The Tax Deal & Obama's Semantics

To extend current tax rates is simply to defer a massive tax hike - nothing more, nothing less.  The grand compromise changes nothing as far as income taxes are concerned. It just means that every American earning income will go on paying at the same tax rates in place for the last 10 years.

 - J.D. Foster, The Christian Science Monitor, 10.09.10

The tax battle is getting ever more interesting. This past week Obama "caved" to a portion of the GOP demands (finally), and his Democrat constituents are up in arms. They are all over Obama...apparently, some serious F-bombs were thrown around Thursday on the House floor. Wow. 

But what's been seriously killing me are the semantics of the whole thing. I saw this article today and it stated perfectly what I could not get into words myself.  Thank you, J.D. Foster. 

Here are a few quotes, but this one is seriously worth a gander. It makes PERFECT sense.

Click HERE for the entire article: "Obama Tax Deal: Watch Your Language, Tax Cuts Don't Cost Government a Dime"

"When the President or, say, The Washington Post talks about lower tax rates “costing” money, they reveal a fundamentally erroneous view: that government somehow has first claim on our money – that it somehow “belongs” to the government, rather than the person who earned it."

"...Extending the 2001 and 2003 income tax rates is not tax relief, and it doesn’t “cost” government anything either. It provides no relief to taxpayers; it simply keeps the tax burden from rising for those who pay income taxes. Your income belongs to you. You earned it – not President Obama, not Nancy Pelosi, not Harry Reid, not any of the politicians or talking heads so fond of arguing that those who refuse to let tax rates rise are “costing” government billions."

"When government spends money, there’s a clear cost from economic and budgetary perspectives. But when government extends current tax policy, that’s not a cost. It’s not even tax relief, unless one believes that money earned belongs first to the government and is given to the taxpayer only through governmental generosity."

"When government cuts taxes further, that, too, is not a cost to the government. It means government will either have to borrow more to keep the same level of spending or it will have to (gasp!) cut spending." 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell...my spin

I've wanted to get this out...It's a thought about the push to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which forbids gays from serving openly in the military, and it's been bugging me. It's on Congress' lame-duck agenda.

Our military has one focus: protect and preserve this country, our freedoms, and our ideals around the globe.

What happens when our military must turn away from that focus and instead have sensitivity training, or make special exceptions (like private living and restroom quarters) for it's gay members? What does that do to a troop's solidarity when some members are treated differently than others? What about their solidarity? How does that affect them in combat?? Does the change in this policy perhaps deflect the military's focus from it's true course?

I'm not sure...but I'm worried about it.

And since when does our government get to weigh in on a person's sexuality? As far as I'm concerned, the government should be neutral. If the government repeals this policy, it's obvious they are not neutral.

Right now, we have gay members of the military choosing to serve and I'm sure, serving well...and they are doing so under the current system. The evidence to overturn is NOT overwhelming. It appears there are far more pressing issues, including a decision on extending the Tax Cuts...that go into effect in T-minus 28 days. That seems a little more pressing to me.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45947.html

GM "Success"...Read on...

"The heart of the case against the bailout is that it saps the life-blood of entrepreneurial capitalism."

 - Don Boudreaux, George Mason University economist

I've had this in my "TO BLOG" pile for ten days...but the holidays are upon us...I'm too busy having fun!!  I hope you are too. Despite our country's woes, it's okay to be happy. You are not a bad person if you are finding daily happiness. Sometimes I think our government thinks happy people are bad people...but that's not the case - we are just happy!

But back to my point...

This article by The Heritage Foundation is eye-opening and important for anyone who sincerely believes the GM bailout was a "success".  It's a quick read, but it will clarify what happened, and what would need to happen for taxpayers to get a return in full...even though it's not completely about getting a return on our investment (as my initial quote suggests). 

Direct quote...this is where we are on the money:

"Before this week, taxpayers put a net $40 billion into GM and held a majority stake in the company. The IPO allowed the Treasury to sell about a quarter of their share at $33 per share, raising $13.6 billion. That leaves taxpayers, post-IPO, with $35.9 billion “invested” and about a 37 percent stake in the company. At $33 per share, that leaves taxpayers still almost $10 billion in the hole. The shares would have to jump to $51 for taxpayers to break even, a price level considered by most analysts to be unlikely."

