LOWER TAXES = INCREASED REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT

That supposedly incongruous fact is heresy to liberal Democrats, as it is ingrained in their psyche that we always need more government revenue and imposing or raising taxes is the way to accomplish that end. I hate to burst their bubble, but, as usual, they are economically wrong and history bears that out.

John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush all lowered the marginal income tax rates and government revenue increased as a result. Despite that fact, liberal Democrats have put on their blinders and have been using as their battle cry, throughout the decades, that we must increase the tax rates to get more revenue, especially against the high income earners whom they despise and demonize in order to try to appeal to the larger base of voters who are considered the so-called middle-class and poor. They never mention the fact that the top 10% of all taxpayers (people making more than $114,000) pay approximately 70% of all income taxes. There's a limit as to how much taxes they are willing to pay.

Because of the lowered Bush tax rates, put into effect in 2001 and 2003, the amount of revenue collected by the government increased by over a half a trillion dollars over the collections of 2000 to 2007. So how come when we lowered tax rates, the revenue went up? Doesn't that go against the prevailing opinion of the liberal Democrats that the tax rates caused the tremendous deficits that we are experiencing today? Not really. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, and President Obama and the Democrats have been acting like “drunken sailors” (I apologize to drunken sailors as they are pikers as compared to them) in spending the taxpayers money and borrowed money. In fact, the spending is absurdly above historical levels right now and is unsustainable. It is driven by payments for individuals (64% of federal outlays) and entitlements, especially health care spending. ObamaCare did not bend the health care curve down, either, it bent it up.

Another fallacy brought up constantly by the liberal Democrats, is that the deficit is due to military spending. That is a myth. If military spending had been eliminated in its entirety in 2009, the deficit would still have been $776 billion. An historical high. Defense spending is 1/5 of the federal budget and less than 5% of GDP. In fact, President Bush presided over smaller defense budgets (as a fraction of GDP) than all the presidents from 1941 through 1993.

What the liberals don't understand about economics is the principle of the “point of diminishing returns”. When you raise taxes over and above the point where the people being taxed feel that it is unfair, they will use loopholes in the law (because they can hire professionals such as accountants and tax lawyers), and they are able to adjust their spending patterns so that they will wind up paying less at the higher rates than they would have paid under the lower rates. They also may vote with their “feet” and move to a more hospitable tax environment, like overseas.

Because many liberals are brainwashed into thinking that successful people (ex. high income earners) must've gotten those monetary gains by way of cheating or by exploiting others, they want to punish them by raising their income taxes (the class warfare ploy). Envy seems to be the major, staple sin that infects most liberals. If I can't achieve what you have achieved, than I want to “even out” the playing field and redistribute your money to the less successful, is their battle cry. That's right out of the Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky playbooks.

So if the government wants to get more revenue, don't raise the marginal tax rates because lower (reasonable) tax rates equal increased revenue. That's a fact, look it up!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

MY THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS

My name is Jack Kasden. I am a resident of Century Village of West Palm Beach (that bastion of FDR idolatry). I am 75 years old. I was one of the founders of the first Century Village Republican Club in 2003, with the help of Sid Dinerstein and Alan Bergstein. I'd like to share some of my thoughts and concerns about our great country with you.

You know, we senior citizens are very knowledgeable about the past because we have seen so much, and therefore have an advantage over our children and grandchildren, and we can offer a plethora of advice regarding many things.

We should all be thankful that we were born when we were because our lives have been relatively peaceful. When we grew up we had very little to worry about. The depression was over and WW 2 was coming to an end. For the next 50 years, every once in a while, we gave thought about our touchy situation with the Soviets who also had nuclear weapons and may one day launch them. But, that was it. That was our biggest problem. Boy, were we lucky.

Today, our children and grandchildren are not so blessed. They have much to worry about. I feel that our nation is heading in the wrong direction. Us seniors, for the last year, have not had a cost of living adjustment added to our Social Security, and will not have one next year either (meanwhile, our Congressman have given themselves raises). For a lot of us that is not a problem, but think about the elderly nan or woman that just have their social security to fall back on and are having a difficult time meeting their expenses. How devastating that must be to them?

We are headed toward a socialist future whose consequences that we face are yet to be determined. But, I can tell you that it does not look good. ObamaCare, if not stopped, will be disastrous for seniors, especially in Florida. If that isn't enough, they also have the Muslim threat to worry about in 20 to 30 years. They are already making tremendous strides in many European countries and it is a preview of what is coming here. Just think how different things will be for our country when the Muslim population reaches close to a majority in the population?

