Big Dogs House

Someone Can’t Face Reality

Dec 2, 2011 Political

I received a message via my contact page from someone using the name L-Dog. The message came from an Alaska.gov server. More specifically, it came from the Department of Administration (or through their server, anyway). This is the message I received:

So if tax cuts create jobs, where are they. We have 7 or so years of the bush [sic] tax cuts and no job growth. So stop lying.

A lie, by definition, is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Since I did no such thing, then it is not a lie. But let us explore.

The Bush tax cuts took place in 2003 and went into full force in 2004 so yes, it has been about 7 years though there were earlier tax cuts. After the Bush tax cuts, 5 million jobs were created and the revenue to the Treasury increased. This is not to say things were great because Bush was a big spender. He and Congress spent far more than we took in though now those numbers pale in comparison to Obama.

The linked chart shows that from about 2000 to 2003 revenue decreased. There are a number of reasons including 9/11 and a recession. The Clinton tech bubble was bursting as well and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates 6 times from 1999-2000. From 2003 to 2007 revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. In 2007 Democrats took control of Congress and revenues again began to decrease. We were also heading into another recession. It is also important to note that the first tax cuts of 2001 were to be phased in over several years and the economy and job production lagged in the early years.

Heritage published a report about the tax cuts and this, in part, is what that organization had to say:

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.

The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.

Here’s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:

• GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
• The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
• The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.

In late 2007 the economy began to cool. By 2008, it entered a recession. The housing bubble burst, precipitating a financial crisis. But after 50 months of unimpeded growth, it is ludicrous to insist that the tax cuts caused the recession, let alone the global financial meltdown. Even after the Fannie and Freddie Mac-induced bust, there were still one million net jobs created during the Bush years.

So L-Dog of Alaska, the Bush tax cuts did indeed create jobs. The net gain was 1 million after a 5 million increase that was mostly wiped out by the government (read Democrat) induced trauma known as Fannie and Freddie.

Revenue increased, jobs were produced and the unemployment rate was in the 4-6 range. This happened despite a massive blow we took on 9/11.

Tax cuts, long term ones, create jobs because the private sector employers (government DOES NOT create jobs) know what to expect and are able to run their businesses accordingly. They can hire because they know what their tax burden will be. Uncertainty leads them to stop hiring and take a wait and see approach. Ronald Reagan cut taxes and he had tremendous job growth as well as increased revenue to the government.

If we could get government to stop spending what they take and then some we could get our house in order.

So, if tax cuts do not produce jobs why is Barack Obama running around claiming to be a tax cutter (he has raised them, not cut them)? Why did Democrats fight to keep the Bush tax cuts last year? They cited the problems with increasing taxes in a bad economy and how it would harm job growth so if tax cuts do not equal jobs why would they fight for the tax cuts enacted by a man they absolutely hated? Additionally, why did the Congress cut payroll taxes last year (the Social Security tax) if they thought it would not help.

A lot of things are working against any tax cuts and a major part is the out of control spending and the Keynesian economic policies that Obama embraces. You can’t keep spending money we don’t have to cure a spending problem. Tax cuts with discipline in DC will solve the problems.

When producers are taxed more it leaves them less capital to run their businesses and that means they can’t hire. When the tax situation is uncertain they are afraid to act.

So L-Dog, I hope this clears it up for you. I won’t call you a liar, just misinformed.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: alaska, Bush, department of administration, jobs, l-dog, reagan, revenue, tax cuts

Where Is Dr. Obama’s Scalpel?

Jun 26, 2011 Opinion

Barack Obama told us that John McCain wanted to take an ax to the budget and that he, Barack the Magnificent, would take a scalpel and he would go line by line in the federal budget to make cuts. Two and a half years into his first (and hopefully only) term and Obama has failed to do much cutting.

The first thing he did was raise things about 25% and then pretend that he was making cuts by backing off that number making it appear as if he cut when he was well ahead of what was taking place when he took office. In his time in office the deficit each year has been in the trillions of dollars and there is no end in sight as Democrats work hard to spend more and more to satisfy their need to continue to spend.