Direct quote...this is why bailouts are not the answer:

But perhaps the biggest danger of all is the prospect of the GM “success” being used to justify future bailouts of other firms. That would be the true catastrophe. As George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux wrote:

The chief economic case against the bailout was not that huge infusions of taxpayer funds and special exemptions from bankruptcy rules could not make G.M. and Chrysler profitable. Of course they could. Instead, the heart of the case against the bailout is that it saps the life-blood of entrepreneurial capitalism. The bailout reinforces the debilitating precedent of protecting firms deemed “too big to fail.” Capital and other resources are thus kept glued by politics to familiar lines of production, thus impeding entrepreneurial initiative that would have otherwise redeployed these resources into newer, more-dynamic, and more productive industries. The “success” of the bailout is all too easy to engineer and to see. The cost of the bailout—the industries, the jobs, and the outputs that are never created—is impossible to see, but nevertheless real.

Source: Morning Bell: Our Economy Can't Afford More GM "Success" Stories, James Gattuso

More on Pat-Downs...

"Ultimately, though, the debate over whether to use the new scanners or not isn't a choice between privacy and sercurity - because we're not getting security where we need it - we're reacting to the last type of terrorist threat, not the current one or the next one."

 - KT McFarland, Fox News 11.17.10

A GREAT follow-up to my blog post from earlier in the week...I LOVE this article...

Forget Body Scans and Pat Downs -- Let's Get Busy Profiling, Fox News 11.17.10

Al Qaeda is not stupid and they are not going to give up simply because their last attempt was thwarted. And they're smart enough to find a new way. Our task is to discover these new ways. 

And terrorists DO have a profile...why do we not use that as a way to combat their attempts?  Let's not force small children, pregnant women and 99% of other travelers to be violated via invasive pictures or physical pat-downs. 

Let's play some offense for a change...this reactionary stuff is making me crazy!  And with all the backlash and public outcry...I wonder how long it will be before these x-ray machines are scrapped...anyone want to make any guesses?????

Airport Security...gone too far?

"At the end of the day we're not the threat, and we want the TSA to concentrate on getting bad guys."

 - Capt. Sam Mayer (a Boeing 767 captain and spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association)

I was on a recent trip to the east coast and after seeing this article from The Washington Post today I thought I should share my story.

Here is the article: Scanners and Pat-Downs Upset Airline Passengers, 11.15.2010

You be the judge: Is airport screening gone too far? Is it really going to thwart terrorist attacks? 

My return flight home from the Baltimore airport brought me face to face with the x-ray machine, which has been getting a lot of attention in the press lately. I am currently pregnant and had decided well beforehand I would refuse to be screened through an x-ray machine. And sure enough, the opportunity for declining just such a screening came. Not for any reason, mind you. I didn't beep through the regular machine, nor did my bags contain anything that required a second glance. They were merely shuffling a few passengers through the regular security thingy, and then a few through the x-ray thingy.  I was one that had to go through the x-ray thingy.

I declined.
They asked me why?
I said because I was pregnant (I AM pregnant...this was not a lie, and I am noticeably pregnant).
I was not interested in exposing my fetus to unnecessary radiation.
The TSA agent assured me the machine does not emit a dangerous amount of radiation (and I should trust you because???)
I still said no.
They threatened a full-body pat-down.
I said I still wasn't going through.
So then I prepared for my pat-down.

And I'm NOT kidding when I say it was pretty invasive. They offered me a private room, which I declined, being in a hurry. She politely described the security measures are more invasive now and she shared that she would be feeling all the way up my inner thigh and around my breasts. I rolled my eyes...this was going to be interesting.

And so it commenced. It was exactly as she said. She touched every part of my backside. And as promised, all the way up my inner thighs. She felt around my chest...wow...I was surprised by that. My eyebrows were definitely raised. I think I was blushing...one word: awkward.

After it was over she tested my hands with a special wand with a piece of fabric on the end. I assume this was to check for firearm residue. That was painless...

Let's just say, the TSA screener got well beyond second base and I had no defense mechanism if I wanted to get on that plane and come home. I hate the feeling of not having a choice.

From this article in The Seattle Times yesterday, this sums up my thoughts: "In many cases, if you don't catch these issues well in advance of the airport, it's too late."(Vahid Motevalli, co-founder of the Aviation Institue at George Washington University and now a professor at Purdue University).

I'm just grateful we are staying close to home at the holidays...we won't be traveling for a while and my modesty needs some time to recover.

Message Received!

"With their voices, the American people are demanding a new way forward in Washington."

 - House Minority Leader, John Boehner

It was a success at the polls, as far as I'm concerned. Republicans taking over the House is a huge game-changing play in Washington...and it's because the people made their voices and opinions heard. 