The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that a liberal likes what is happening in Washington and will defend the present government and the choices that they made on election day two years ago. They live in the past and feel that everything will be fine as it always has been and let us not create any waves by opposing them.

The conservatives are able to determine where we are headed and see that the future is very bleak for our children and grandchildren and we worry for them. Before the election in 2008, Ed Koch came to Century Village to speak to the Democratic Club. He praised Obama and said he would make a good President and would be good for the Jewish people. Last year, he proclaimed his error in judgment and was very disappointed in him and he was very sorry that he misled so many people. The conservatives also see that health care reform will lead to panels that will determine whether people will live or die based on their age along with other factors. The government will force all health care companies to go out of business by taxing or regulating them to death. We are headed for a disastrous single-payer health care system just like Canada and Great Britain.

We are supposed to learn from history, but sometimes we are also headed on a similar erroneous path because we refuse to realize the danger that lies ahead. I digress for a moment and take you back 80 years. A young man came to power in Germany promising a revived and flourishing future for Germany and the people bought into it. He changed things for 8 years culminating in the 2nd World War and attempted the extermination of all Jewish people and others who opposed him. The people of Germany were lulled into a false sense of Utopia, and in the early 30's and after, they finally realized what was happening, but it was too late to do anything, Become part of the system or be put to death.

So do we want to become another Germany in 1930 or do we want to continue the Republic that was given to us in 1776. People must wake up or all is lost. We must be united and stand tall and work together to fight the constant daily deluge we are faced with from people trying to destroy our great nation. We must wake up just like the people in Ron Klein's Democratic stronghold did and said enough is enough and voted into office a true American hero, Allen West. I hope that is just the beginning of the real change that we need so badly.

Thanks to “Chuck on the Right Side” for giving me the opportunity to vent my feelings. I wish you all a very Happy New Year to one and all and let us all pray for our great country.

Conservative commentary by Jack Kasden

LET'S BE POLITICALLY INCORRECT!

Let's be a serial offender and stand the “Politically Correct” police on their dumb heads. Remember, just a few short years ago, your friends, family, comedians, and yes, “real bigots”, said things about others and other groups that today would be considered offensive to a highly, overly sensitive public? Back then, people laughed at the “diss” and many times came back with their own “diss”, meanwhile laughing at the exaggerations that the racial, ethnic, gender and religious jokes poked fun at. Very few took offense at these jokes.


Today, it is a different story. Real or imagined outrage is expressed when anybody crosses the “P.C. Police” line of what is right and what is wrong, and what can and what cannot be said or expressed in public. Who gave these self-appointed guardians of proper speech and action the right to tell others how to act and what to say?


Here are a few “politically incorrect” statements, jokes, and comments that should raise the hairs on the back of the necks of the self-righteous, indignant, overly sensitive people who are looking for any slur or pseudo-slur that might be said in jest or just in kidding around.


Let's see how many people we can offend (all in good-natured fun, of course).


*What is a Jewish nymphomaniac? Ans.- She's a Jewish girl who'll go to bed with a guy after she's just had he hair and nails done.

*What is smaller than the Swiss Navy? Ans.- The Italian Air Force.
How can you tell a Mexican girl is having her period? Ans.- She's only wearing one sock.

*Why does a Pollack keep his fly open? Ans.- Just in case he has to count to eleven.

*Did you hear about the new German microwave oven? It seats 45.

*What's an Irish 7 course meal? Ans.- A six-pack and a boiled potato.

*How was the “limbo” invented? Ans.- A Puerto Rican was sneaking under a pay toilet.

*What's the most confusing day in the black ghetto? Ans.- Father's Day.

*What word beginning in “A” means prince in Jewish? Ans.- “A” doctor.

*Did you hear about the Pollack who thought that Peter Pan was a wash basin in a whore house?

*How do you sink an Italian submarine? Ans.- You put it in the water.

*Why do Mexican women wear long skirts? Ans.- To hide their No-Pest Strips.

*What's the difference between an ex-wife and a barracuda? Ans.- Nail Polish.

*What's the plural of “yenta”? Ans.- Hadassah.

*What do you get when you cross a midget with an Italian? Ans.- A short garbageman. (this applies mainly to N.Y. And N.J.)

*How do you solve the Puerto Rican problem? Ans.- You tell blacks they taste like fried chicken.

