Podcast Show Notes

Obama tries to buy the Evangelical vote while halting between two opinions on gay marriage.  Kos agrees with me that Obama is no new type of politician. (Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU.) And Binky Boy jumps off the bus, Obama has merrily thrown others under.

Things the left would like to do when they take over: Fund colleges that refuse to allow military recruiters on campus. (Hat Tip: Talk Left.)

Plus the Beverly Hillbillies in North Dakota. There’s oil in them thar plains.

No cutting in line, the State of California says it’s the law.

The danger of lowest low fertility (i.e. irreversible population decline.)

Plus the media makes a big deal anytime any Republican no matter how obscure does anything wrong, why is this story about a Democratic leader in North Carolina not getting more play? (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Plus more complications from Gardasil. (Hat Tip: Idaho Values Alliance.)

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Back in the eighties, there was a great movie about a kid who traveled back in history in a time machine made out of a De Lorean. He was able to go back and meet his parents in their younger years and straighten out a number of issues that would have affected his family in a negative way had he not gone back and intervened. Good flick. I’m sure you’ve seen it.

With all the talk about rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts - the ones that basically every Democrat says helped mainly “the rich,” I started to do a little thinking. How would the future life of the average American family be affected if they were suddenly, with today’s costs and obligations, thrust back eight years and made to live under the tax rates of 2000 - the rates that were in place before Bush cut them?

As the oddball scientist who likes to do some tinkering in my spare time, I imagined what it would be like to have a time machine that could transport a typical American family - we’ll call them the Smiths - back eight years to experience what life would be like for some non-rich people who need to pay today’s expenses without the Bush tax cuts. Let’s pretend that they’re loaded into the time machine with the destination set on 2000. They take with them their 2008 salary and their 2008 bills but need to pay their Federal Taxes with the 2000 tax code - the last tax code before Bush cut them “for the rich.” This way, we can get an understanding of how the Bush Tax Cuts affected regular, non-rich people. And hey, maybe by going back in time to learn the truth about the tax cuts, we can get some information that can help our family avoid hard times in the future. Let’s rev up the engine.

(Eh. I don’t think they make De Loreans anymore. I wanted to build the imaginary time machine with a Lambourghini. But the gas is pretty expensive these days. Mind if we use a Prius?)

Before the Smiths go back to the tax rates of 2000, let’s talk about their life today. The census bureau says that in 2005, the average income for a four person family was $67,019. In today’s world, assuming that they take have two kids, take the standard deduction, and pay an average state tax rate of 5.71% (using the Wikipedia numbers), they pay $5,626 a year in Federal Taxes, $4,155 in Social Security taxes, $972 in Medicare taxes, and $3,827 in state taxes. After taxes, they’ve got $52,439 left over every year. And using the 2005 figures from the Census bureau on the average household expenditures, the Smiths spend $32,444 of that in essential living expenses. Of course, these average figures assumed annual gasoline expenses of only $1,610 and annual utility bills of $2,697 (hmmm … I think they might be a little higher now). But with the 2008 tax rates, our family has some leftover money to pay some of the difference in inflated gas and utility bills, to save some cash for their kids’ education and for retirement, and to buy clothes, go on vacation and grab the occasional pizza.

But, once they ride back to 2000 and find themselves facing the tax rates of that era, they find that making the same money, they would pay $10,161 in Federal Taxes. That’s a $4,535.00  dollar increase. Even though they’re not rich, they clearly were reaping a pretty nice benefit from the Bush Tax Cuts - the taxes that were waiting for them in 2000 were 81% higher than the ones they left in 2008. In this strange world, they now only have $47,904 left over after taxes - instead of today’s $52,439. They still have at least $32,444 in essential living expenses, plus a need for a considerably higher amount of gas and utilities. But now they have less cushion than they had in 2008 to pay for these increased costs. It very well may be that something else has to give - maybe the savings for education or retirement. Maybe the clothes. Maybe the vacation or other entertainment.