This election is our message to Pelosi and other House members who:

(1) Rammed Obamacare down our throats,

(2) Continued to pass Stimulus packages that are having no impact on the economy, and

(3) Have grown the government and in turn our national debt to the brink of bankruptcy

And I just love how our President has been saying in recent days that should Republicans take the House, they better compromise!  Well, that's interesting, since he wasn't too interested in what Republicans had to say during the closed-door Obamacare meetings earlier this year. I hope the Republicans don't compromise. Stick to your guns, stick to your promises. It's time to make a stand.

The message to Obama and his administration is clear...we don't like what you've done, and it's time to chart a different course!

AND here in Washington state....

I'm elated on the defeat of I-1098 (the income tax initiative).

I'm elated on the passage of I-1107 (ending the candy/soda tax)

I'm elated on the passage of I-1053 (requiring 2/3 legislative majority for tax increases)

It's obvious the people, even the liberal people here in Washington, are conscious of the economy. They know Washingtonians need less taxes and more prudent spending in this State. And Governor Gregoire was doing a bit of complaining last night saying she will have to make some serious cuts. I would like to remind our Governor that IT IS YOUR JOB!  Now is the time to make the tough decisions and earn your keep...otherwise, you'll be out!

I'm off to Washington D.C. (for a personal matter), but I will probably feel a bit euphoric walking near the Capital knowing MY voice has made a difference. I hope you feel the same about yours.

More Initiative Details

I just couldn't get it done, folks. I wanted to give you my personal opinion on the referendums and initiatives for the election, but ballots must be postmarked in TWO days!!  And I've been caught up in the whirlwind of Halloween festivities, birthdays, and a few new offspring added to the family (2 in 2 days...how sweet is that!!). Plus I'm leaving my kids for a few days and the prep to get out of town without your kids is almost more than if they were going with you...

But I didn't want to leave you hanging.

A conservative friend of mine passed along Matt Shea's recommendations and I liked most of what he recommends and has to say.  Take it with a grain of salt, but if you're looking for a conservative member of our Washington State Senate for some guidance, Shea is a good one.  

Whatever you political leaning, whatever your choice, just VOTE! This election is important...and your vote is your voice.

___________________________________________________________________

Use links for full text of the Initiatives and referendums

MATT SHEA'S ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Initiative 1053 - Concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government.
This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.

Vote Yes. “All power is inherent in the people…” Washington Constitution Article 1, Section 1. The people decided to put another limitation and check on an out of control government.  What’s more Republican than that?

Initiative 1082– Concerns industrial insurance.
This measure would authorize employers to purchase private industrial insurance (a/k/a workers' compensation) beginning July 1, 2012; direct the Legislature to enact conforming legislation by March 1, 2012; and eliminate the worker-paid share of medical-benefit premiums.

Vote Yes. Washington is one of only 4 states that do not allow a private option.  This measure would lower the L&I cost and provide much 
need relief to our struggling small business owners. 

Initiative 1098 - Concerns establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes.
This measure would tax “adjusted gross income” above $200,000 (individuals) and 400,000 (joint-filers), reduce state property tax levies, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any increased revenues to education and health.

Vote No. This violates the State Constitution Article 7, Section 1 which reads “All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.” The State Supreme Court has correctly ruled on multiple occasions that income (defined here as the fruits of one’s labor) is property.  That is consistent with the founding fathers view as well.

Initiative 1100 - Concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits).
This measure would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributors and producers.
 

Vote Yes. The role of government is to protect our God given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property not run liquor stores.  Like taxpayer funding of abortion clinics, it is also morally reprehensible to use tax payer dollars to distribute liquor.

Initiative 1105- Concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits).
This measure would close all state liquor stores and license private parties to sell or distribute spirits. It would revise laws concerning regulation, taxation and government revenues from distribution and sale of spirits.

Vote No. This expands the size and scope of government through new mandates and licenses effectively trading one monopoly for another.  It also proposes two tax increases.

Initiative 1107- Concerns reversing certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws. 
This measure would end sales tax on candy; end temporary sales tax on some bottled water; end temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages; and reduce tax rates for certain food processors.

Vote Yes. Cuts taxes and eliminates a massive regulatory burden on businesses to figure out which items are “candy” and should be taxed.

Referendum Bill 52 - Concerns authorizing and funding bonds for energy efficiency projects in school per EHB 2561 as passed by the Legislature.
This bill would authorize bonds to finance construction and repair projects increasing energy efficiency in public schools and higher education buildings, and continue the sales tax on bottled water otherwise expiring in 2013.

Vote No. This is deficit spending and dishonest.  This would allow “projected energy savings” to be the asset against  which to bond half a billion dollars at a total cost to tax payers of almost $1 billion. 