*Germans are so dull I can't think of any funny lines.

*How can you tell when an Irish patient is recovering? Ans.- When he tries to blow the head off his medicine.

*How can you tell you're in a gay church? Ans.- Only half the congregation is standing.

*My ex-wife was an expert housekeeper. When we got divorced, she kept the house.

*Did you hear about the Pollack who thought that a Penal Colony was an all-male nudist camp?

These were the kind of jokes and comments that were made before “political correctness” came to play such a important part of our lives. Most of us laughed at the absurdity because that is what makes a joke or a comment funny. A certain amount of truth coupled with a gross exaggeration. And most of us laughed and were not offended. Ah, for the good old days, when men were men and not girlie-men!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Don't Believe Everything You Read

Not all that long ago, when one read news accounts in big-city newspapers, one could be reasonably assured that quotes were verified by the obligatory, 'two sources'.
Creditable news editors insisted on it. A newspaper's reputation depended upon it. Ha! Not any longer.

In today's news environment, reporters and their editors seem satisfied with their initial source of information and apparently because of the press of deadlines and competitive media, seldom bother to verify all their facts and quotes. This is a general observation and undoubtedly, there are exceptions - at least we hope there are writers who still double-check their sources.

Bloggers on the other hand, are not inclined to seek a confirming source for their 'facts'. Blogging is generally, 'opinion'. And 'opinion' is more often than not, just that - as opposed to 'assessment', which would hold out the promise at least, that the writer has made an attempt to fathom the facts and draw a conclusion based upon all the facts that had been gathered. Additionally, bloggers including this writer, will likely form their opinions and make their assessments from material they've gleaned from the various sources that comprise the mass media. Checking 'facts' extracted from Tribune newspapers for example, or from programming on CNN, or from talking heads on local channels whose pronouncements do not include how their facts where verified, if they were - is next to impossible. So, to rely upon the superabundance of written chatter on blog sites as a sole source of information that is unfailingly accurate, just isn't a good idea.

All of which goes to prove that nothing worthwhile is accomplished without effort; that includes the process of becoming well-informed.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF (c) 2010

The Estate Tax: A True Story

This is a true story. It may be long – but it has an important message.

In 1939 Enzo came to the United States from Italy. He settled in New York City. He married a lady who also came from Italy and they had three sons and one daughter. He worked very hard as a mason in the construction field and his wife worked as a hostess in a restaurant. Enzo and his wife saved every penny that they could with the hope that someday they could open a restaurant. Enzo’s family in Italy had been in the restaurant business as chefs and waiters and Enzo and his wife were excellent cooks.

Eventually, after saving as much as he could, he opened his first restaurant – a small pizzeria. Enzo bought the land and helped build the pizzeria himself. Enzo and his entire family worked in the pizzeria putting in many hours of labor. Eventually, they expanded the pizzeria into a restaurant that had 20 tables in it. The entire family worked very hard and they prospered. To Enzo the American dream became a reality. Hard work paid dividends. In time Enzo expanded the first restaurant and then opened a second restaurant. The family worked in both. Enzo was the chef in one restaurant and his oldest son was the chef in the second. The rest of the family worked as wait staff, greeters, cleaners, etc. in both places. Everything was wonderful for Enzo and his family until 1980 when Enzo and his wife died in an automobile accident. Needless to say, the family was devastated. But what would come later also was devastating.

Enzo poured every penny they had into the restaurant. He never had a lavish life style. The only luxury he had was a Cadillac – that was three years old when he died. He lived in a modest house in Queens, New York. He did not have stocks or bonds, just some CDs and savings. The two restaurants through hard work supported Enzo and his children and families. He never thought of himself as wealthy or a millionaire because, as he said, how many millionaires make pizza or pasta every day?