Hey - wait a minute, buddy. I’ve always heard that the Bush Tax Cuts were just for the rich!

My response: (knock knock knock). C’mon. Think, McFly!

Although many politicians verbally slam the Bush Tax Cuts, the facts are that these cuts were not just “for the rich.” They benefited taxpayers of different income levels. And if they were repealed, the increase in tax rates would affect taxpayers of different income levels.

If the Bush tax cuts are reversed, it will hurt families who are not rich and who will have one more big fat bill that they can’t choose to not pay - the Federal Tax Bill that would in some cases be nearly twice what it is today. They might have to choose to not pay other bills instead, which will in turn hurt all the businesses that depend on disposable income (places which often employ other non-rich people who depend on the business to survive so that they can have jobs). I am not an economist and cannot speak to what exactly will happen on Wall Street if taxes are raised. But the prospect of a tax increase - through the rollback of tax cuts - will hurt the economy here on Main Street.

In case you’re wondering, you don’t need to worry about how much the family would be able to tuck into the savings account each year if taxes are raised. Savings accounts? Where we’re going, we don’t need … savings accounts.

“The Values Voter”

Obama considers himself to be a spiritual person and though I don’t at all understand how he can have some of his positions, I don’t make it a point to question anyone else’s faith. In fact, if I were Obama, I can imagine what I’d be praying right now. I’d be praying for my opposition to listen to the suggestions of the pundits who have been influencing the Republican process up to this point in time. Here’s a snippet of what I can imagine Obama is praying:

Grant me this year the serenity to have my message of “change” accepted. Grant not my opponents the courage to change from bad tactics to good ones - or the wisdom to know the difference.

I pray that many of those who oppose me will waste the next four months making fun of my middle name and taking personal shots at my wife. This way I shall be spared from having to give answers for my positions on late-term abortion, domestic oil drilling, and tax increases. In this I take comfort.

May my opponents become so blinded in their dislike of me that they do nothing but verbally attack me - from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same. Let them play rhyming games with my last name. Talk about my former church. Spread unproven rumors. Voice various insults. May they become so focused on attacking me the person that they both lose favor with the public and also forget to challenge me on the issues. Lest the manifold problems with some of my positions be laid bare before all.

I pray that the other side will forsake their first love - the Evangelicals. May they forget them who helped their party to win five of the last seven elections. May they assume that these voters will vote for them no matter what. And if they should ignore this great multitude, may enough of them stay home that I might prevail. Or even, if possible, I pray, may my refusal to ignore these same voters convince some of them to vote for me instead.

May the desires of the other side to win new territory grow so strong that they should forget to protect their own. May their dreams of turning Michigan red be so great that they forget about keeping Georgia and Mississippi from going blue.

I also request that they assume that all black voters will vote for me. May they act on this false belief so that they refuse to even ask for their votes. And may this not only become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but may the perception it causes also alienate many white voters as well.

May they give heed to the advice of the conservative media establishment, whose abode is in states that I shall win handily. May they follow all of their advice in how they choose to engage me, how they choose to campaign and how they choose to complete the other ticket.

And I give many thanks for those in the other side’s establishment and media. Their actions have filled my heart with gladness. They have spared me from facing an opponent who could easily beat me in a debate, who is less than six years older than me but has four times the experience, and who is every bit as charismatic as me but carries less baggage. Yes, they sheltered me from someone who could have given me a serious run for my money in every demographic category. They treated him with spite and even now hurl insults at him. I pray that they are successful in keeping him off the ticket as he makes the other side look pleasing to the eyes of the voters who will decide this election. (Amen!)

May they become so eager to please their media pundits that they pair my honorable opponent with someone with no more experience in government than I. Or someone unknown. Or someone who shall not win in the south. Or a “safe” pick - someone who is beloved by their media and establishment. I pray that my opponent shall pick a partner who will be highly favored by the National Review, the Washington establishment and others who spend less time with their voters than even I do.