Senate Joint Resolution 8225- The Legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment concerning the limitation on state debt.
SJR 8225 would require the state to reduce the interest accounted for in calculating the constitutional debt limit, by the
amount of federal payments scheduled to be received to offset that interest.

Vote No. This is an accounting trick to allow the state to borrow more money above the current constitutional debt limit while our spending remains out-of-control.

Engrossed Substgitute House Joint Resolution 4220 - The legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment on denying bail for persons charged with certain criminal offenses.
ESHJR 4220 would authorize courts to deny bail for offenses punishable by the possibility of life in prison, on clear and convincing evidence of a propensity for violence that would likely endanger persons.

Vote Yes. This would restore the original understanding of when bail could be denied for “capital offenses.”  Had this been in place it likely would have prevented the infamous Lakewood shootings.

I-1107

"The Columbian recommends a 'Yes' vote on Initiative 1107, which would repeal the tax increases. We do so for three reasons: our belief that an economic crisis is the worst time to increase taxes, the unpardonable secrecy that ushered these tax increases to reality, and the abject silliness nestled in the details of the legislation."

 - www.stopgrocerytaxes.com, 10.28.2010

I love candy. We call it "nannies" at my house. We love soda. It's my therapy. I really do NEED Diet Coke. I just do, okay? But if you're concerned, I can assure you I'm not addicted...I recently went nine weeks without my beloved Diet Coke and managed just fine, thank you! No convulsions, withdrawals, or headaches. I know I have now alleviated all your personal concerns about my DC consumption...moving on...

Initiative 1107 is an easy one for me. I was mad about this from the get-go. I-1107 ends the recent tax on candy, soda and bottled water. This was an arbitrary tax to add revenue to our state's general fund. 

Taxing these items was a simple solution for our legislature to neglect their job, which is to prioritize spending and government services. They simply tacked on a tax to soda, bottled water and candy, but made it more arbitrary than anything else. A Snickers bar is taxed, but not a Twix. Say what? This tax also hurt local manufacturers because they previously had a lower B&O tax; this advantage was taken away.

Opponents of I-1107 are mostly unions. I say this time and time again...unions need tax dollars to keep their jobs and their amazing pensions and amazing health care. When they are voting NO on I-1107 they are essentially voting for themselves. I-1107 opponents claim community health care centers and school class sizes are all at risk if 1107 passes...and honestly, they're right...because EVERYTHING SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE. All government programs should be analyzed with a microscope because when 1107 is approved, cuts WILL need to be made. And in my opinion, it's about freakin' time.

Another easy one. Washington friends: Vote YES on I-1107.

I-1053

"We simply can't afford to have it all. With I-1053, Olympia will finally be forced to reform government, prioritize spending and re-evaluate existing programs.  Without I-1053, they'll resort to job-killing, family-budget-busting tax increases."

 - Argument For I-1053, State of Washington Voter's Pamphlet

This is to counteract what our state legislature suspended earlier this year. I blogged about my disgust when I-960 was about to be overturned here (It was overturned a short time afterwards). I-960 required a 2/3 legislative majority vote to increase taxes, and I-1053 re-instates this requirement.

This is an issue voters continue to make clear: we want the legislature to be prudent when raising taxes. 

In general, raising taxes should be a BIG deal. I want the state to make the tough decisions about what to change and where to cut back when state's revenue contracts. It's what people do in their everyday lives when times get tough. Sometimes you just have to cut your HD-programming...or cable altogether. I LOVE Project Runway (season finale tonight!), but if my husband loses his job, I know I am losing cable, and in turn, my dear, sweet Tim Gunn. (sigh!...Make it work!)

Not everything in the state budget is a priority and I refuse to accept that as an excuse for raising taxes. Three times previously, voters have approved initiatives requiring majorities to raise taxes. We are the people. This is our state...quit overturning OUR voice.

This is an easy one. My fellow Washingtonians: Vote YES on 1053.

I-1100 and I-1105---thoughts?

I'm sorting through our almost record number initiatives here in Washington state and am wondering what you're thinking. My question with I-1100 and I-1105 is whether or not this is a MORAL issue or a GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY issue. For most, I doubt this is a moral issue, but for me personally, as one who does not consume alcoholic beverages, I'm trying to decide if my moral stance affects my choice. 

Here are some facts about I-1100 and I-1105 (as I see them...)