Enzo’s estate was split between his sons and daughter and they continued to run the restaurant. In a few months they learned for the first time that they were considered “rich” and what that meant. Back in 1980 the top bracket for the Estate Tax was 70%. In other words, even though you paid income taxes on what you earned, what you left behind for your heirs would be “shared” with the federal government: up to 70% to Uncle Sam and at least 30% to the heirs. On top of that New York State had crippling taxes, too. In the end they found out that the two restaurants were appraised at a total of $6 million. Since Enzo and his family never had any intention of selling the “business” as they called it, they did not realize how much it was worth. And the bad news was that they had to come up with more than $4.5 million to pay the estate and inheritance taxes. Needless to say, they did not have the cash on hand to pay the taxes. The only real asset they inherited was the two restaurants. Enzo’s family had to sell both restaurants to come up with the cash to pay the estate and inheritance taxes. If Enzo were alive he would not believe that his “American dream” would become a nightmare. Enzo worked hard, saved everything he could, and paid taxes all his life with the expectation he would leave “the business” to his family. After all, wasn’t that the “American Dream?” Well, the family had to sell the restaurants, the land, and the buildings to raise enough money to pay the taxes. In the end, the family split $1.5 million amongst four of them – or $320,000 after taxes and costs. If you totaled up all of the hours that Enzo, his wife, and the children put into the restaurant this “vast sum” amounted to less than $.60 an hour.

There are many Enzos in the U.S. – men and women who worked hard and built up a business, be it a restaurant, a farm, or any other business. And these are the bulk of the people who will be impacted by reinstating the estate tax as many liberals want to do. The wealthy families such as the Kennedys and Rockefellers will not have to pay any estate taxes because everything was set up years ago in trusts, etc. and when there were no estate taxes. So keep Enzo and his family in mind when the New York Times, NPR, and other liberal media call out to soak the rich and re-impose the estate tax.

Conservative Commentary by Jim Pirretti

TERMINAL IRRELEVANCE

I've been wracking my brain to come up with a term that best describes the policies put forth by President Obama and his Administration. After much thought and introspection, I came up with the term - “Terminal Irrelevance”. “Terminal” means the end of phrase “the end justifies the means (as espoused by by the late Saul Alinsky), and “Irrelevance” to describe the policies that are just not applicable (irrelevant) to our economic and political system.

President Obama stated, in his campaign to become president on numerous occasions, that he was going to “transform” our country, after first stating that we are the best country in the world. If that was the case, why did he need to “transform” the best? It seems that his “transformation” was for the worst, not the best as things have turned out so far.

Look at what he has done in his two years in office. He pushed the House to pass the Cap and Trade (Tax) bill, it has, so far, died in the Senate, but he is determined to bring it up again. He took almost one year to steer a trillion dollar heath care bill through Congress, which wasn't read by most members in the Congress and even Obama himself, even though the polls showed that 60% of the people didn't want it. He had his Attorney-General sue the State of Arizona to stop them from enforcing an illegal immigrant law modeled after the federal law. 80% of the people support Arizona and not Obama on this one. In the wings is another goody for his union supporters, it is called Card Check (EFCA- Employee Free Choice Act), which will do away with “secret ballot” elections for the workers in union representation elections. And finally (as the list is too long), he had passed, through the Democrat controlled Congress, by bribes and arm-twisting, a $800 billion “Stimulus bill” that has not created the jobs that it was supposed to create as a means of selling it during its markup in Congress. The “shovel ready” jobs that Obama promised seem to be figment of his imagination. All it has done is to create more debt that our grandchildren will have to confront down the road.

The Kool-Aid drinking supporters of Obama will claim that I am against him because he is black (a weasel term if ever there was one).

No, my Obama “idol worshipers”, race has nothing to do with it. I was against his two “lily white” predecessors, Al Gore, and John Kerry for the same reasons I am against Obama. Their policies and Obama's policies “suck” (to use the street vernacular), the color of his skin had nothing to do with it.

I am against the introduction of Fabian Socialism into our society. The “transformation” espoused by Obama (and Pelosi and Reid) are bad for America and must be stopped before they make us into a second-rate nation. I'll say again, Obama's policies are “terminally irrelevant”.


Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

SOAK THE RICH!

How many times have you heard a liberal (Democrat) make that silly comment, “Soak the Rich”? They say that anyone making over a certain amount ($250,000 for example) should be able to afford an increase in his/her marginal rate to help reduce the deficit. Are they kidding? If everything remained the same (a zero sum) the increase in revenue would be a fraction of what is needed to reduce the debt. From past experience, every time you “punish” successful people by “soaking the rich”, you wind up with much less revenue than what you had projected. Rich people (by the way, what is the definition of rich?) have the means to avoid, through loopholes, the extra taxes they are assessed, or by moving to a better tax environment, either a no-income tax state or to a foreign country. In other words they will vote with their feet. Only a fool, which the liberals seem to be so designated, will think that it is a good idea to take all that money out of circulation in the private sector and give it to the government by increasing the taxes on the “rich”. Is $250,000 really considered “rich”?

