Tag Archives: Republican

Media Bias: Brad and Britt Have It Wrong

This morning on the Brad and Britt show the conversation was concerning the continued attack on Fox News from the White House.  I only was able to catch a small part of the show, but the general gist was that, in fact, Fox News as an organization is slanted to the Right.  I got this impression from the conversation between Brad and Britt regarding the Fox Radio reporters that the show dealt with for the first 3 years of the station’s existence.

Britt commented:

During this time he and Brad often spoke to those reporters and during those conversations, where it was just one on one, the reporters would often come across as genuine and fair, as if they were liberated from the corporate expectations of Fox.

I waited for the comparison to ABC Radio and its reporters.  I would expect that if Fox had certain expectations than ABC must also.  And if the Fox reporters felt liberated in one on one conversations with peers, it would hold that ABC reporters would feel the same way.  I was rewarded with no such point.  So I was left with the feeling that:

  1. Yes.  Fox News does expect a Conservative slant.
  2. Yes.  That expectation is wrong.

So I started to wonder.  Many folks say that America is a “Center Right” nation.  So maybe Fox is just right on the money when they report as a “Center Right” network.  Which in turn got me to thinking, how far “right” is Fox?

So I checked.  And this is what I found:  A report titled:  A Report on Media Bias

It turns out that two researchers conducted a study.  And a rather clever study at that.  The researchers

count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.

Then, by ranking these ADA scores, the report was able to rank not only how liberal or conservative a news outlet is, but also how far from “Center” it is.

The results?  Surprising only in the fact that SO many sources are liberal, by how far and even how traditional conservative sources are really liberal:

Media source and ADA Score

Media source and ADA Score

Sources are listed in the order of the distance they are from center.  The lower the number, the more conservative; the higher the more liberal.  Average is 50.06.   So, where does Fox news sit?  5th.  They are the fifth closest to center with a 39.7 ranking.  Every other source from 6th through 20 is further from center than Fox and all of them save 1 has a liberal bias.

The report is informative in 2 other aspects:

  1. Aaron Brown doesn’t host on CNN any longer.  That honor goes to the decidedly more liberal Anderson Cooper.
  2. MSNBC isn’t even on the list.  Yowza.

So I ask you gentle reader; who is really in the tank for who?

Aha….Why Cost of Insurance is so High in Maine

Alright, so we have been discussing health care, health insurance and everything wrong with all of that.  As always, the Democrats cry out “We need this.  We just NEED this damn it!  And then they walk away to their voting place and vote for someone who wants to be in power, which is different than someone wanting to be a Senator, and presto, we have a voice in Washington that is going to legislate this health care for everyone thing.  On the other side, you have republicans, seriously going about the days business when they hear this nonsense and look up from their work and say “No”.  In much the same way a father says “no” to the 7th request for another cookie before bed.

And so, republicans are labeled as the party of “No”.  But this time around, the republicans have offered some solutions to bring the price of health care down.  Down for everyone.  Down to the point that every single person in the country can have insurance.  And one of the methods in doing that is to free insurance companies to sell policies to people outside of the state the reside in.  That is, as a citizen of North Carolina, I could purchase health insurance from a company in Washington state.  Or Arizona.  Or anywhere for that matter.  What THIS would do is free the consumer to choose and not be subject to the regulations placed upon the insurance providers in that state.  But even this causes Liberals to scream.

For example, a recent study found that Maine ranks 6th in the nation when it comes to expensive individual policies.  Sixth.  And folks around the lefty campfire are saying that the reason for the high prices is due to the monopoly that exists in Maine.  They claim that because Wellpoint has a 90%+ customer saturation base, they are able to charge whatever they want.  The problem is, those liberals are reporting only on the results, not the cause of the problem.

See, it turns out that in 1993 Maine passed laws requiring coverage to every citizen.

Blink.  Blink.

But that’s not bad enough.  Not only are they required to sell insurance to everyone that applies, they are also unable to distinguish based on gender, health status, claims experience or time with coverage.

