The President is distancing himself from the sequester bill that will trigger automatic budget cuts. He’s trying to push the blame on Republicans for not coming up with a way to avoid it.

But this is now. Here’s what he was saying then:

"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No," Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."

Click on the link for the video. Then, he signed the bill and would now allow anyone to tinker with it. Now, he’s blaming Republicans for not tinkering with it.

Dishonest.

Oh, and those "cuts"? Yeah, they’re "Washington Cuts"; just a reduction in the rate of growth. And not much at that.

Click on the picture for the accompanying article from George Mason University. This is much ado about very little.

I have a lot of vacation saved up for the end of the year, so I have to take quite a bit of it so I don’t lose any. (We, like many companies, can only carry so many days of one year’s vacation into another year. Part of the reason is so that people have to take vacation and not get burned out.) So I’ll be off the rest of the year, and this will likely be my last post of the year. When I return, we will have gone off the so-called "Fiscal Cliff", or we’ll have come to an agreement to avoid it.

As the countdown to the Fiscal Cliff continues, tax increases seem to be the only way Democrats in Congress think that we can close the deficit gap. But Michael Barone points out that, no, tax increases alone will never be enough. It’s not the panacea that Democrats claim it to be. He covers some ideas that I’ve mentioned here, like the fact that entitlement spending alone is enough to keep a deficit going. You might think tax increases are helping, but we’d just be sinking slower. Some I’ve engaged in on this subject have said, “well, at least that’s in the right direction”. Sure, if you can hold your breath indefinitely. No, the right direction would be to start rising and get above the water level.

Another point is that higher tax rates don’t typically produce more tax revenue. From the 1940s to the 1960s, when the top marginal tax rate was 91% (91%!), tax revenues always bounced between 15 and 21% of GDP. Why? Because with a tax rate like that, people spend more time looking for tax shelters and other means, legal and illegal, to keep from paying those high rates. Thus, the Congressional Research Service notes that, during those times of 91% top rates, the effective tax rate on earners in the top 1/100^th percent was 45%. Now, I understand that only income over a certain amount was charged that 91% rate, but even the tiniest sliver of earners at the very top, the absolute richest of the rich, were still paying an aggregate of less than half the rate. Some studies put it at 1/3^rd the rate. This is simple pain avoidance. Threaten to poke me, and I’ll defend myself.

And so from 1948 until now, with up economies and down, with huge marginal tax rates and smaller ones, under Republican Presidents or Democratic, the total US tax revenue taken in as a percentage of GDP has stayed remarkably consistent in the same range; between 15 and 21%. The tax rate made precious little difference in how much of the economy was taken in taxes.

The lesson, then, is this: grow the economy and restrain spending. If we’re going to get the same percentage of the economy in taxes, then to get more tax revenue, you must grow the economy. And as Barack Obama himself said in 2009, “you don’t raise in a recession.” Now, you might say we’re coming out of the recession, but his proposal for $50 billion more in yet another stimulus says he thinks otherwise. Don’t read his lips; read his proposals.

But, once you get those increases revenues, don’t spend that and more on, well, another stimulus, which, by the administration’s own numbers, grew the economy and the jobs at a slower rate than doing nothing. No, taking more in is not a license to spend it. But it’s what government does. That’s why any deal which includes higher taxes may look like a healthy compromise, but it’s nothing more than a ruse that will put us further in debt.

As the countdown to the Fiscal Cliff continues, tax increases seem to be the only way Democrats in Congress think that we can close the deficit gap. But Michael Barone points out that, no, tax increases alone will never be enough. It’s not the panacea that Democrats claim it to be. He covers some ideas that I’ve mentioned here, that entitlement spending alone is enough to keep a deficit going. You might think tax increases are helping, but we’d just be sinking slower. Some I’ve engaged in on this subject call that the “right direction”. No, the right direction would be to start rising and get above the water level.

Another point is that higher tax rates don’t typically produce more tax revenue. From the 1940s to the 1960s, when the top marginal tax rate was 91% (91%!), tax revenues never topped 20% of GDP. Why? Because with a tax rate like that, people, spend more time looking for tax shelters and other means, legal and illegal, to keep from paying those high rates. Thus, Congressional Research Service notes that, during those times of 91% top rates, the tax rate on earners in the top 1/100^th percent were paying only 45%. Now, I understand that only income over a certain amount was charged that 91% rate, but even the tiniest sliver of earners at the top, the absolute richest of the rich, were still paying an aggregate of less than half the rate. Some studies put it at 1/3^rd the rate. This is simple pain avoidance.