The typical liberal says that an increase in the present top income tax rate of 35% to 39.6% is insignificant, only 4.6%. Is it? Let's take a single person with a taxable income of $300,000. It would cost him $4,600 extra in taxes (4.6% of 100,000 over the threshold of $200,000). That means that $4,600 will not be spent in the private sector of our economy thereby helping other businesses who might have otherwise gotten part of that money, money that was paid instead to the government by the taxpayer in the form of higher taxes. Multiply that over the many thousands of taxpayers expected to fall into that category and you'll wind up with quite a few billions of dollars taken out of circulation. A married couple with a taxable income of $300,000 would pay an additional tax of $2,300, (4.6% of $50,000 over the threshold of $250,000). Is that “fair” ( that's the word liberals love to throw around to justify their faulty economic thinking and to tug on the heart strings by demonizing the so-called “rich”) to “punish” a successful person or entrepreneur by raising his/her taxes arbitrarily? Who is better able to spend his/her own money, the taxpayer or the government? The liberal always seems to choose the government.

Let's take a look at who pays income taxes in our country. The top 1% of earners (making over $380,000) pay 40% of all income taxes. The top 5% (making over $160,000) pay 60% of all income taxes. The top 10% (making over $113,800) pay 70% of all income taxes. The top 25% (making over $67,000) pay 86% of all income taxes. The top 50% (making over $33,000) pay 97% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% (making under $33,000) pay approximately 3% of all income taxes. That means that approximately 47% of income earners don't pay any income taxes ( of course they pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc.) That is totally out of whack, and it means that America is now about evenly split between those who pay income taxes and those who consume them.

Even socialist, George Bernard Shaw, demonstrated good sense when he said, “The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul”. So as Shaw suggested, people who pay no tax will not hesitate to vote for politicians who promise big spending. Why not? They will get stuff without having to pay for it. Another prescient view was stated by Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th century French economist, who defined that state of affairs as “that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else”. That's the situation we find ourselves today in the U.S.A., where one half of the population is living off the other half.

So when the Democrats play their “class warfare” game, they are really undermining our free enterprise system and leading us toward a Socialist society like what's in play in Europe, which shows the fallacy of “soaking the rich” as a viable economic policy. That's exactly what Obama and his Administration are trying to do. He is a president who would rather re-distribute income than create wealth. We must rise up and give him an emphatic NO to his destructive “class warfare” re-distributionist policies by using the failed Karl Marx playbook!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

"Marxism in America"

In this video entitled "Marxism in America" General (Ret.) W.G. Boykin discusses his background and training in understanding Marxist insurgencies and how the current government actions parallel Marxist tactics.

Open letter to Ron Klein

This is a fervent plea for you to 'do the right thing' on behalf of your unfortunate family but mostly, for the misrepresented, abused residents of Florida's Congressional District 22. Henceforth, I shall refer to both groups as, 'the injured parties'. Now, I'm willing to bet the farm that you've already stopped reading this letter.

"The right thing" for you to do is, to perform a permanent 'fade'. Don't just stand there waiting to be told what to do next by the Democrap leadership. Disappear! Like, now and like, forever. Quoting that line from the famous Bar scene in "Star Wars", "We don't need your kind around here."

Your political demise was predictable and long, long overdue. Whatever you were cut out to do in life Ronnie old chap, it sure as hell isn't to represent the decent citizens of Florida. Your two terms in the Congress produced an abysmal record of hot-air rhetoric and an appalling lack of any real accomplishment. You were and are, an extreme embarrassment. And as well, extremely dangerous in or near any position of power.

Now, regarding the despicable, classless and viciously foul campaign you waged against Allen West - it was plain & simple - a glaring testament to your abject fear of that honorable gentleman. In your panic-driven attempt to cast ugly aspersions at your political opponent, you bared the ugliness that is at your core. And, from the litany of lies, prevarications, false allegations and slanderous innuendos that formed the totality of your campaign (and, it was your campaign, condoned by you - every word of it), you proved beyond question, that there are no redeeming features to be found within the amalgam of nastiness that is your character.

Might I suggest that for your safety, comfort, convenience and personal enjoyment - and for the good of 'the injured parties' referred to earlier - you hie yourself off to Venezuela or Cuba where you would find much in common with the means and methods of the leadership of either of these two extreme-left, pseudo Valhalla's.

Bon voyage and good riddance, Ronnie Baby. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF (c) 2010