Now, after that law passed, what do you supposed happened to the price?  Yeah, right through the roof.  And it drove out all but a few providers that specialized in mandatory care and THEY, in turn, bought up the remaining companies.  Net/net:  Noe one wants to do business in Maine and THAT’S why there is only one provider.

Damn.

Next thing these liberals are going to mandate is that all kids make the varsity.

The Chairman’s Weekly Radio Address: August 16, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, August 15th, 2009

This week, I’ve been traveling across our country to discuss health insurance reform and to hear directly from folks like you – your questions, your concerns, and your stories.

Nah, nah ya haven’t.  You’ve been making fun of guys like me.  Calling me a teabagger and a right wing nut case.  What you ARE doing is travelling across the country talking to folks like you!

Now, I know there’s been a lot of attention paid to some of the town hall meetings that are going on around the country, especially those where tempers have flared. You know how TV loves a ruckus.

Ahhwww, you folksy guy you!  But really, ’cause organizing is your bag I’m just ‘spossed to not have my say?

But what you haven’t seen – because it’s not as exciting – are the many constructive meetings going on all over the country where Americans are airing their hopes and concerns about this very important issue.

I’ve been holding some of my own, and the stories I’ve heard have really underscored why I believe so strongly that health insurance reform is a challenge we can’t ignore.

They’re stories like Lori Hitchcock’s, who I met in New Hampshire this week. Lori’s got a pre-existing condition, so no insurance company will cover her. She’s self-employed, and in this economy, she can’t find a job that offers health care, so she’s been uninsured for two years.

See, now that’s strange.  And while I’m not callin’ ya a liar, I AM sayin’ I don’t believe you.  See, I went on line, just now- right this very minute- and found a quote for health insurance that covers me after a 5k deductible for about $130 a month.  Now, I don’t have a pr-existing condition, the plan WOULD cover me 12 months after I had been paying premiums.  So, ya see, you CAN get coverage.  If you are willing to, you know, work.

Or they’re stories like Katie Gibson’s, who I met in Montana. When Katie tried to change insurance companies, she was sure to list her pre-existing conditions on the application and even called her new company to confirm she’d be covered. Two months later, she was dropped – after she’d already gone off her other insurance.

These are the stories that aren’t being told – stories of a health care system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people. And that’s why we’re going to pass health insurance reform that finally holds the insurance companies accountable.

Do you know what that means?  To hold an insurance company accountable?  Cause I don’t.  See, I have insurance and I see doctors and my kids see doctors and the insurance company pays the bills.  I don’t fight with ’em or have to call ’em or anything.  So, what are they doin’ that you don’t like?

But now’s the hard part. Because the history is clear – every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests with a stake in the status quo use their influence and political allies to scare and mislead the American people.

Strange of you to speak so poorly about your Union brothers.

As an example, let’s look at one of the scarier-sounding and more ridiculous rumors out there – that so-called “death panels” would decide whether senior citizens get to live or die.

Before you get on with what I am sure is a well thought out response to this concept—-it’s TRUE.

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

That rumor began with the distortion of one idea in a Congressional bill that would allow Medicare to cover voluntary visits with your doctor to discuss your end-of-life care – if and only if you decide to have those visits. It had nothing to do with putting government in control of your decisions; in fact, it would give you all the information you need – if you want it – to put you in control of your decisions. When a conservative Republican Senator who has long-fought for even more far-reaching proposals found out how folks were twisting the idea, he called their misrepresentation, and I quote, “nuts.”

So when folks with a stake in the status quo keep inventing these boogeymen in an effort to scare people, it’s disappointing, but it’s not surprising. We’ve seen it before. When President Roosevelt was working to create Social Security, opponents warned it would open the door to “federal snooping” and force Americans to wear dog tags. When President Kennedy and President Johnson were working to create Medicare, opponents warned of “socialized medicine.” Sound familiar? Not only were those fears never realized, but more importantly, those programs have saved the lives of tens of millions of seniors, the disabled, and the disadvantaged.