•  Our state has a monopoly on the sale/price and distribution of hard liquor.
•  Currently, the state sets the price of hard liquor by two facets: markup and taxes. Last year, rather than increase taxes on liquor, they chose to increase the markup (from 39.2% to 51.9%), to allow greater generation of tax revenue. Either way, the government holds all the cards.
• Private businesses would love the opportunity to sell liquor, which is what I-1100 would allow. Should 1100 pass, businesses would apply for a general liquor retailer's license, meet the requirements, pay the fees, and be in the game.
• Costco and Safeway have contributed millions to this campaign. Most supporters are private businesses knowing they could expand and grow their companies with the addition of hard liquor to their inventories.
• Opponents of I-1100 express concerns with safety, foreseeing that if prices become cheaper, which is inevitable, people will drink more and children will be able to get their hands on liquor easier. 
• Smaller liquor producing businesses believe they will be forced out of the business altogether because they will not be able to compete with the volume discounts larger retailers will receive.  
• I-1100 provides a timing window to close the state-run liquor stores and authorize the operation of new privately managed liquor stores.
• Opponents of I-1100 are obviously concerned about the loss of revenue, which would provide a gap for our state....but this is where I-1105 comes in. 
• I-1105 directs the state legislature to create a "new tax on the sale of spirits to spirits distributors." AKA...bring in the middle man.  
• I-1105 also requires contracting retailers to pay the state 6% of their gross annual spirits sales during the first five years of sales. 
• Between a new tax code and the retailers paying 6% of gross sales, I-1105 states the revenue to the government must at least stay the same, plus add an additional $100 million over a net 5-year period.

A SUMMARY OF REESE'S THOUGHTS:

As a conservative thinker, I love the idea of taking the government out of most anything. A bureaucratically-run "business" is usually not run very efficiently. What's in it for the government to cut costs when they can simply raise taxes and/or markups? Private businesses must sell at a certain profit level and manage their costs enough to make the sale worthwhile. I want private businesses to grow, which in turns add jobs. Sure, state-run liquor stores will close, but how many more private jobs will be created? All without taxpayers footing the bill.

  

On the other hand, as a non-drinker, do I really care/want liquor to become cheaper? Do I care that hard liquor may be more visible as I take my daughters to the grocery store with me? As of now, we usually just avoid those aisles. My children are well aware about my choice of not drinking alcohol and it's not something we revisit weekly. I doubt I will ever point out the distinction between wine vs. beer vs. liquor in terms of one being "better" than the others. They are all off-limits in my book.

Do I think liquor will become more accessible to minors if 1100 and 1105 pass? Not really. Retailers are still on the hook not to sell to minors, lest they lose their license. And as proponents of 1100 point out, without a monopoly to run, the State Liquor Control Board can focus on just that...control and enforcement. 

Initiative 1105 makes it necessary to adjust the tax code to maintain the existing revenue stream to the state (plus a little extra). So as far as the government feeling a pinch, I-1105 makes it so that won't happen. 

So, I'm leaning to Yes to I-1100 to take the government out of the business of selling liquor, and Yes to I-1105 so that taxes are still a big part of the equation. I am a believer that taxes influence choice and just like I don't mind cigarettes being expensive, I won't mind if liquor continues to be on the pricier side. Prices and taxes mold behavior in all facets of life.

So what are your thoughts on these two initiatives???  

Sources:

State of Washington Voters' Pamphlet Guide

King5 News Up Front with Robert Mak, Voters Guide

Washington Voters Guide Tonight

From the King5 News website:

There are six initiatives on this year's ballot.  And, that doesn't include two proposed constitutional changes and a referendum.  How can you figure out what all these ballot measures mean? Don't miss the KING 5 News Up Front Voters Guide.  Robert Mak breaks down the complexities and helps you make the right decisions. Tune in Tuesday night at 7 p.m.


I've said it over and over (but I will say it again!) there is a lot at stake with this year's election and the best thing a voter can do is be informed. Some of these initiatives will have a significant impact on our state's economy and future. Tune in or TIVO if you are interested...

1098 Union Power

At issue on this Washington ballot is how government is to respond when it is spending more money than it takes in.  The answer may help tell the rest of us whether our future is to be government of the public employee, by the public employee and for the public employee."

 - William McGurn, WSJ

Have you heard the phrase, "FOLLOW THE MONEY"? 

Finding out where the money is coming from and where it's going can give a person the truest sense of what's really going on.

With I-1098, the money here is VERY important. The Wall Street Journal has a great piece by William McGurn today about how Unions are (by far) the largest supporters of the "Vote Yes" campaign for 1098.