And since 1948, with up economies and down, with huge marginal tax rates and smaller ones, under Republican Presidents or Democratic, the total US tax revenue taken in as a percentage of GDP has stayed remarkably consistent between 15 and 21%. These charts are worth checking out. They show this, as well as how other things, like federal debt or government expenditures, have changed relative to GDP. It is really worth your time to check out.

Back with more topics than I’ve ever squeezed into 10 minutes or less, “Consider This!” is back with a new episode.

A friend of mine posted a graphic of Sen. Bernie Sanders with a  quote from him extolling the results of Social Security, with the tag, “Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do.” Well sure, in the short term, big government social programs always look good. Think of how Social Security looked in the first 5 or 10 years. People who had paid little or nothing into it got monthly checks from the government. Wonderful.

John Hawkins at the blog Right Wing News polled conservative bloggers on who the GOP should choose at their 2016 nominee. The short answer? Marco Rubio was the clear winner. He was followed by Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal and Paul Ryan. The two who topped the list of those they least wanted to see on the ticket were Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Then John asked, want to see something scary?

The government recently modified its determination of which states have the worst poverty rates. The new measure incorporates a controversial calculation of relative equality that demotes states that have wide gaps between wealthy people and people with less than one-third of state residents’ average income. This income gap is something that liberals have spoken out against, and believe they have an answer to. But with this new measure included, it’s interesting to see what state dropped to the rock bottom of the survey; California.

A government report released Monday warned that a sudden increase in taxes would result in lower consumer spending next year, and some analysts wondered if the concerns about what could happen might crimp spending throughout the rest of the holiday season. Um, yeah. The Obama administration is just now figuring out what conservatives have been saying, well, pretty much for a generation. In other news, the sky is indeed blue, and math still works.

Click here for show notes, feedback options, ways to subscribe to the podcast, or just listen to it on the web page itself.

Same-sex marriage is approved in Maine. Colorado legalizes recreational marijuana. And (not, I think, coincidentally) Barack Obama wins re-election.

Is this the new normal?

ObamaCare will not be repealed, with its requirement that employers, even those that disagree on moral and religious ground, provide for abortions. And if we lose any Supreme Court justices, there’s no doubt that we’ll get replacements with the same disregard for the least of "the least of these".

In addition, ObamaCare comes with, using the term of one former Illinois Senator’, "massive, job-killing tax increases". In the short term I’m sure the folks will love it. So did the folks in the countries of Europe, where they’re going broke, running out of money to pay for the same sorts of things. Ask Germany, who will have to bail them all out, how much health care costs when it’s "free". Anyone in the US thinking "but this time it’ll be different" has their eyes tightly shut to their surroundings.

Financial guru Dave Ramsey tweeted this: "Expect the rich to dig in to survive big taxes rather than invest in the economy. Hope I am wrong. Good luck on new jobs."

And to my Christian friends who voted for Obama, this whole appeal to short-term thinking is, I believe, part and parcel to how the social issues came out in the election. How many of you really believe that abortion is what amounts to a civil right, and endorse same-sex marriage in spite of a clear Biblical definition of it? If you do, we have a whole set of other issues between us, but if you don’t, why would you vote for a party that does? If you believe charity is an issue of personal responsibility, why would you vote for an ideology that eschews person giving for the power and inefficiency of taxation? Did you buy into the lie that Republicans want to do away with the societal safety net?

A friend of mine tweeted, "Has it ever occurred to u that our party platform endorses the protection of innocent life & Dems end up demonizing us w/ impunity on issue?" And I would add, "and some Christians support such anti-life Democrats?"

My questions are not ones of frustration so much as they are out of confusion.

But Barack Obama did indeed get out the vote, with a good ground game (as I hear) and the American people have spoken. They also spoke and put Republicans back in charge of the House of Representatives, so I’m not sure exactly what they were trying to say. Essentially, we got the same government we had yesterday.

So "Forward!". Or something.

We hear a lot about the effect of the economy on small business but this video says it better than any other I have seen. Bill’s Barbecue was an institution in Richmond, VA for 82 years but it couldn’t survive four years of Obama’s economic policies.

No, the Bush tax cuts didn’t cause the recession. Yes, Obama’s "recovery" has been the worst in history. These and other economic realities can be summed up in this graph. (Click for a larger version.)

A sex scandal involving adults and children under their charge. No, not the Catholic church of the 60s; the public schools of today.