Those who would stand in the way of reform will say almost anything to scare you about the cost of action. But they won’t say much about the cost of inaction.

You’ve been down this road before; remember the Stimulus package?  Yeah, how’d THAT work for ya Sparky?

If you’re worried about rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage, or bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, then you should know that’s what’s happening right now.

We’re not worried about it; we get it.  It’s a concept that we are all familiar with.  It’s a concept that serves us well.  For example, when we ration on price we get healthy competition resulting in lower costs and higher quality.  Not that you would know about it however, so, just keep on pretending like you’ve ever had a job.

In the past three years, over 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies due to a preexisting condition, or saw their coverage denied or dropped just when they got sick and needed it most. Americans whose jobs and health care are secure today just don’t know if they’ll be next to join the 14,000 who lose their health insurance every single day. And if we don’t act, average family premiums will keep rising to more than $22,000 within a decade.

On the other hand, here’s what reform will mean for you.

First, no matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it.

Right…..until ya need to change.  Then, then ya can’t keep it.  But just go right ahead and skip that part.

If you don’t have insurance, you’ll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that’s missing today.

Who can’t afford insurance today?  Really?  Who?  And why not?  I swear to you…when you buy ANYTHING before you buy insurance, it means that you can buy insurance you simply choose not too.

Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying you coverage because of your medical history, dropping your coverage if you get sick, or watering down your coverage when it counts – because there’s no point in having health insurance if it’s not there when you need it.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or lifetime, and we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses – because no one in America should go broke just because they get sick.

Finally, we’ll require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be saving lives and dollars by catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end.

Pssst, over here.  You mentioned above that the normal tactics were being used to fight this, cough cough, reform bill of yours?  Well, far be it from you to go down that road.  Cause, ya know, insurance companies cover that today already.  But shhhh, better for you if no one calls ya on that!

That’s what reform means. For all the chatter and the noise out there, what every American needs to know is this: If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. And we will deliver this in a fiscally responsible way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  What kinda mooch do ya think I am?  No government bureaucrat, fiscally responsible.  Rich!

I know there’s plenty of real concern and skepticism out there.

Ya think?  Even you Democrats are eating your young on this one.

I know that in a time of economic upheaval, the idea of change can be unsettling, and I know that there are folks who believe that government should have no role at all in solving our problems. These are legitimate differences worthy of the real discussion that America deserves – one where we lower our voices, listen to one another, and talk about differences that really exist. Because while there may be disagreements over how to go about it, there is widespread agreement on the urgent need to reform a broken system and finally hold insurance companies accountable.

Nearly fifty years ago, in the midst of the noisy early battles to create what would become Medicare, President Kennedy said, “I refuse to see us live on the accomplishments of another generation. I refuse to see this country, and all of us, shrink from these struggles which are our responsibility in our time.” Now it falls to us to meet the challenges of our time. And if we can come together, and listen to one another; I believe, as I always have, that we will rise to this moment, we will build something better for our children, and we will secure America’s future in this new century.

Jeez!

Priorities and Scare Tactics

Look, it’s simple.  We all do it.  There are times in every good household when something unexpected comes up.  Or, in times of over spending, perhaps it shouldn’t be unexpected, but, you get the point.  You look in the checkbook and look at the bills and confirm that it isn’t going to add up.  You are going to have to reduce spending or get another job.  It happens to all of us.  Happens to me.  Will happen to me again.  And this is healthy; it forces us to keep what is important to us and shed what isn’t.

For example, as I monitor my “play money” fund and see that it’s going to be bankrupt in 3 months I am forced to review what I am paying for in terms of “play”.  I see that I have 3 magazine subscriptions and 5 on line subscriptions.  Further, I am spending 90 bucks a month on aikido and so on and so on.  Given that I have to shave off $50 a month, I go through what everybody goes through.  I itemize my “play money” expenditures, rank them in order of value and cut the ones that are of LEAST VALUE!  Notice I say value, not dollar expenditure.  See, I really appreciate my aikido and am willing to keep that program intact even though it has a higher dollar value than say, Forbes.  Sadly, Forbes is a redundant source and it gets wacked.

