the 43 million plus who have to use food stamps to eat. Tell that to the 15 million plus unemployed people. That number would be much higher than 15 million if the government kept honest numbers and counted the people who are no longer looking for jobs. Tell that to the millions of underemployed who used to have good jobs in manufacturing with benefits and who now work in service-related jobs with no benefits.
The President said that we can't live in the past with regard to our economy. For example, it used to take about 1000 jobs to operate a steel mill, but now it only takes 100, so we must adjust to that reality and innovate. What he didn't say is that any jobs in steel are being performed in Korea and other countries and no amount of innovation will change that.
What then is the answer to our economic problems? First, do no more harm with bailouts. Stop all bailouts and recover any money previously committed to bailouts that has not already been spent. Withdraw from all so-called free trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and GATT which have been largely responsible for the destruction of America's manufacturing base. Remove the regulations and restrictions that prevent businesses from doing business in America and from hiring the people they need to make the things that people want to buy.
Finally, the economy cannot recover until the debt and deficit are resolved through de-leveraging of debt and control of spending. Stop spending more than you take in. It is a simple concept that Americans understand but that apparently their politicians don't. Once the debt and deficit are under control, the President should endeavor to drive a stake through the heart of the entire Federal Reserve system and return to a monetary system based on sound money principles. Stop the destruction of our currency immediately.
The President also told us that educationally we are doing well, but we can do better, so he launched a program called Race to the Top in all fifty states to replace No Child Left Behind. This is also total nonsense. The United States continues to lag behind other nations in math, science, and reading skills. Our system of education, controlled and paid for by the federal government, is a failure and should be scrapped and replaced with state and local control, with primary responsibility left to parents. There is no role for the federal government in education whatsoever.
The nation's energy needs could be met largely by domestic production if we were to allow our own domestic sources of energy to be exploited by repeal of harmful laws that unnecessarily restrain production. Technology will now allow energy exploration and production with minimal damage to the environment. This would prevent the US government from exploring for oil in the Middle East through military force and help foster a more peaceful world.
Finally, the President talked about "shaping" a better world through strengthening NATO and rebuilding our relationship with Russia. He stated that 100,000 of our troops have come home from Iraq with their heads held high. That is also complete nonsense. It's not his job to shape the world, it's his job to protect and defend the Constitution and the American people. Many of those 100,000 troops didn't come home but went to Afghanistan instead. Thousands of others did come home but in boxes or in rehab hospitals.
What then is the foreign policy answer? Issue an order to General Patraeus and the other commanders to execute an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Then order a military withdrawal from the other 100 nations around the world where we have over 700 foreign bases. That would save many lives, much money, and would create far fewer enemies than we are creating now.
We simply must stop acting as if we own the world or as if we are responsible for it. That would not be isolationism but instead a lack of military domination. The US would trade with all nations who were willing to trade with us. Creditor nations would probably appreciate our new monetary policy whereby they were paid with real instead of counterfeit money.
If the President were to dedicate himself to the ideas proposed in this response to his speech, we would be well on our way to the most dynamic period in American history.
The Constitution Party is the ONLY political party representing the viewpoint of the majority of the American people today.
The other parties, funded by and indebted to big money special interests and taxpayer's dollars, will never speak for you. The Constitution Party answers only to people like you, and it depends on people like you to keep it growing. If you want the Constitution Party voice to continue to be heard and to grow stronger across our nation, we need YOUR help...today!
|To unsubscribe from CPNC newsletters click here.|
Please visit our website at http://www.constitutionparty.org/.
On Fox News last night as Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, A.B. Stoddard, and Bill Kristol condemned Dutch activist Geert Wilders as a “demagogue” and a “fascist.”The above information, leaves us with a question about Fox News, one of the last bastions for a "fair and balanced" voice: Has Fox News Reporting Been Co-opted by CEO Rupert Murdoch's Middle East Business Ventures With Muslim Leaders?
Mr. Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom in The Netherlands, produced a controversial documentary on Islam in Holland called “Fitna.” In the short film, Mr. Wilders argued that “there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam’” and that the Prophet Muhammad would “. . .in these days be hunted down as a terrorist.”
In the past, the former member of the Dutch National Parliament was a frequent guest on Fox News. Last February, Bill O’Reilly welcomed Mr. Wilders to America, while condemning a scared Britain for banning him entrance to the country.
While Mr. Beck labeled Mr. Wilders as a “fascist,” Mr. Krauthammer said that the popular Dutch politician, who is a leading candidate for Prime Minister, doesn’t know the difference between Islam and Islamism. Ms. Stoddard expressed her agreement with Krauthammer and added that “if people like this (Mr. Wilders)) are elected to lead Holland it will suffer the consequences.
The well-orchestrated attacks on Mr. Wilders came in the wake of news that Rupert Murdoch, the CEO and principal stockholder of News Corps, the parent company of Fox News, will make Abu Dhabi, the headquarters of his global media operations in the Middle East. Mr. Murdock has established strong links with the Arab Muslims, last month agreeing to invest 70 million dollars in the Rotana Group, an enterprise is controlled by Saudi tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Prince Talal, in turn, now owns 7% of News Corps. He is #22 on the Forbes list of the world’s wealthiest people.
The change in Fox News and its stance on Islam has been noted by Walid Shoebat, a former member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, who converted to Christianity. Mr. Shoebat says that Fox New now prohibits critics of Islam and Islamic terror from appearing on its broadcasts. He contends that the prohibition stems from the fact that Prince Talal is now the second-largest shareholder in News Corporation, the parent company of the Fox News Channel.
“He himself (Prince bin Talal) said, ‘I just had to make a phone call to [tell them to] stop using the word Muslim’ regarding the rioting in France,” Mr. Shoebad notes. “Bill O’Reilly says to Ibrahim Hooper, the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), that he is an upstanding citizen. Since when was the head of CAIR an upstanding citizen?”
Mr. Shoebat adds that viewers will no longer be seeing any so-called “Islamophobes” on Fox. “Today, I’m not invited at Fox News. Neither is Robert Spencer or Brigitte Gabriel,” he laments. “But Ibrahim Hooper is invited to speak at Fox News. It used to be that experts on terrorism who are critical of the Islamic views [were] able to get a voice on Fox News. Those days are gone.”
Paul L. Williams, Ph.D., author of such best-selling works as Osama’s Revenge: The Next 9/11 and The Day of Islam, has also been missing from Fox News in recent years, after making scores of appearances on top-rated Fox broadcasts over the past five years. Mr. Shoebat says that instead of airing those critical views of Islam, Fox News now legitimizes Hooper, the spokesman for CAIR, a group which he maintains is a front for the terrorist group Hamas.