While he did get the number wrong, Romney was right in that those who pay the least in income taxes are the least likely to vote for him.

The number of scientific papers that had to be retracted last year was a 10x increase over the rate during the previous decade. And a study of those retractions finds that 3/4ths of those retractions were due to misconduct rather than honest mistakes.

Good news in the stem cell debate. "Two stem-cell researchers have won this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their groundbreaking work in cellular reprogramming, a technique that unleashed a wave of advances in biology, from cloning to the possible treatment of diseases using a patient’s own cells." That is, there is less of a reason to use embryonic stem cells, when adult ones will do just as well.

Hedging their bets? "A survey by the Pew Research Center discovered that 2.4 percent of Americans say they are atheists and 3.3 percent say they are agnostic. Among the atheists and agnostics, however, 6 percent said they pray daily."

Need more money for your school district, by proving how many students attend? Make them wear microchips. Privacy takes a back seat to cash.

And finally, some apt scripture for the VP debate last night. (Click for a larger version.)

This is what you get when you try to soak the rich.

President Obama proposes to pay for his $447 billion jobs bill mainly by limiting tax deductions for wealthy Americans. Unfortunately, if enacted, this policy will likely dampen charitable giving and further shift perceived responsibility for social welfare from individual donors to the state.

The President’s plan calls for lowering the rate at which wealthy taxpayers can take itemized deductions—from the current rate of 35 percent down to 28 percent, beginning in 2013. The change would affect individuals making more than $200,000 (and families making more than $250,000) per year.

So how much would we be talking about?

The result of President Obama’s proposal will likely be several billion dollars in decreased revenue each year for hospitals, educational institutions, and nonprofits that help the poor. While giving would probably drop only a small percentage, the anticipated amount would total more than the combined annual operating budgets of the Ameri­can Cancer Society, World Vision, St. Jude Chil­dren’s Research Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, and the American Heart Association.

Those who are served by these institutions aren’t the only ones who would be hurt by decreased giving. Many people’s jobs would also be threatened.

Perhaps most importantly, Obama’s proposal sends the message that federal bureaucracy can deploy the resources of the wealthy more effectively than civil society can. Decreasing an incentive for charitable giving implies that the state should assume responsibility for people’s needs, even at the expense of vital nonprofit organizations. Churches, ministries, and other community-based institutions, however, are often better equipped to serve people in need. And they often do so at reduced costs.

If Republicans vote against this, be sure that this analysis will not be mentioned. Instead, by protecting charities, Republicans will be said to be "against jobs".

First, Senator Harry Reid comes out with an allegation that Mitt Romney had times in the past 10 years when he paid no taxes. His source remain some anonymous person formerly of Bain Capital. He beats this drum for weeks, in the media and on the Senate floor, insisting Romney prove his innocence instead of Reid prove his guilt.

Then Romney releases a summary of his past 20 years of tax returns. At no time in the past 2 decades did his effective tax rate dip below 13%. With that allegation proven false, does the Left demand accountability of Harry Reid, for making these unfounded charges? Do they ask who his unreliable source was?

No, they ask 10 more questions of Romney!

Y’know what this sounds like? It sounds like the Birthers who, after Obama produced his birth certificate, asked more and more questions of him, and dissected the PDF file that was given to them.

And what’s really telling is, if you look at the comments on that second link, there are those who are upset — upset — that Romney did not take his full charitable deduction for the $4 million he gave to charity so that he could say he never paid less than 13%. "That jerk; he gave more to charity than he took credit for!" Wow, really? Is that the petard you want to hoist yourselves on? And really; if he had taken the full deduction and brought his effective rate down to 9%, you would have been OK with that?

Yeah, right. The screaming would have only been louder.

It’s Birtherism for taxes. I  need to come up with a catchy name for that.

When President Obama gave some states waivers regarding the work requirements in welfare reform that President Clinton had signed, Republicans said he was "gutting" those reforms. No, Democrats replied, he was just giving some states flexibility. Now, if your changes make the work requirements more stringent or even just the same, you wouldn’t need a waiver, so that answer was suspect to me.

Obama had previously suspended a different part of welfare reform. How’s that working out?

Obama administration officials have insisted that their decision to grant states waivers to redefine work requirements for welfare recipients would not “gut” the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. But a new report from the Congressional Research Service obtained by the Washington Examiner suggests that the administration’s suspension of a separate welfare work requirement has already helped explode the number of able-bodied Americans on food stamps.