And, lastly, I pray that the voters - all voters - trust not in their own research but in what the media suggests. Let them trust what the liberal media says about me and what the conservative media says about how to defeat me. If this happens, I will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country.

Amen!

The Values Voter

The Club for Growth, which focused on the less conservative parts of Mike Huckabee’s Arkansas record with laserbeam intensity is doing the same thing with Governor Bobby Jindal (R-La.) in order to boost their favorite candidate for the Vice-Presidency, Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC). Writes Nachema Solveichik:

The Jindal love feast is running into some stumbling blocks. The NY Times has an article analyzing Bobby Jindal’s refusal to veto a massive legislative pay increase despite a campaign promise to do so.

The next Ronald Reagan? I don’t think so.

The linked article in the New York Times gives background on the pay increase and why Jindal isn’t vetoing it:

“I will keep my pledge to let them govern themselves,” the governor said in a statement last week after the State Senate passed the increase, backing off a rejection of the raise, though he also said he was “very sorry” about it. Editorialists and radio show hosts have since had a field day juxtaposing that “pledge” to the Legislature with the promise Mr. Jindal made when he was running last fall to “prohibit legislators from giving themselves pay raises…”

The legislators have not had a base pay increase since 1980 and complain that with the governor frequently calling them into special session, their job is no longer part-time. The increase would put salaries in the upper tier for similar part-time legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Mr. Brandt agreed that some sort of modest raise could be justified — an independent commission recommended a 12 percent increase several years ago — but said the 123 percent rise, with additional increases pegged to inflation, was “problematic.”

Mr. Jindal’s strategy was apparently based on a desire not to jeopardize the other elements he won in his legislative wish list, like a voucher program for private schools in New Orleans, or restoring spending cuts made by fiscal conservatives in the Capitol.

I disagree with the Governor’s decision, but have the Club for Growth and a few Louisiana Conservatives lost all sense of perspective here? You get a School Choice bill, you get a bill through the legislature cutting business taxes (which was the governor’s ideas), you get serious reform of State ethics laws, you get more freedom of discussion on public schools on hot button issues like evolution and global warming. And all that gets dwarfed by a State legislative pay increase that while high (the amount paid is $37,500), I can’t necessarily say is completely unreasonable.

If you take the legislature’s salary of $16,800 in 1980 dollars (last time there was a pay increase), you find that it’s worth $44,167.69 in today’s money, so in reality they’re earning less than they were in 1980 in real money. Hate to say it, but if you want to insure the only people who get elected to office are on the take or are rich and out of touch, setting legislative salary at a pittance and never increasing it is as good of a way to do it as I know.

Jindal is faulted because he’d rather not antagonize the legislature. I would agree that there can be some criticism leveled, but as for Solveichik’s “He’s no Reagan” statement, I would respond that no one can live up to the godlike image of Ronald Reagan that has been created by fiscal conservatives, no one can live up to it-not even Reagan on his California record.

Reason Magazine, in an interview with Ronald Reagan in 1975 summarizes his early record:

 After achieving national publicity for his televised speeches for Barry Goldwater in 1964, Reagan went on to win the California governorship in 1966 and was re-elected to a second four-year term in 1970. Throughout his eight years in office, Reagan stressed the idea of holding down the size and cost of government, nonetheless, the state budget increased from $5.7 billion to $10.8 billion during his time in office.

Reagan did institute property and inventory tax cuts, but during his tenure the sales tax was increased to six percent and withholding was introduced to the state income tax system. Under Reagan’s administration, state funding for public schools (grades K- 12) increased 105 percent (although enrollment went up only 5 percent), state support for junior colleges increased 323 percent, and grants and loans to college students increased 900 percent Reagan’s major proposal to hold down the cost of government was a constitutional amendment to limit state spending to a specified (slowly declining) percentage of the gross income of the state’s population. The measure was submitted to the voters as an initiative measure, Proposition One, but was defeated when liberal opponents pictured it as a measure that would force local tax increases.

Reagan instituted a major overhaul of the state welfare system that reduced the total welfare caseload (which had been rapidly increasing) while raising benefits by 30 percent and increasing administrative costs. He encouraged the formation of HMO-like prepaid health care plans for MediCal patients, a move that has drawn mixed reactions from the medical community. His Federally-funded Office of Criminal Justice Planning made large grants to police agencies for computers and other expensive equipment, and funded (among other projects) a large-scale research effort on how to prosecute pornographers more effectively. He several times vetoed legislation to reduce marijuana possession to a misdemeanor, and signed legislation sharply increasing penalties for drug dealers…

Thus, Reagan’s record, while generally conservative, is not particularly libertarian. But one’s administrative decisions, constrained as they are by existing laws, institutions, and politics, do not necessarily mirror one’s underlying philosophy. We were therefore curious to find out more about the real Ronald Reagan.

Two things. First, Reason Magazine of 1975 showed far more wisdom than Club for Growth or many other conservatives in 2008. Second point, look at Reagan’s record according to Reason and it appears to me that Bobby Jindal’s got a leg up and Mike Huckabee was about even on fiscal matters when compared to the real Reagan rather than the godlike version. This is before even factor in social issues such as the law Reagan signed legalizing abortion and Huckabee’s various pro-life and pro-family measures in Arkansas.

What led to what happened in California under Reagan? State issues that are generally not reported by critical groups. For example on a 24 percent increase in spending which came with a hefty tax increase, Reagan explained.

Oh, for heavens sakes, I don’t know what the percentage was–but you see, the problem was that the state budget we inherited didn’t mean anything. We got in and found that to get through the election year, the previous administration had changed the bookkeeping and had a budget that was financed by 15 months’ revenue. By changing to an accrual method of bookkeeping, what they really were doing was postponing until after the election what they knew was going to have to be a tax increase. We won and found that out to our surprise –because we were quite unable, even in the period between election and inauguration, to get very much information from the outgoing administration. It was not an orderly transition! In fact, the Director of Finance in his briefing said to one of my representatives, “Look, we’re spending a million dollars a day more than we’re taking in–I’ve got a golf game–good luck.” That was our briefing in finance! We had to–much as we objected–institute a gigantic tax increase, and put the state back on a solvent basis. I said at the time that I did not recognize that as permanent–that we were going to try to give the money back to the people, just as we could institute reforms. Over the eight-year period we gave back in the form of one-time rebates, tax cuts and even bridge toll cuts $5.7 billion–which comes pretty close to giving back the amount of that increase.

I would suggest that citizens take a full look at the philosophy of potential candidates, as well as their full record. This goes for Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) too (who the Club for Growth has castigated for the unconscienable sin of signing a bill barring people from text messaging or watching videos while driving.) If we’re looking for perfection, I’ve got news. Christ will not be a candidate in any upcoming Presidential campaign.

Once upon a time, there was a farmer named Sam. Sam owned and operated a huge farm. The farm was so vast and rich with stock and other resources that it was the third largest farm in the world. Sam’s huge farm had dairy cows, poultry, sheep, and lots of vegetation. He could grow his own food and even knit his own clothes. He had not only enough resources to take care of everyone who lived on his land but was able to trade what was left to the supermarket chain that had a store not far away.

Sam had a very large extended family. Being a fair man, Sam tried to incorporate everyone’s opinions in the way that he operated the farm. Over the course of time, some members of Sam’s family began to have strong objections to the way he ran the family business.

Some thought that Sam had no business milking the cows. They thought that to continue doing so was disruptive to the serenity that the cows enjoyed while grazing on the land. They also thought that the automatic milking machines were too noisy and that the system caused too much waste to be spread on the pasture. Even though Sam’s family liked to drink milk, Sam honored the request and stopped milking. He decided they could afford to buy milk for the family from the supermarket.