Democrats gain constituencies by promising free stuff which is only free to the people getting it. The rest of us must pay the bills for the free stuff Democrats give away. The Stimulus was nothing more than a nearly trillion dollar slush fund to pay off Democrat constituencies. We are in bad shape and things are continuing to decline as the so called experts act surprised at the news each month that is always “unexpected”. Perhaps if the economic news continues to be unexpected and the experts can’t understand what is going on then it is time to find real experts who know what they are doing.

Obama is telling us now that cutting is not going to solve our problems and this is his way of saying that we need to raise revenue. Raising revenue is Democrat speak for raising taxes.

Half of the workers in this country pay more than enough in taxes. The other half pays little of no taxes to the federal government and many pay no taxes and get money from the government. This is total redistribution of wealth and it is what Obama thinks is just and fair.

How about we have a fair tax code that requires ALL workers to pay a portion of their income in taxes. Close the loopholes and make everyone who earns wages pay taxes. We will increase revenue and then the people who benefit the most from Democrat wealth redistribution plans will see that things are not free.

However, the most important thing we can do is cut the spending at the federal level. Obama promised to go line by line but all he has done is expand government. Cutting is the way to go and we need an ax not a scalpel.

The only revenue problem we have is that half the workers do not pay any of the revenue. The real problem we have is a spending problem and that is where we need real change we can believe in.

Related:
We can’t just cut way to prosperity
We damn sure cannot spend our way to prosperity…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: debt, deficit, Obama, revenue, spending, taxes

Public Safety Or Revenue

Feb 3, 2011 Political

Whenever a red light or speed camera is installed the local government tells us it is for the safety of the driving public. The cameras will decrease accidents and will make people drive more safely. It is hard to say one way or the other if the cameras reduce accidents but one thing is clear, they increase revenue and that is the real reason for having them.

The government claims that the cameras are for safety and revenue is not a concern but when red light cameras stop producing revenue or the amount drops drastically the cameras are moved to another location. If safety was the first concern then the cameras would not be moved. This has happened in the People’s Republic of Maryland.

In Maryland they also leave the speed cameras in construction zones. The cameras, designed to keep speed down to protect construction workers, are left on all the time including the many hours that construction workers are not present. The stated purpose is to protect construction workers but the real purpose is to increase revenue.

These cameras are multiplying in the state of Maryland and they are multiplying for one reason, to increase revenue. Government is very good at starting a program and then increasing the scope of the program to further encroach into our lives. Seat belt laws were once a secondary offense but after a while they became a primary offense. This is now happening in Baltimore County. Speed cameras were placed near schools in order to keep the speed down and children safe.

Now that people are driving slower in these areas the government has decided that it will start using more cameras and they will be moved from one location to another.

It is not about safety, it is about revenue.

I just wish they would stop pretending they care about safety and tell us the real goal, raising money.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: lies, Maryland, red light camera, revenue, speed camera

There’s An App For That

Jul 17, 2009 Political

Red light and speed cameras are a source of controversy because they snap pictures of what appears to be an illegal act which is used to send a fine for a predetermined amount. There is no real chance to fight the ticket and the accused is not able to confront the accuser.

The people who install these things claim they are there for the safety of the public. Officials claim the cameras keep people from running red lights or speeding. But there are no points associated with the fines and insurance companies are not notified so there is very little deterrent effect. Most folks would rather pay the fine than have it on their license and reported to insurance. The reason that there are no points and no reports is because these are designed for one thing only and that is to raise revenue.

The cameras are placed by jurisdictions in order to raise MONEY. They do not care about public safety, they care about getting money. Cameras that do not bring in enough revenue are removed or relocated. If it was about safety they would not move them for failure to generate enough revenue.

If it was about safety one would assume that people going the speed limit and stopping at red lights would be a good thing no matter why they are doing it. Not so in DC where the police chief is upset because folks with iPhones are using a service that alerts them to the locations of speed traps and traffic cameras. Cathy Lanier calls people using such devices cowards. Why is it that the people who use such devices to stay out of trouble are cowards while the police use devices to detect speeders? If using a device makes one a coward, what does it say about the police?

More importantly, if this is all about safety then why is the chief worried about people being alerted that they need to watch their speed? DC is a small place but has 290 cameras, nearly 10% of all traffic cameras in the US (based on estimates). Having this many cameras means that people will be alerted a lot in DC. This will keep most of them driving the speed limit in order to avoid a ticket. If public safety is the main concern then isn’t this a good thing?