What I don’t do is this:

Democrats generally agree that tax increases are needed to avoid what they say would be devastating cuts to education and social services for children and the state’s poor.

See, to me, that’s disingenuous.  Who DOESN’T want to avoid cutting these programs?  There’s not a person in the world that wants to cut education and social services.  First.  It has to be at the top, or close to it, of every single politicians value list.  Or should be.  And that’s what makes me mad about Liberals.  They want and take the easy way out every time.

  • When forced to cut, they won’t.
  • When asked to prioritize, they won’t.
  • When required to do what all adults do-they balk.

Now, this doesn’t mean that Education won’t have to cut back some.  It doesn’t mean that schools have a green light to spend spend spend.  But what it does say is that there HAVE to be places where we can cut before we have to implement “devastating cuts to education and social services”.

Sheesh.

Declaration of Independence

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Wake GOP Has This One Wrong

For a long time now, the left has cornered the market on Education issues in our politics.  They have dominated this perception and have won that marketing strategy.  For example, when asked which party supports education, most North Carolinian’s will reply that it’s the Democrats.  The irony of this is, of course, bitter.  It is the conservative family that stresses discipline, delayed gratification and higher education.  Many of the traditional democratic base does not take full advantage of the education system in our country.  So, how is it that the democrats have won the day on this issue?  It’s because the Teacher’s Unions support the liberal cause.  And when you have the teachers supporting the democrats, you end up having the perception that the Democrats support Education.  Simple.

And deadly.

We have to do a better job on this issue; there are very few things more fundamental to the success of a society than the education of it’s citizenry.  The higher the educational base is, the more wealthy that nation is, the better the economy and the better the innovation.  Quite simply, education is the engine that drives a nations out of the grinding poverty of third world status into the ranks of modern nations.  And for the elite programs, it is what drives modern nations into Super Powers.

Education is key; we have to take that issue back.  And that is why this saddens me.

Today, the Wake County GOP issued a statement saying, in short, “We disagree with the Year Round calendar.  Parents, take your child out of school for a day to protest.”

Even if I agreed with the concept that Year Round calendars are bad, which I don’t, THIS is NOT the way to handle that conflict.  Grown adults sit down, reason and come to valid conclusions.  They do not, repeat do NOT use children in a game of chicken.

This is just one more reason why the GOP is finding itself struggling.

I Wish We Had a Cool Governor

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I don’t have the same feel for the Good Gov’na Purdue that I have for Obama; not even close.  But how nice it is to listen to some of the best conservatives in the country talk about the stimulus package:?

http://www.wral.com/

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a likely 2012 presidential contender, has said he would reject a portion of the money aimed at expanding state unemployment insurance.

Notice the level of detail intimated by Jindal.  He is not rejecting all of the money, just that money that speaks to unemployment insurance.

Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss., said he was considering a similar move. Taking the unemployment dollars, he said, would force his state to eventually raise taxes when the stimulus money runs out, putting in place what he called an unfair tax on employers.

“There is some (money) we will not take in Mississippi. … We want more jobs. You don’t get more jobs by putting an extra tax on creating jobs,” Barbour told CNN’s “State of the Union’ on Sunday.

Again, very detailed analysis of the package.  These guys know the good from the bad; almost as if they–you know, READ the bill.

Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm said there are other states that want and need the new money: “We’ll take it. We’ll take your money.”

States with unemployment rates significantly differ- ent from that of the U.S

States with unemployment rates significantly differ- ent from that of the U.S

Guess who’s state is that highest bar, just left of center?  Yeah, that’s right.  The Great State belonging to Gov. Jennifer Granholm.  That, by the way, is not an accident.

At issue for Jindal and Barbour is a provision in the stimulus bill that could allow people ineligible for unemployment benefits to receive them anyway. That could eventually force a tax increase on employers, both governors have said.