As soon as this decision was reached, some others in the family told Sam that they didn’t like the idea of continuing to farm chicken. They feared that the drainage wasn’t adequate and that it was difficult to protect the chicken from predators. They didn’t like the mess they created and feared the possibility of catastrophe that could happen with birds - such as the outbreak of the Avian flu that they heard about. Although Sam’s family loved eggs and could supply their own needs and the needs of others with the poultry farming, Sam again relented. They allowed the chicken population to die down and did not continue to grow more. Instead, they ate more cheese instead. And to get the cheese - like other milk products, they now needed to buy more from the supermarket down the road.

Sam’s family had a lot of specific concerns that, while valid in some ways, limited his ability to use the resources on his farm. Some didn’t like the idea of picking too many vegetables (the cattle needed them). Others didn’t like the idea of shearing the sheep for clothing (didn’t like the usage of the shearing board). And even though they had many opportunities to start farming different types of stock and livestock, they refused because they were able to get by with what they were doing at the moment.

Eventually, Sam was no longer able to sell anything to the supermarket chain but needed to buy a lot from them instead. And what’s worse is that, instead of scaling back on what they ate and wore, Sam’s family just bought more and more, eating and buying as much as they wanted because the prices weren’t bad.

The managers of the supermarket chain, not being able to buy from Sam, needed to get their supplies from other farms that were a lot further away. Those farms charged a markup and increased their prices as they realized the supermarket chain kept buying more and more. And to make as much money as possible, the supermarket chain also added a markup of their own. Eventually, the dairy products that once were pretty cheap at the store started to become unaffordable for Sam. Sam’s family couldn’t eat or wear as much as they were accustomed to. And they quickly became furious at the supermarket chain.

They accused the chains of being greedy and getting rich off of their misery. They blamed everybody that they could think of. And while the supermarket chain and the faraway farms certainly were guilty of some element of greed, Sam’s family refused to understand that they weren’t doing everything they could do to help themselves. It was all somebody else’s fault.

Sam’s family found itself in danger of going hungry and not having enough to wear. But they still were hoping that eventually, the greedy supermarket people would show them some mercy and make the price of the milk - the milk they chose to buy instead of producing themselves - affordable again.

In case you haven’t figured it out already, the Sam mentioned above is Uncle Sam, the government of the United States of America. In our great democracy, we allow everyone to have a voice and to fight for the things that concern them. However, some people here have worked very hard to limit the ways we can use our own resources to produce more of our own energy instead of buying it from the global market. Others have just been lazy and complacent and haven’t worked hard to find new forms of energy. And meanwhile, most of us have refused to conserve and use only the energy that we need to use. We keep consuming more and more. We are Sam’s family.

There’s certainly plenty of blame to go around in the “supermarket” - the oil companies, the speculators, the foreign governments that are selling us their oil. But, like Sam’s family, we don’t have as much right to shake an angry fist at others as we think - until we’ve done all that we can do to help ourselves.

Let’s tell our elected officials that while we’re on the hunt for greedy bad guys, we also have to do everything we can to work our own farm. After all, this country is the third biggest farm in the world.

Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

“The Values Voter”

Podcast Show Notes

Obama’s arrogant new seal.

McCain’s private talks with Hispanics contradicts public statements on immigration according to someone whose been there and a Spanish Newspaper. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

An meaningless threat against Israel.

Ross Perot’s back with more charts.

Plus environmental purists make energy solution impossible.  (Hat Tip: Magic Valley Mormon.)

Germany cracks down on Homeschooling and a high school hacker faces prison time. (Hat Tip: Education Watch.)

Idaho’s Supreme Court puts the family of a murder victim through Hell.  

A Washington State Mayor says no to a concealed weapons ban.

The Second Amendment works even while Liberal Republicans push for the renewal of a failed gun ban.

Results of a vegan diet without proper supplements: a 12 year old has the spine of an 80 year old. (Hat Tip: Reformed Chicks Babbling.)

Does prestige matter in college choices?

