We Need Solutions, not Scapegoats

For the past two days, America's radio talk show circuit has been abuzz about President Obama's remarks, made in this video clip:



The remarks demonstrate precisely the problem with the Administration's handling of the gulf oil spill (and most problems it's presented with): Instead of looking for solutions to the problem, they seek a scapegoat to blame for the whole problem. I, for one, feel very comforted when our nation's Commander-in-Chief walks around referring to whom he can beat up and how. (No wonder people have taken to referring to the Obama Administration as a "thugocracy".)

I would far prefer that the Administration seek real solutions, not scapegoats.

Big Ideas, Not Big Government

At this point, it is fairly clear that the outcome of November's election is not going to be good for the Democrats. What's not clear, though, is whether it will be good for the Republicans. A surging anti-incumbent sentiment has already unseated several high-ranking party members of both parties, including Benedict Arlen Specter himself, and Senator Bennett of Utah.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, it's clear that there will be a good deal of new blood in Congress. Let us hope that it comes with new ideas as well. To that end, I'd like to encourage you to check out a site launched by the House Republicans to solicit policy suggestions, and give you (and me) a place to speak out for better solutions for our current problems than are being offered by the current Administration. The site is at http://www.americaspeakingout.com/. In a manner similar to the Contract from America, the site intends to solicit policy suggestions and discussion by the American public. Since the launch of the site on Tuesday, May 25, the site has been up and down, dragged down by the volume of traffic -- most of which, at times, seems to be coming from the Democrat astroturf machine. As of late, things seem to have stabilized a bit, possibly because the SEIU thugs have lost interest in bashing Bush, Christians, and Republicans). And due to the volume of traffic and negative comments on the site, it's all the more important that we of Conservative mindset dilute the negativity on the site.

It's time that those of us with Conservative ideology begin to offer some new ideas, and this is a site that exists for such a purpose. It's not that "old" Conservative ideology doesn't work: It's that sometimes there is a disconnect between an ideology and a specific policy. We can be guided by our ideology, while offering new (and specific) policy suggestions to fix what's broken in Washington. And lateley, it seems to me that many people who recognize that our government is badly broken seem to get stuck in a rut, falling back to the same two or three policy suggestions:

• Abolish the IRS and implement the fair tax.
• Implement term limits for Congress.
• Cut taxes
  

And while these suggestions do address specific failings of our government, I don't think they go far enough: Variations on the theme of cutting taxes and reducing the size of government are great; but what about enacting policies that ensure that government can never grow large again (regardless of what clown is in power) -- what about placing an absolute cap on the amount of money the Federal government can spend every year? Likewise, term limits may limit the career of one bad apple who happens to be a career politician; but what about a policy that allows the recall of the entire Congress when enough Americans are disgusted with the Congressional antics?

It's time that we all work together to brainstorm some newer, bigger ideas that will be sure to defeat Big Government, and a site like AmericaSpeakingOut is a great place to do that. The Big Ideas will catch on, even if the House Republicans aren't listening (as some have asserted).

The Coming of Nationalized Pizza Delivery

Just as I indicated in my prior post that the Tea Party isn't always Right, it looks like the ACLU isn't always on the "wrong" side of every issue. I stumbled upon the following video, produced by the ACLU in 2007. And while it was produced in 2007, it seems far more likely to happen now that Obamacare is the law of the land (for now).

For your viewing pleasure:

The Tea Party Isn't Always Right

This is fairly old news by now, but significant nonetheless. The Tea Party Express has officially endorsed a single Democrat, Walt Minnick of Idaho's First Congressional District. As the only Democrat to receive the endorsement of the national Tea Party organization, Minnick is perhaps the Loneliest Democrat. And in electing to endorse Mr. Minnick, the Tea Party Express is gravely mistaken.