No, the real reason that the cameras exist is to produce revenue. People who avoid the cameras are avoiding contributing their fair share to the cause and the officials do not like that one little bit.

Why would they be upset if it were a public safety issue? Do we really care why people slow down as long as they do?

Radar cameras in DC generated a billion dollars of revenue during fiscal years 2005 to 2008.

It is all about the money.

Maybe we can replace the police chief with an iPhone. Is there an App for that?

Source:
Washington Examiner

Tags: iphone, public safety, revenue, speed camera

Democrats fail to control government spending

May 13, 2008 Political

The Democrats promised to have an open government and to clean up the mess left by Republicans after 12 years of control. The Republicans brought the mess on themselves by turning into Democrats and increasing the size of government and the associated spending. Now that the Democrats have taken control spending continues to escalate even with record revenue to the treasury.

April saw an increase in revenue fueled by the tax deadline, a date where Americans demonstrate their lack of freedom by paying the government the fruits of individual labor. A total of $403.8 billion dollars was taken in by the government in April but spending for the month was higher than in April of last year. The deficit will get worse in the coming months as rebate checks go out, many to people who paid no taxes to begin with.

The federal government does not have an income problem, it has a spending problem. The politicians simply cannot control their spending habits and that means they need to take more and more of our money. Record revenues cannot keep them from spending more than they take in.

When Republicans were in control everything was blamed on them. The Democrats are now in control and this increase in spending comes on their watch. The size of government continues to grow and the Democrats continue to spend. Their open government is filled with back room deals and shady tactics allowing them to hide what they are doing.

The fact that we pay taxes is bad enough but the idea that they keep taking more and fail to control spending is even worse. We are supposed to be a free country but Americans did not enjoy their own money until April 23^rd this year (it would have been later but the “rebate¹” checks moved the date to the left). Everything we earned up until that date was required to satisfy our tax bill for the year. That means Americans, in effect, belong to the government and are forced to work for the government. Forced. The money is taken, not given and that means we are anything but free. We ended the practice of owning people and forcing them to work for free. The government must not have gotten the memo.

Instead of being a government of the people we are a government that enslaves the people. If the average employer took money from his employees he would go to jail. We are the employers of those in government and yet they confiscate our money.

The Democrats are in charge and government is growing. That does not relieve Republicans of any responsibility because government got bigger under their control as well. The only way to fix this problem is to vote every one of them out of office and start with new people and fresh ideas. We need to vote in people, regardless of party, who will limit the size of government and cut government spending. Otherwise we need to abolish the government and start over.

The spending problem is not new but the Democrats made a big issue of all the things that happened with Republicans in charge (even though the Democrats were just as guilty). That being the case, it is now time to hold the Democrats responsible for what is happening on their watch. The price of gasoline was $2.19 when they took control and now it is approaching $4.00. All of the economic woes happened since they took control and they are to blame for them. During the 2006 elections the economy was not an issue and the Democrats trumpet that they won because people are fed up with the war. The economy was not a major part of their platform, it was all about Iraq. Since they took over the economy has slumped and their promises to the anti war crowd have gone unfulfilled (not that I’m complaining about that).

Congress has the power to control spending, it is their Constitutional duty. They can blame the president but he signs or vetoes what they come up with. President Bush certainly added to the problem by losing his veto pen when his party was in power and spending increased. While he has found that pen, little has changed since Democrats took control. They continue to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave (my apologies to sailors). They are spending even more than the Republicans they criticized.

It is time for all Americans from both parties to band together and vote every incumbent out of office. I did my part and my Representative lost his primary. He will not be in office again and can cause no further harm (and he was a Republican). If you care for this country then vote them all out of office and let’s replace them with people who will do the job and do it right.

They refuse to pass a law limiting their terms but we have the power to do that ourselves by voting them out.

If we stay the course and add more Democrats to the rolls without replacing those who are already there we will get more big government and more spending which will lead to more taxes and further erosion of the dollar. Filling the place with Republicans without replacing the ones who are there will not be much different.

Source:
Yahoo Finance

¹ The checks are not really rebates. A rebate requires a person to spend money in order to get a portion of it back. Many folks who are getting checks paid no taxes at all. The scheme is actually income redistribution.

Tags: big government, Democrats, Pelosi, revenue, slavery, spending, taxes