Tag Archives: liberals

Leftist arguments against right-to-work laws are emblematic of flawed liberal logic

Liberal ideology becomes more incoherent by the day.

Their latest crowing about right-to-work laws in Michigan are part and parcel of the degradation of the arguments in our political landscape.

Why, they’ll ask, should a worker be allowed to be a member of the union and reap all the benefits of membership without having to pay dues? That’s unfair!

You mean like the 50% of Americans who reap the benefits of being a citizen without paying taxes? That kind of unfair?

There is no argument being given by pro-union lefties as to why these laws are so painfully awful. According to Richard Hurd, a Cornell professor of labor studies, only about two-thirds of employees join a union in a right-to-work situation.

Oh the humanity.

You mean giving people the option to join a union means some people won’t do it? Remind me again how letting someone make a choice is infringing on their liberty.

When you get hired by an employer, you aren’t being hired by the union bosses, yet those bosses can force you to join a union and pay dues.

What are those dues for? Salaries of the union bosses, pensions for the union bosses and money to lobby legislators or even help fund campaigns.

Without those dues, you have fewer union bosses, smaller pensions and much less money to use for political gain. You can understand why the unionistas don’t like these laws.

According to State Budget Solutions, employment grew 8.2% from 2001 to 2010 in right-to-work states, while union states saw a .5% decrease.

Unemployment in the 23 states who have right-to-work laws is under 7%, while union states are facing nearly 9% unemployment.

Unions are part of the European model. Germany, for instance, is fine with contact unemployment in the 8% range or higher because those who are employed are getting higher wages and benefits. That’s not the way our system works, nor is it the way our system was set up to work.

But the left can’t come up with a good reason not to have right-to-work laws. They don’t want them because they think unions are the only thing preventing workers from working 20-hour days, shackled up in damp, dark, dungeons.

It’s not much different than their arguments for higher taxes on the rich. Ask a liberal to defend higher taxes on the rich and they’ll inevitably cite historical models to show how low taxes are right now. “Well under Clinton blah blah blah.”

That’s it. That’s all they’ve got.

Obama’s plan for higher taxes on the top 2% doesn’t do anything to reduce the deficit. In fact, 75% of Obama’s tax increases will go to new spending. These new revenues won’t pay down the debt and won’t spark economic growth. So what will they do? Make everyone feel better? