How much debt does your household currently owe? No, I don’t mean credit cards or loans. I mean your share of the debt caused by the runaway spending of our Imperial Federal government. That would be $72,000. Imagine what your family could do with $72,000 to spend or invest, rather than owe. Talk about an economic stimulus. But this is the reality we are facing and the current politicians in Washington are too frightened to do anything about it. This isn’t just a Democrat problem; the Republicans were the majority for how many years in Washington? Nobody did a darn thing about it then .. in fact, they managed to exacerbate the problem by doubling the size of government. But this problem has truly come to a head and the time is quickly approaching when something will have to be done. If the Democrats have their way, there are two obvious choices: eliminate the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on the filthy, evil, disgusting rich. But Michael Tanner of the New York Post gives us a little insight into these options:
Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn’t cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won’t get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%.
Well there go those options. But don’t count on liberals to entertain any sort of logic when it comes to this topic. There’s wealth envy out there that needs to be fed .. now more than ever. Remember that they have two goals: maintain power and redistribute the wealth. If you believe that some people are entitled to that which is earned by others, and if you’re more interested in punishing achievers who make you look bad … then the Democrats are your kind of people.
WASHINGTON — Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, top-secret intelligence gathering by the government has grown so unwieldy and expensive that no one really knows what it cost and how many people are involved, The Washington Post reported Monday.
A two-year investigation by the newspaper uncovered what it termed a “Top Secret America” that’s mostly hidden from public view and largely lacking in oversight.
In its first installment of a series of reports, the Post said there are now more than 1,200 government organizations and more than 1,900 private companies working on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in some 10,000 locations across the U.S.
Some 854,000 people — or nearly 1 1/2 times the number of people who live in Washington — have top-secret security clearance, the paper said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Post that he doesn’t believe the massive bureaucracy of government and private intelligence has grown too large to manage, but it is sometimes hard to get precise information.
“Nine years after 9/11, it makes sense to sort of take a look at this and say, ‘OK, we’ve built tremendous capability, but do we have more than we need?” he said.
The head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, said he knows that with the growing budget deficits the level of spending on intelligence will likely be reduced and he’s at work on a five-year plan for the agency.
The White House had been anticipating the Post report and said before it was published that the Obama administration came into office aware of the problems and is trying to fix them.
The administration also released a memo from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence listing what it called eight “myths” and intended as a point-by-point answer to the charges the Post series was expected to raise.
Among them was that contractors represent the bulk of the intelligence workforce. The memo put the number at 28 percent, or less than a third.
The memo said that 70 percent of the intelligence budget is spent on “contracts, not contractors.”
“Those contracts cover major acquisitions such as satellites and computer systems, as well as commercial activities such as rent, food service, and facilities maintenance and security,” the memo said.
Read more here.
In a society where government redistributes wealth – that is, takes money from one group of people, we’ll call them ‘the rich’, and gives money to another group of people ‘the poor’, that most of us will cast our votes relative to which side of this redistributionist equation we find ourselves on (remember, we’ve set aside ideology.)
If one political party wants to take more money from ‘the rich’ to give to ‘the poor’, and you happen to find yourself among ‘the poor’, you will most likely cast your votes for members of this party. Likewise, if the other party wants to take less money from ‘the rich’ to give to ‘the poor’, those fortunate enough to be among ‘the rich’ will probably vote for members of this party.
This is nothing to be ashamed of. Self interest is a very basic human condition. But what happens if one goes from being poor to being rich? The Democratic Party (don’t pretend you didn’t know who I was talking about) loses a vote! If we could wipe out poverty tomorrow a large component of the coalition that keeps the Democratic Party in power would vanish. Oh, to dream…
I’m sure others have made this observation before, but think for a minute about what it really means. If you are a poor black inner city kid your best chance to break the cycle of poverty is to receive a quality education. But as spelled out above, Democratic politicians, from your local city councilman all the way up to the President of the United States of America, have a very real and vested interest in seeing that this does not happen, and if it must, to limit it as best they can!
What is the easiest way to keep poor people poor? To construct as many barriers as possible between poor children and quality education. And how do Democratic politicians achieve this goal? They vote overwhelmingly and consistently to oppose education reforms (school choice and voucher systems) that have proven successful everywhere they have been tried.
The education issue is the daily double for the Democratic Party. It allows them to keep poor people poor, providing many of the votes they need to stay in power, while at the same time furthering the interests of big labor unions that provide money (and even more votes) needed to keep them in power.
The next time you hear a Democratic politician say ‘it’s all about the kids’ just remember, that politician would (and regularly does) throw poor underprivileged elementary school kids so far under busloads of big labor fat cats so fast that most members of the media can’t even see it.
Do you remember the outcry across the media landscape when Rush Limbaugh declared he wanted President Obama to fail? Why is it that none of these same media giants will speak to the trickle down failure and cycle of poverty institutionalized by 80 plus years of ‘Progressive’ policy?