Just a few great snippets from McGurn:

"Far from a civil war among the rich, the push for I-1098 is being led and financed by unions. In a day when organized labor claims more members in government than in the private sector, it's not surprising to learn that public-employee unions are front and center. Their leadership raises a question asked by beleaguered taxpayers across America: Do state budgets exist to serve their citizens or their government employees?"

"The unions are involved in this initiative because they see it as the only way to maintain vital health-care and education services."

"Of the roughly $6.2 million raised by the lead group urging a "yes" on 1098, $4.1 million comes from unions. The largest chunk of this money comes from two unions and their local affiliates: the Service Employees International Union and the National Education Association (the teachers union)." 

"In a recent article for the Seattle Times, one local businessman pointed out that 60% of the state budget is untouchable because it relates to salaries and benefits for public employees that are governed by union contracts. At a time when the government is facing shortfalls totalling $4.5 billion, he says that the government unions 'have more control over our state budget than we the people have.'"

Doesn't it make sense the Unions are all over 1098? The livelihood of their outlandish health care benefits and retirement packages are all based on a tax structure that can keep up with their demands. And who is responsible for the bill? Private sector taxpayers who fund these benefits while getting by with their more market-driven benefit plans. 

Do you see a trend here? The Unions have P-O-W-E-R...more than you or I realize. 

Just today, Boeing announced increases in 2011 health care contributions for their non-union employees.  The unions, however, are untouched because they are bound by union contracts. And you can bet the unions will put up a huge fight when negotiations begin and an increase in personal benefit contributions are at the table (can you say strike?). 

Yes, Bill Gates is out there saying 1098 is such a good thing (and in my opinion he can go ahead and write a bigger check to the government out of the goodness of his heart if he so chooses), but the real backers of 1098 are Unions who refuse to accept a contraction in their way of life. 

But where does that leave you and I? 

Sources:

WSJ: William McGurn 10.19.2010

Boeing Raises Health-plan Costs for Most NonUnion Workers, 10.19.2010

Ballots are Coming

The ballots are coming. Voting day is approaching...can you feel the intensity? I'm already feeling bombarded with the print ads and TV advertising, but it will still heat up as November approaches.  Here's what I have to say about our Washington races:

(1) DINO vs. MURRAY

Stick with the issues. Murray continues to attack Dino with half-truth allegations and forgets that she's the one on the hot seat. She's part of a Congress that's made our economic situation go from bad to worse. She's part of a Senate which has neglected to pass a budget, and has avoided a vote for our tax structure which is set to begin in 2 1/2 months. She has been a proponent of the stimulus, and Obamacare, which they continue to say, "You're gonna like it, I promise" (Obamacare) and "It will eventually create jobs" (Stimulus).  The problem is we don't like it because the only way to support these programs is through OUR precious tax dollars. 

Do you find it interesting there isn't a single incumbent Democrat around the country running on how they passed milestone legislation for health care???  They know Obamacare was rammed through without support of the American public and they won't win any points by touting such a shameful, unconstitutional "achievement."  

This election is about jobs, the economy and reigning in government control over our lives. What has Patty Murray done to make any improvement?  She's been in office during our boom and now through our recession and yet still is mum about her track record and how that's affected me and you.

Just remember to stick to the issues. Stick to the issues. JOBS and the ECONOMY. 

(2) I-1098

It appears the State Income Tax initiative is in a dead-heat. I am so passionate about defeating 1098 but I think a lot of Washingtonians are feeling indifferent since it's only written to tax wealthier Washingtonians. 

Please share these facts with your friends and neighbors...two years, people...TWO SHORT YEARS and our State Government can make this income tax apply to ALL income-earning Washingtonians. And since our state re-wrote the law on tax hikes a few months ago, it only requires a simple majority vote. And if you trust them to hold back just look at our Sales Tax. It's one of the highest in the country and it continues to go up.  

1098 will not exist in a vacuum either. The effects of a state income tax will filter down to negatively affect our state economy and job growth. A state income tax will deter businesses from relocating to Washington and will deter businesses from expansion. That is job growth and we will see less of it. 

I am probably a broken record...but PLEASE, speak up. Share the details. And VOTE. Vote Vote Vote.

Business speaking out

"For years, the lack of a state income tax has been a powerful selling point to companies and individuals looking to move to Washington. This November's vote will have a big impact on our region's future growth opportunities."

 - Mike Hughes, President of Safeco Insurance

The State Income Tax debate is in full force here in Washington. If Initiative 1098 passes, our state will go from having the lowest state income tax (ZERO) to the fifth highest in the nation. 

Are you eyes wide open now?!...yes, the FIFTH highest.

And some of you are saying...well, that's only for the rich. I'll be fine.