Nice.  So even if the state doesn’t want the money, the Federal Government forces them to take it anyway.  And they have to raise taxes as a result.  How is this legal?

Some Democrats took a harder line at a press conference arranged by the Democratic Governors Association to praise Obama for his leadership on the stimulus. DGA Chairman Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley dismissed GOP detractors as “fringe” Republicans eager to score political points.

“All of us are committed to working with President Obama to pull our nation’s economy out of the ditch that George W. Bush ran it into,” O’Malley said. “If some of the fringe governors don’t want to do that, they need to step aside and not stand in the way of the nation’s interests.”

Sorry, but when you complain of “fringe” Republicans and then say “pull our nation’s economy out of the ditch that George W. Bush ran it into” you lose some all credibility in my book.

The line drew a rebuke from Sanford, the Republican Governors Association chairman.

“I think in this instance I would humbly suggest that the real fringe are those that are supporting the stimulus,” Sanford said. “It is not at all in keeping with the principles that made this country great, not at all in keeping with economic reality, not in keeping with a stable dollar and not in keeping with the sentiments of most of this country.

Finally, Republicans acting like Republicans.

What 400 Bucks Is Gonna Do

Recently I was part of a small conversation regarding a portion of the tax cuts in the new Stimulus Package.  The subject that got us all going was, well, the headline you see at the top of this very post; what 400 bucks is gonna do….  Now, to be clear, I think that what we were talking about was the portion of the tax cuts that President Obama refers to as tax cuts to 95% of working men and women; $500 for an individual, a $1000 for a family.  At least that’s what I think the reference is, though, to be fair, I’m not sure.  For example, I don’t know where 400 came from, as I mentioned, I though the Obama tax cut was $500…anyway, I digress.  The point is, we had a good conversation.

Here is my case.

The Federal government levies taxes on individuals in the form of individual income tax.  As far as I know, there are no other taxes on individuals that the Feds have claim to.  Sales tax is a state tax, state income tax is, well, levied by the state.  Vehicle, property, city and county taxes…all non-Federal.  FICA and Medicare, not taxes.  These are with holdings that fund programs or specific funds.  They can not be used for other purposes, and if those programs or funds went away, so too, would the withholding.  FICA , after all, is is really just shorthand for Federal Insurance Contribution Act.  In this specific case, Social Security is really just an insurance program.  Anyway, point is–not a tax.

That would mean, for the Federal government to say that it is giving a tax cut to 95% of working Americans, he would have to reduce the rate of the tax.  For example, if an individual is being taxed at 28%, to realize a tax cut, she would have to see her rate go down, say..to 27% or 20%. That’s a tax cut.  What is not a tax cut is when an individual who currently pays no amount of money to the Federal government gets a check from Uncle Sam.  It is something.  And if it’s a grand, it’s not insignificant.  But what it’s not, is a tax cut.

And this is why it’s important.  It’s important because it has clear and critical ramifications, when dealing with a struggling economy.  It is NOT important because of the partisan bickering going on.  We have all heard the arguments going back to the election from the Democrats that Obama was offering a tax cut and The Republicans claiming it was just income redistribution.  That’s not why it’s important.  Where it really really matters is in how the recipients SEE, or perceive, the additional money.

You see, when I am chugging along in my normal economic way, I do just that–chug along.  I buy near the same kinds of groceries at near the same amounts.  I drive about the same kind of car and get it washed at about the as often as I always do.  I go out about the same number of nights and have about the same number of beers.  But now, let’s say that something changes.  Let’s say that I get a check back from my insurance company; my rates went down and they have overcharged me for two consecutive 6-month periods.  I get $500.  How do I spend that money?  It has been shown that the typical person spends it in one of two ways – They pay down debt OR they go on a 1 time splurge shopping spree.  So, VISA gets it or Best Buy gets it.  And then whamo, right back to the normal way of spending money.  Point is, there is no sustainable economic jolt in either paying off VISA or buying that flat screen TV.