You see, Tea Party Express is a national organization. But, how is Mr. Minnick perceived at the local level? I dare not try to speak for all Idahoans, but I am an Idahoan, and a resident of the First Congressional District, at that. And I think the Tea Party Express is mistaken in their endorsement of Minnick. To a point, I can agree with the logic expressed by Sal Russo of the Tea Party Express, quoted in the Idaho Statesman's coverage of the endorsement: "We have to reward some Democrats that have been willing to stand with us on the tough issues." And Russo has a point: Minnick has opposed Cap and Trade, Obamacare, and the stimulus bill. However, neither Mr. Minnick, nor any other Congressional candidate, has received the endorsement of the local Tea Party organization, Tea Party Boise.

I think it's important to look at Minnick's whole voting record, not just whether he stood on the right side of a few issues. Minnick is certainly not stupid: He knows that this Congressional district is among the most right-leaning districts in a state where the GOP enjoys a super-majority in the state legislature. He knows that he owes his election largely to the fact that his opponent, Rep. Bill Sali, was very unpopular within the state Republican party. (Prior to Sali receiving the GOP nomination for the seat, the Speaker of the Idaho House publicly proclaimed that he thought that Sali was "an absolute idiot...".) Minnick also knows that he can't show his true colors and vote with the party-line when his constituents are likely to be paying attention (on the "big" votes").

So, how does Minnick vote when he doesn't think we're paying attention (or care)? Here's a smattering:

• He voted with the Democrats to nationalize our student loan industry (a vote which was proclaimed by Nanci Pelosi to be one of Obama's three pillars in his Blueprint for American Prosperity.)
  
• He voted for Stimulus #2 (aka the "Jobs Bill of 2010).
  
• He supported Cash for Clunkers (at least enough to vote to authorize the extension of the bill), and we all know what a success that was.
  

While Minnick has had the guts to stand up to his party on some issues of great importance, it's clear to me that his voting record (and not just the highlights I list here) is not in-line with the ideals of the Tea Party movement. Moreover, the Tea Party Express has undermined the ability of the local Tea Party to express an opinion on Minnick's performance. Should Tea Party Boise decide to endorse his opponent, the two opinions would largely cancel one another out. Both candidates would be able to claim to have been endorsed by the Tea Party. This is precisely why any endorsements from the Tea Party movement need to come from the local level. If "all politics is local politics", then national organizations need to stay out of the business of endorsing local candidates: Let the local organizations do the endorsing, and offer them funding as needed.

Cap and Trade: The Final Pillar

I saw the following video on Kirk Petersen's blog.



The video reminded me of some less entertaining information regarding the hoax that is cap and trade, namely that a Cap and Trade bill is the third (and final) pillar of Obama's three point "blueprint for American Prosperity". (HT: Another Black Conservative)

According to Nanci Pelosi herself, the first two pillars are already in-place: Health Care, and "Education Reform" (the takeover of the student loan industry). Just like all of Obama's policies, it seems that this is yet another hoax designed to put us in chains.

There is a great website out there at www.nocapandtrade.com (the video included the URL) that has some great information, as well as a petition you can sign and send to your Congressmen. I'd urge everyone to sign it.

Senate Says "No VAT"

Well, it looks like the U.S. Senate read my post earlier today about the Value Added Tax (VAT). And, according to the Washington Post, it looks like they've gone on-record in an attempt to prove me wrong: If you haven't read it, my post asserted that we would see an attempt to implement a European-Style VAT.

Today's Senate vote does make that seem unlikely, as the vote was a stunning 85-13 in favor of a non-binding resolution that puts the Senate on-record in opposition of implementing a VAT. Of course, the resolution is non-binding, so they can go back on their word, and these days, I wouldn't put anything past the current Congress. Further evidence suggesting that I may have been incorrect is the fact that 6 of the Senators who voted in favor of the resolution are also on the President's debt commission, and the President's rules stipulate that 14 of the 18 commissioners must sign-off on any recommendation(s). So, unless some of these 6 change their minds, it's unlikely to become an official recommendation.

All of the above having been said, I take pride in having been correct about one thing: the nefarious nature of the VAT. The Post quotes John McCain as saying that "the danger in a VAT is that it is a hidden tax, built into the price of most products, and so consumers aren't as aware the government has taken a share of the money." That is precisely the point I made. The American people may not consider the idea of a VAT toxic -- but the tax is an absolutely toxic tax. We will soon see, however, if the tables don't turn and prove my prediction right...