In addition to the broader work requirement that has become a contentious issue in the presidential race, the 1996 welfare reform law included a separate rule encouraging able-bodied adults without dependents to work by limiting the amount of time they could receive food stamps. President Obama suspended that rule when he signed his economic stimulus legislation into law, and the number of these adults on food stamps doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010, according to the CRS report, issued in the form of a memo to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

[…]

Under the rule adopted in 1996, food stamps for able-bodied adults without dependents were limited to three months in a 36-month period unless the participant in the program “works at least 20 hours a week; participates in an employment and training program for at least 20 hours per week; or participates in a (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) ‘workfare’ program for at least 20 hours per week.”

Obama’s economic stimulus legislation suspended the rule for all states starting April 2009. Delaware continued to enforce the rule anyway, along with New York City and parts of Colorado, South Dakota, and Texas. This suspension expired at the end of the 2010 fiscal year (Sept. 30, 2010) and Congress rebuffed Obama’s requests to extend it in his fiscal years 2011 and 2012 budgets. However, Obama used his regulatory authority to effectively extend the waivers to nearly all states over the past two years.

And so instead of seeing how dumping the existing rules failed, he dumped even more. This is not going to help the economic situation. It might, though, get him more votes.

(And by "Obama’s budget", I mean the one unanimously rejected even by his own party.)

What are those "draconian cuts" that Paul Ryan has proposed in his budget? Is he really going to throw Granny off the cliff with his changes to Medicare?

The Independent Voter Network has an interactive graph where you can see the spending over the next 9 years with the two different budgets. You can also choose a specific area (Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt, security, etc.) to see how that particular area is affected.

What you’ll see is that, under the Ryan budget, spending increases every year. The "cuts" that Democrats and the media keep referring to use the typical DC definition. "If you don’t raise spending on X as much as I want to, you are therefore "cutting" spending to X."

The one exception is Medicaid, where spending dips slightly early on, but over the 9 year span does indeed increase slightly.

Point your friends at this page when they start believing the Democratic talking points. We simply cannot have a rational discussion on the debt problem facing us if we demagogue what amounts to a tepid response to the problem.

Have you seen this little ditty floating around the internet (e.g., on Facebook)?

Cute.

Here are my thoughts:

• Schools:  Along with Public School Employee Unions, low performing teachers, overpriced and bloated administrations, emphasis on testing rather than students? Average expenditure / student in US = $11,665. And you want MORE?
• Roads:  Along with Public Employee Unions, excessive benefits, civil service mentality, bureaucratic red tape? Try contracting roads to private firms to see efficiency in execution.
• Firefighters:  Along with early retirement pensions for some at upwards of 90% of final salary?
• Police Officers:  Along with early retirement pensions for some at upwards of 90% of final salary?
• Hospitals:  You mean like the ones run by the Catholic church?
• Paramedics:  A wonderful perk of living in the 21st century West.
• HAZMAT Teams:  Oh yeah, that must be a big line item in the budget.
• Soldiers:  Definitely.
• Sailors:  Definitely.
• Airmen:  Definitely.
• Marines:  Definitely.
• Coast Guard:  Definitely.
• Clean Air:  Not at the expense of bloated over-regulation.
• Clean Water:  Not at the expense of bloated over-regulation.
• Safe Food:  Not at the expense of bloated over-regulation.
• Pure Drugs: Not at the expense of bloated over-regulation.
• Child Protection:  As long as child protection agencies do not abuse their authority and power.
• Safe Products:  Not at the expense of bloated over-regulation.
• Air Traffic Control:  Yes, definitely. And fire them all (a la Reagan) if they try to go on strike.
• Space Exploration:  Robotic exploration is the future.
• Bridges:  Managed by government, contracted to private firms. Kind of like the transcontinental railroad.
• Tunnels:  Managed by government, contracted to private firms.
• Flood Defenses: Hopefully not as was managed in New Orleans (by the gov’t)…
• Universities:  Like Stanford, Claremont, or Yale? Oops, those are private firms. Same comment regarding overpriced and bloated administrations.
• Museums:  Culturally enriching… yet a low priority for taxing the citizenry – ask the 1%’ers to help out.
• Science:  Science? Science couldn’t exist without more taxes?
• Diplomatic relations with other countries:  Definitely.
• Public Parks:  The ones that are used frequently or the ones that sit empty for most of the week?
• Criminal Justice: Definitely.
• Medical Research: This can’t happen without taxes? Oh yeah, when you socialize medicine, you take away incentives for private research – got it.
• National Forests:  Definitely.
• Care for the Elderly & Disabled: This is the government’s responsibility?