Now, let’s say that instead of a windfall [the insurance overcharge check], I get a raise.  This presents me with a new way of looking at the money coming into me.  I view this a sustainable income, an item that I can budget for and count on.  I know it’s going to be there next paycheck and the paycheck after it.  This affects my spending in a much different way.  It sustains it.  I am more willing to up what I buy and/or how often I buy it.  I may not ration myself to a 6-pak.  Perhaps I can up how often I get a new car, or new jeans or new whatever.  Further, because it is not presented to me in a lump sum significant amount, the chances that I sink it into debt reduction is less; I actually spend it.  In this case, the economy is better off.

Now, for the whammy.  If, instead of giving me, a worker bee who concerns himself with just me and mine, a $500 bump, what if 20 people like me DIDN’T get the money but it went to a small business owner who was just thhhhiiiiiiisss close to obtaining the money to hire one more guy.  Or buy that new processor in his assembly line.  What if that 10k went to someone who GREW the money, who took it and turned it into 15k, or 20k AND gave someone a job because of it?

It is because of these reasons that fiscal conservatives don’t like the tax cut language in the stimulus package.  Not because Obama thought of it, or because Pelosi pushed it.  Or because no republican voted for it.  It’s because it’s moving money around in a way that does not grow said money, and it denies the recipient the critical perception that it’s sustained.  And further more, if you want to grow the economy, it’s not putting it into the hands of people who grow money.

The Loyal Minority

Many Republicans, conservatives especially, have railed against the stimulus package proposed by either The Chairman or the Democrat party.  The fact is that it contains so much extra spending that we are left unsure what is really meant to be stimulus and what is meant to be long held Democratic pet projects.  Say nothing of the fact that it likely won’t work.

It is a long standing pet peeve of mine for people to continually point out the obvious, the wrong, the bad ideas without coming up with their own.  And so it is that the Republicans have, in fact, come forth with ideas of their own.

For a nice read see this article from Reason.

Disheartening Change of Ideals

So, I was talking to a friend yesterday regarding the new administration; Obama’s plans and goals.  Now, in the past, this friend of mine has been consistently further left than me, but only barely.  However, in several cases, namely that of the ability of the government to take money from us, he was slightly to the right.  Yesterday he shared with me that, yes, in fact, it is the “right thing to do” when we were discussing the transfer of money from those that have to those that simply have less.  When I prodded him further, he claimed “It’s the right thing to do.”

I couldn’t talk.

I shook my head, looked down for a second and then lifted my eyes back up to meet his, hoping, really really hoping that I would see the beginnings of a smile.  See the familiar wrinkle in the eyes that would signal the beginning of the joke.

Nothing.  He looked at me dead in the eye.  And just blinked.

As a friend, of course, I couldn’t lambaste him, but I did gently bring up old discussions, debates that we shared over coffee, bourbon and beer.  He admitted that, in fact, he does remember saying and feeling those things and yes, doesn’t deny, that he has now changed his mind.

I got the feeling as a walked away, that he may be on the fence.  That somehow,even he himself knew that he wasn’t sure if he was saying these things because they were the result of bedrock principles well thought out or, if, perhaps, it’s because he somehow wanted to feel that way.  That somehow, society has lost it’s way and we have forgotten those less fortunate.  And in so doing, we have perhaps ceded our rights, certain rights, to the government in regard to the tending of the poor.

Of course, before I left I recounted how this country’s poor are not really so poor, as a whole.  That in fact, not only are the bottom 25% much much better off than even 30 years ago, they are living in conditions that would be considered very well off with respect to the rest of the world.  I insisted that I find it hard to classify someone as poor when they had a satellite TV and PlayStation, but couldn’t afford health care for their kids.

I almost saw a tear as he nodded in agreement, but then shrugged it off, as if to say “I can’t explain it, but I am at peace with my newfound place.”

At least for now.

So the question is this.  How did the paradigm get changed?  How did we lose what was once a rock solid foundation of right and wrong [or at least right and not right]?  And then, how do we communicate that in such a way so as to win the hearts and minds of those lost converts, and, perhaps, even win back some from the other side to boot?