QotD: Connect the dots...la, la-la, la-la

Thomas Sowell. Economist (PhD-type). Columnist. Two phenomenal musings that I'll let speak for themselves (you can read his whole piece here).

#1) The free market and government meddling:

"...what is called “the market” consists of human beings making their own choices at their own cost. What is called “social justice” is government imposition of the notions of third parties, who pay no price for being wrong."

#2) The company you keep:

"Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, Moammar Qaddafi, and Vladimir Putin have all praised Barack Obama. When enemies of freedom and democracy praise your president, what are you to think? When you add to this Barack Obama’s many previous years of associations and alliances with people who hate America — Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, and so on — at what point do you stop denying the obvious and start to connect the dots?"

I suspect we'll be obvious deniers for another seven years. Sigh.

QotD: Maggie

Found this quote from Margaret Thatcher on Jay Nordlinger's "Impromptus" today (here...always a good read). Substitute "Obama's economy" for "socialism" at your leisure.

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

QotD: Hannan revisited

"...You cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit."

Daniel Hannan, British Parliament

His statement, "You cannot buy yourself out of a recession or spend yourself out of debt," came on the heels of the above quote. This latter quote is the one the media is keying on. This is the tactic currently employed by our President to solve our economic predicament. These two statements together expose a portion of this tactic unconsidered by many.

Our government produces nothing.

Granted, the former quote speaks of "legal plunder" by the government. And sure, government provides services, but unlike the private, productive sector of our society, the services do not produce wealth. When the government spends the dollars to provide that service, it spends my dollars and your dollars, and the money is gone.

Government, by its nature, takes money from its citizenry (you and me) to fund itself. As the government grows, so too grows the taking (stealing) from the productive for its own survival or to fund the unproductive.

Pretty soon, as the productive segment of society withers under the weight of the bureaucratic behemoth, there will be nothing left to take.

Orator par excellance!

This clip has been out and about for three or four days now. You might have seen it already. Watch it again. If you haven't seen it, take three minutes. It's the most powerful political oratory I have heard in my life. The pain, passion, and anger are real and not merely the theater of false Greek columns and false rhetoric.

Ladies and Gentleman, without further ado, Daniel Hannan of the British Parliament at the European Parliament:


Where are the Hannan's in our House and Senate? Where are the Hannan's in our communities? Be that man!

QotD: The worst of 2008

"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."

President George W. Bush doing his best Yogi Berra...

...and sounding, in the silliest of terms, the death knell of the American economy.

QotD: Lazy fare

"The trouble with the social-democratic state is that, when government does too much, nobody else does much of anything."

Mark Steyn from "America Alone"

A more perfect "union?"

Unions served America well in the day when some industry moguls took brutal advantage of its workers. No longer.

QotD: Econ 101

"Government is force, not eloquence. And force is an attempt to defy economic logic. The consequences are often opposite of those intended."

John Stossel, "The Road to Serfdom"

(A good article for understanding what's coming down the pike)

And on the socialist side of the coin...

"The American worker has produced more per person than at any time, but it hasn’t been shared, and that’s the problem because we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth."

Comrade...oops... Congressman Jim Moran, D-VA

America Alone: The essay

Mark Steyn, Canadian columnist turned American, continues to appreciate and honor with his pen the principles that have made our nation great in a time when many Americans couldn't explain how it began. Nor could they explain what the problem was that nearly ripped it asunder in the 19th century.

I offer a few points from his concluding paragraph. Read it in its entirety to see how he gets to this point (here).

(One) Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

So do we become a neutered, Euro-west welfare state or do we continue to stand against the tide as a free people committed to sustaining freedom through personal responsibility and volitional sacrifice? Bueller? Anyone?

QotD: Socialism by any other name...

This interchange took place (not a joke, mind you) between a plumber in Ohio and the democratic presidential candidate (story here):

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked.

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Joy.

Taxes: Grab your wallet!

Today's Parade Magazine, the Sunday paper insert, included an insert titled "How Much Would You Pay in Taxes?" (linked here). Here's the table copied out of Parade.

	Obama	McCain
If you make...	you'd save...	you'd save...
less than $19,000	$567	$21
$19,000-$37,600	$892	$118
$37,600-$66,400	$1118	$325
$66,400-$111,600	$1264	$994
$111,600-$161,000	$2135	$2584
$161,000-$227,000	$2796	$4437
If you're in the top 5% of earners...	you'd pay an extra...	you'd save...
$227,000-$603,400	$121	$8159
$603,400-$2.87 million	$93,709	$48,862
more than $2.87 million	$542,882	$290,708

A few things to note. Both men vow a reduction of income tax if you earn less than $225,000. Again, this is income tax, what you have taken away from you from the government of what you earned. We didn't have an income tax until the 1860's and then it was 3%.