A man loses weight on McDonalds food. (Hat Tip: Reformed Chicks Babbling.) And healthier lifestyles lead to genetic changes.  (Hat Trick Hat Tip: Reformed Chicks Babbling.)

Another issue brought to you by under-regulated abortion clinics.

Music courtesy Jessica Vasquez via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Podcast Show Notes

Obama the Pooh: A chief Obama foreign policy adviser shares his basis for foreign policy.

McCain plays politics on the Windfall Oil Tax.

Why are Black Conservatives trending towards Obama?

The consensus on Offshore Drilling. (Hat Tip: Clayton Cramer.)

The Club for Growth applies the Sanford standard to Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska.) and attacks Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana)

The homosexual activist plan on gay marriage: slow boiling the frog. (Hat Tip: Pam’s House Blend.)

Click here to listen, click here to download.

This commentary by Chuck Norris is definitely getting some of us off our gasses and doing something. Get the word out and paste this into an email and sent to all your contacts. We can make an impact!

Courtesy of Chuck Norris and World News Daily.

In my column last week, “Congress, get off your gas, and drill,” I called upon Americans to sign Newt Gingrich’s petition “Drill here, drill now, pay less,” mandating Congress to do something now to immediately bring down gas prices. As a result, several hundred thousand people signed the petition. That’s a fantastic start, but we need more – lots more. And we can use your help.

Are the rest of the 300 million Americans actually enjoying doling out $50 to $100+ for a fill up? It’s time to wake up the remaining Americans who are snoozing in our petroleum nightmare. If we are going to drive down gas prices, we’ve got to get this country as mad as hell to do it. I got so riled up this past week that I went on Fox News to send out a battle cry to all Americans, and I just filmed a new YouTube bit for Newt, titled “Chuck Norris drills Congress.” I think you’ll like it.

Our government has done very little as a response to this energy crisis. They’ve stopped filling our emergency oil reserves with the 70,000 gallons a day, but won’t draw from them in order to drive down costs. The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates seven times, but gas prices continue to rise. And while the Energy Department reported it will cut gas prices 3.5 cents per gallon, you’ll be saving only a whopping 60 cents off what it now costs you to fill up your tank. To add insult to injury, a congressional subcommittee voted a week ago to continue to prevent drilling off the coasts of America. Are these the best solutions these elected knuckleheads can come up with? Are we done telling them that we don’t like their solutions? Are we going to wait until our blood and gas boil to $6 a gallon?

This past weekend, in a great USA Today article on our gas crisis, two dozen energy specialists were asked what could be done to reduce gas prices. There was no one unified answer, but one thing was obvious – doing nothing will only drive costs higher. Some say drill domestic oils. Others say tap into our petroleum reserves. Still others say we must pull all the stops from developing alternative forms of energy. I say do it all, do anything, and do the most obvious, which is drill here and drill now. The solution isn’t “either … or” but “both … and.” Everything helps when Americans are being chocked at the pump to the tune of $4+ a gallon.

The Energy Policy Research Foundation concludes that aggressive new drilling and development of our oil shale reserves and withdrawing 200 million from the 700 million barrels of oil in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve could in a relatively short time cuts costs 37 cents a gallon. And that doesn’t take into consideration the price reductions that would result in the market when oil price controllers realize they don’t have an oil monopoly over us.

And if we are even more aggressive with drilling, we can drive down prices like a pile driver. More than 100 billion barrels of oil are available off the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts and under Alaska, and that’s not counting the oil shale reserves across the Midwest that rivals the reservoirs of the Middle East. It alone could satisfy America’s need for gas for 13 years! But it’s going to take those political pantywaists in Washington to get off their gas, get a little backbone against environmentalists (who now prevent 85 percent of drilling off our coasts), and pass an emergency resolution to drill here and drill now. Even President Bush consented this past week before he left to Europe, saying, domestic drilling will “give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period by finding more supplies of crude oil, which would take the pressure off the price of gasoline.”

For the complete article you can read it here.