Way back in 2006, I blogged about how cheap Hollywood liberals thought we were as a country, and then noted a study by Arthur Brooks that showed that, the more conservative and/or religious you were, you gave more than the liberals complaining about how stingy we were. (Link goes to the archived version of "Stones Cry Out", before we converted to WordPress.)

Six years later, the trend has continued.

Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday.

The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.

The eight states whose residents gave the highest share of their income — Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, Arkansas and Georgia — all backed McCain in 2008. Utah leads charitable giving, with 10.6 percent of income given.

And the least generous states — Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — were Obama supporters in the last presidential race. New Hampshire residents gave the least share of their income, the Chronicle stated, with 2.5 percent.

“The reasons for the discrepancies among states, cities, neighborhoods are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity,” the study’s authors noted.

But it’s not just about politics — “religion has a big influence on giving patterns.”

This particular study only included taxpayers with incomes of $50,000 or more, so it didn’t factor in the poor, as the Brooks study did. Still, the results pretty much line up with his findings; the more conservative and/or religious you are — that is, the more you believe that charity is a personal issue — the more you put that belief into action. I would add that the more you think it’s the government’s issue, well then, the more you put that belief into action.

Now that Paul Ryan is the VP nominee on the Republican ticket, his budget proposal has been in the spotlight all over again, and all the same distortions about it are being trotted out. Guy Benson writing at TownHall.com gives us 5 facts to remember about the Ryan budget.

1. "The Republican reform plan totally exempts anyone over the age of 55 from any changes." Basically, if you like your plan, you can keep it. (I know I’ve heard that somewhere before.)
2. The Democrats have already raided $741 billion from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare. They are the ones cutting Medicare.
3. "Medicare’s own accountants have calculated that Medicare will be insolvent within 12 years." This means that doing nothing is really what guts Medicare.
4. Ryan’s Medicare proposal is actually the result of a bipartisan solution, "co-authored by a committed liberal who understands that the clock is running out to save the program." And it’s means-tested so that the poorer get more protection.
5. The plan increases spending every year, just not as much as Obama wanted in his budget proposal (which was, just to remind you, unanimously defeated by his own party).

That last point, calling a spending increase a "cut", is a ploy used by Democrats and parroted by the news media.

Keep these in mind when you hear talk of "gutting" Medicare. It’s just not true.

Episode 5 of the "Consider This!" podcast is out today and it’s all about a single topic, so I thought I’d post the script here for those who don’t do podcasts. If you do do podcasts, click here for the show notes and ways to subscribe, or just listen, to the show.

I mentioned previously that while the individual mandate was struck down as an exercise of the Commerce Clause, it hung in there as an exercise of the taxing authority of the federal government. That is to say, the way it was sold to the American people, and the way the Obama administration is continuing to try to defend it, is unconstitutional. By being given the authority to regulate commerce, Congress cannot force you to engage in commerce so that they can then regulate it. However, if arranged in a way such that you have to pay a tax if you don’t comply, well then it’s all hunky-dory. So then, when you hear Democrats insist that the mandate is not a tax, as they have been saying, remember that they are therefore arguing that it’s unconstitutional. They’re trying to have their mandate and eat it, too.

The main reason they’re arguing that it’s not a tax — going against a Supreme Court ruling that they are ostensibly in favor of — is because of the legislative ramifications. A tax can be repealed on a bare majority vote, and is not subject to a 60 vote Senate filibuster. This makes it much easier for, say, a President Romney and a Republican House and Senate to repeal. I would have thought that trifecta tough to accomplish this November, but with this ruling, I suspect a fire is going to be lit under many a conservative, and I hope that this translates into votes. I think Democrats, too, see this scenario as more plausible today than it was before the ruling, which is why they’re trying to make this particular hard sell. Billy Mays, the TV pitchman who used to try to sell you so many handy items, would be proud.

If you insist, against the advice of the Supreme Court, that the Commerce Clause should be good enough to implement a mandate, consider this. The intention of the clause itself was a negative power; a preventative, restraining one. It was written so that there was an authority to appeal to when there were trade disputes among the states. It was never intended to be a positive power by the federal government; one that allowed it to act on its own. Those aren’t my words. Those are James Madison’s. But hey, he’s just what some people call The Father of The Constitution. What would he know?

Read the rest of this entry