The Tax Man Cometh

Today is the day many in America have dreaded for months: It's tax day. Time to pay the piper. Well, for roughly half of Americans, that's true. Because only 47 percent of Americans owe no income tax for 2009. Meanwhile, the top 10 percent of wage-earners paid about 73% of federal income taxes, and a family of 4 can make as much as $50,000 and still not pay one penny in income taxes. No wonder Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf recently proclaimed that our nation's "fiscal policy is unsustainable, and unsustainable to an extent that it can't be solved through minor changes."

Elmendorf goes on to make some pretty good points that many Conservatives, myself included, can agree with, like:

• "Obama's policies would produce deficits averaging $1 trillion for the next decade"
• “Government would need to make changes in some set of the large programs, large parts of the tax code that we think of as the fundamental parts of the budget.”
• "Spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plus defense programs and debt interest, will exceed the rest of the federal budget in 10 years if most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended, as President Barack Obama has proposed."

But it's that last comment that makes me uncomfortable, as Elmendorf has advocated a tax increase in the same sentence as the suggestion of a massive overhaul of our nation's tax code. If that's not bad enough, couple it with a similar suggestion of a massive tax code overhaul by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

While political spectators can't decide whether Volcker was speaking on behalf of the Administration (he chairs the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board), or himself, I believe this was a test balloon sent up by the Administration. Obama doesn't want to get out there and champion another unpopular idea, nor does he want to directly ask what the American people think, so he gets Volcker to make an off-handed remark about it, while he sits back and watches the reaction. Thus far, since the remark was made on April 6, the reaction hasn't been all that bad, except in the Conservative blogs.

I predict to you that the idea of introducing a VAT will come back as an official policy suggestion by the Administration or one of the Democrat lackeys over in Congress. Therein lies the motivation behind this post: The VAT is perhaps the most nefarious of all the forms of taxation that can be proposed. For Americans, who are not accustomed to the VAT, the concept can be difficult to understand. Moreover, most people who attempt to explain the VAT oversimplify it, and miss some of the worst aspects of the VAT. Let me attempt to explain.

VAT stands for Value Added Tax. And, like a sales tax, it is a consumption tax. (Instead of taxing your income as it is earned, the goods that you consume are taxed as you spend your income.) In this regard, a VAT is similar in concept to a national sales tax. That's where the similarity ends: the entirety of an assessed sales tax is collected when the goods are purchased by the consumer. An assessed VAT is collected in "pieces". As the name implies, a VAT is a tax on the value added to goods at every single step in the manufacturing and distribution process. When a manufacturer purchases raw materials that are then turned into a final product, the difference between the price at which they sell the final product and the price they paid for the raw materials is the value added. The manufacturer pays a percentage tax on the value that they added to the goods. When a wholesaler then purchases the goods from the manufacturer and sells them to a distributor, they will sell these goods at a profit, and so they pay a tax on that value added. This process continues until a retail outlet sells the goods to the consumer (and they pay a tax on the difference in final sales price and the price they paid for the goods). The final tax is a percentage of the value added at every stage in the manufacturing process. However, the nefarious aspect is that the final tax is paid by multiple people and is built into the purchase price paid by the consumer. Neither the consumer, nor anyone else knows the total tax paid on the goods. Additionally, since a VAT is essentially a tax on the profit at every step along manufacturing/distribution chain, it discourages profits. (Aren't profits what we need to grow the economy?)

That is the real problem with the VAT. It makes it easy for the government to collect massive amounts of tax revenue, as nobody knows exactly how much is paid in taxes. Additionally, a small increase in the tax rate goes largely unnoticed because every individual who pays the tax perceives only a small tax increase. While I can agree that America's current fiscal policies do need some drastic changes to reduce the deficit, those changes need to involve cuts to wasteful spending, not massive tax hikes or yet another tax that the average American can't understand. A VAT may be right for a European-style Socialist government, but it's not right for America, and even as the tax man comes to collect today, we need to send him away as he seeks this new tax.