John McCain would like to reduce the taxes of everyone, giving the larger tax breaks to those who not only make more money, but to those who pay significantly more taxes! Barack Obama would like to increase the tax burden upon those who already live in the ridiculously higher tax brackets.

Many in the heart of the first half of the table think to themselves, "Yeah! The rich should pay more!" My question in return is "Why?"

Consider the man who makes $2.87 million. He lives in the 35% tax bracket. One of every three dollars he earns is taken by the government. His annual tax burden? $983,097! I don't care that he still clears nearly $1.9 million, having one-third of your income taken is akin to robbery.

Let's return to Senator Obama's desire. Let's slap him with an additional tax burden of $543,882. That takes that "millionaire" to $1,526,979 in taxes paid and he gets to keep $1,343,021! He pays more in taxes than he gets to take home. Senator Obama wants to increase the tax burden to 50% in some cases!

You may still be thinking, "He's still making a million and a half more than what I make." First, what a tragedy that we would revel to see our fellow man gouged so. Second, what do the wealthy generally do with their money? Most of them reinvest it. What does that mean? More money available for companies to open new markets, do more research, or perhaps reduce prices or increase wages. In other words, the little man, you and I, are blessed when the wealthy invest their money.

Another thing the wealthy do with their money is give. Philanthropers bless our communities with schools and hospitals, parks and theaters. They give to orphanages and missions. They give to churches and ministries. The wealthy have blessed America greatly. Tax them higher and there will be fewer dollars going to charitable organizations.

I've said this before; it's not a zero-sum game. If the rich have money, it does not mean that they have it at the expense of others. Wealth creates wealth. America has been blessed by its wealth. Our poor would be considered among the wealthy in some nations. Nearly anybody who is willing to work can find shelter. That's just the way it is. Goods and services in America are ridiculously affordable.

With a larger tax burden, there will be less money to invest and it will stunt growth in the economy. Less money in the hands of the wealthy equals fewer jobs and fewer raises. Most folks just don't understand that if the folks in the upper tiers get thumped, it will roll down hill and we're going to get thumped, too.

Under McCain's plan, the $2.87 million dollar guy will still be paying $692,389. You think that's a good deal?

The more we want the government to do for us, the more we're going to pay (generally through the sinus cavities), and the poorer the quality of the product we'll get in return. You can bank on that! Er, maybe you'd better not.

Oprah

When Oprah had Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, on her show, she was captivated by the man. Not long after that, and for the first time, Oprah Winfrey threw her weight behind a candidate for public office.

Since then, there has been no doubt in anyone's mind, O is for O.

When Sarah Palin struck the political landscape like lightening, it seemed, despite being political opposites, that to highlight womanhood as Oprah often does, Sarah might be a natural for Oprah's show.

Maybe not so much.

According to Drudge, Oprah has said no way would she have the extremely conservative nominee on her program. Winfrey's team has retorted that the mega-celeb has said no such thing.

Here's the deal: Oprah can do as she pleases; it's her show!

The grumbling from the right toward Winfrey continues to increase its volume and pitch. "She had Obama on her show. It's not fair." Um, it's her show! If she wants to divorce herself from conservative America, that is her choice. Sadly, half of conservative America doesn't give a nit about Oprah's political leanings. They'd still watch her if she worshiped Vladimir Putin (she does, you say?).

This is the same kind of stupid thinking that tells business owners they can't have smoking sections any longer (certain states), or that they can't establish who they will and won't hire. It's their business!

It's coercion.

Frankly, I think it would be genius to have the raven Republican on her show. But it's not my show. If Oprah's viewership plumets into the abyss, I guarantee the businesswoman in her will bring the governor onto her show faster than you can say, "hockey mom."

You'd like to think her motivations would be higher, but we'll never know what moved Oprah if she decides to have Palin on her show.

We live in a country of free people. She should be free to do as she wishes, just as every business owner should be free to do so. Then, let the people decide whether the business succeeds or fails. Is the product brought to us that satisfies the citizens?

Sarah or not, Oprah will likely go on. But at what cost?

QotD: The free market

"We don't need laws against discrimination. We need a free, competitive marketplace. Competition is better at punishing sexists, racists and "ageists" than clumsy laws. If a boss discriminated against, say, women, he would be demolished by a competitor who obtains better workers by hiring the women the first boss turned away. If an entire group of bosses turned women away, then men's wages would be bid up over women's, and a new competitor would defeat the discriminators by hiring only women."

John Stossel, "Whose business is it anyway?"