But, like I've blogged about before, just give it two years, my friends, and we'll all be paying into this system.

Want to know who's speaking out against 1098?  Businesses. LOTS of them.

To see a list of businesses that have publicly come out against I-1098 and some great press releases from leaders at some of our largest businesses (Microsoft, Boeing, etc.), click here.

Even if you STILL believe the state income tax won't affect you, you should STILL oppose I-1098 to give our state the best advantage in retaining and attracting businesses to Washington State. It's not just a tax on the super rich...the effects will be far more reaching.

Christine O'Donnell...my take.

"We've got serious issues facing our country right now and this type of stuff is a diversion.  And I want to get back on message."

 - Sen. Candidate Christine O'Donnell, R-Del

It's a media firestorm over Christine O'Donnell, the underdog tea party candidate who clinched the GOP nomination in Delaware last week.  The win was a major victory to conservatives and tea party supporters.

If you didn't know about O'Donnell a month ago, I'm sure you've heard about her now.  The national media is all over her for a comment she made about witchcraft in her high school years (I'm not acknowledging this is bizarre, but nonetheless, kids do a lot of stupid stuff in their teenage years. Is it more stupid than cocaine?  I will let you decide, since President Obama has admitted to dabbling in cocaine but that doesn't seem to bother people too much). They also attack her for getting behind on her mortgage, and "not paying her taxes".  

She had a great interview with Sean Hannity on Tuesday (click here) to clarify some of these "personal" issues, but she also talks about what I think is most important: her policies and her campaign promises. Ultimately, that's the most important thing. 

"What's important to the people of Delaware are how we're going to get jobs back, how we're going to reduce the size of government. And they're worried about the tax hikes that are coming in January."

The problem for liberals? They cannot fight her on the issues. Her opponent, Democrat Chris Coons, knows her position on taxes, government spending, accountability and jobs are what can ultimately swing the election in her favor. She is behind the American people on the issues they deem important. Liberals know they have alienated the majority of the country, so their only plan of attack are these irrelevant and false, personal attacks. 

Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, you should be focused on what your voted representatives will DO while in office, which will ultimately determine how we live our lives. 

O'Donnell has an uphill battle in this general election, but she was 15 points behind in the primary election  a week before voting and ended up winning by 6. Don't overlook her ability to bounce back and keep the focus where it belongs: on the issues.

Sources:

Full interview with Hannity----TAKE A LOOK!

Christine on the Issues, from her website

Distinction...from Chris Matthews???

It just goes to show the rest of the media might be getting better at translating Obama speak. 

From the mouth of Chris Matthews:

"He (Obama) should stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money.  It's their money! A tax cut is when the government doesn't take our money.  It's an important distinction."

Do You Trust These Guys?

"Start with the damage it would do to Washington's business climate, and how smacking a narrow band of successful people with a new tax of 5 to 9 percent would take almost $2 billion a year out of the private sector.  An income tax would fall like a ton of bricks on some of those involved with the most innovative, job-producing businesses and companies in Southwest Washington and the rest of the state."

 - WA State Senator Joseph Zarelli

Voting day looms...but Washingtonians need to pay attention to Initiative 1098. It could change your life...not all at once, but it will...and not in a good way.

  

Washington State is in financial trouble and this is the solution: Create a state income tax.

They will start with the highest wage earners (those making over $200k)...these people don't need that money anyway. Who the heck gets to decide who doesn't need their hard-earned cash-o-la? 

I hate this idea of pitting lower wage earners against higher wage earners.  I don't fall into the "rich" category, but I am still freaked out of 1098.  Here's why: I don't trust the government.  1098 paves the way for a full-fledged state income tax in two years for ALL income earners and you better believe they will move in that direction.  

This new state income tax structure will eventually include lower wage earners and the promised tax "eliminations" with 1098 are not permanent and will most likely be re-instated within a few years.  

From defeat1098.com, here are 5 points to consider:

1) We can’t trust the politicians in Olympia with an income tax. If this state income tax on “the rich” is passed, a simple majority of the legislature can extend an income tax to everyone in just two years.

2) The 1098 income tax initiative includes no protections on how high the tax rates can go. 1098 is a new tax on income of more than $2 billion in the first year alone.

3) The supporters of Initiative 1098 say that the revenues from a state income tax would be used for education and health programs, but the truth is that the legislature can spend the funds however it wants.

4) While the income tax would be permanent, the promised relief on property and business taxes is not guaranteed to be permanent and could be eliminated by the legislature in just two years.

5) Job creation will be harmed by the 1098 income tax. As The Seattle Times wrote, “I-1098 also takes away the most important tax-based advantage Washington has in attracting businesses and jobs here: our lack of a state income tax. This state needs that advantage.”  - -

This last one is very scary to me. The health of our state depends on the health of the private sector, which is the ONLY area of the economy that actually creates a single job. Lack of a state income tax is a huge windfall for companies that move here...but we will soon lose that advantage if 1098 is passed. 

And what I find very interesting is the Bill Gates, Sr. television ad tnever actually mentions the words "Income Tax"...it just talks about lowering your tax bill.

If you knew Steve Ballmer (CEO of Microsoft) and Steve Bezos (CEO of Amazon.com) have come out against I-1098 you would realize what this bill will do to attract businesses to this state. Businesses large and small are worried. I am too.

It's a job killer, my friends. Wake up and smell the Starbucks...it may not be here much longer.

More Reading:
Wall Street Journal: The Gates of Confiscation
No on I-1098 - Imposing Income Tax Would Kill the State's Advantage

Climate Change Needs a Bigger Umbrella

"The White House wants the public to start using the term 'global climate disruption' in place of 'global warming' -- fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is."

- Fox News, 09.16.2010

This made me, literally, laugh out loud. Check out the article. The government basically wants any reason to panic and point to the desperate need for "Cap and Tax" legislation any time the weather changes from rain to sun to snow to wind. Any "disruption" in our weather will be cause for alarm.

I live in Seattle for goodness sakes...we have odd weather patterns.  The environmentalists around here are going to be in heart-attack mode each night when the weatherman gives his evening report: Oh my gosh! It's been sunny and now...it's going to RAIN!!  Call Al Gore!  

It doesn't surprise me.  If you haven't noticed...there's a lot of re-branding going on (see my previous post...and did you know the Democratic party announced it's re-branding today? New slogan, new website, new logo.  See it here.).

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/

Taking Credit...NOW!?

"If we're serious about taking action to help our economy get back to creating jobs, Democrats and Republicans must come together and pass legislation this month that makes significant cuts in spending and stops President Obama's tax hike on small businesses."

House Minority Leader - John Boehner

Don't you just love how the media now calls the issue of extending the Bush-era tax cuts as "Obama's Middle Class Tax Cuts"?

I find it quite interesting that he's taking credit NOW...as if he's enacting some sort of tax break for the middle class, which, of course, is not the case.  He's merely extending tax cuts that allowed prosperity under the Bush administration.  

And...if you didn't know...these tax cuts HAVE BEEN IN PLACE for everyone, even the wealthiest of Americans. 

A correct restatement of Obama's strategy is more like: Raise taxes on the rich and small business owners, but maintain the tax structure for everyone else.  

And, yes I've included small businesses in that category, because what you may not realize is most of the "wealthiest" Americans are owners of small businesses, and their small business income is reported on their personal tax return. This tax hike will kill small businesses and contract the economy further. Small businesses will have to either layoff employees to compensate for the tax hike or pull back on any type of expansion. 

Don't get fooled on this one. Obama continues to blame the rich for some type of increase in the deficit. But read between the lines and understand what he's really saying.  He knows he needs more taxes to fund his deficit-type spending. He NEEDS this tax hike. He hasn't had this extra income from the wealthiest of Americans, but he needs it now. He is desperate to fund his promises and has no other solution.

I would say start cutting the budget with an ax and repeal ObamaCare, but he won't listen to me...  

P.S. I'm working my way back into blogging...it's been a crazy few months at our house, but I'm starting to get enraged, so  my conservative outlet must resume! 

Source:

Obama's Middle Class Tax Cuts, FOX News 09162010

Washington Voters...VOTE!

Today is the State of Washington's Primary Election. I state my political preference openly on this blog, so you KNOW I'm not voting for the incumbent, spend-happy, bailout-happy, private-sector-destroying Patty Murray. I absolutely love how she says she's been "saving and creating private sector jobs to get our economy moving."  Judge for yourself, but I have a difficult time finding validity with her statement. Especially with her recent claim she's saving all these public-sector jobs by signing yet another bailout bill...even our Governor Christine Gregoire says we still need between 4-7% cuts across the board.  So much for progress...

A friend of mine pointed out we have a few cuckoo's on the ballot this fall, so review carefully.  Apparently everyone wants to throw their hat into the ring. (Sidenote: It's funny to read "fake boobs" in a candidate's statement. Wow.) 

This is the beginning of REAL change. Our voices must be heard. It is our constitutional right to choose our elected officials and it starts HERE with the primaries!!

Go get 'em!!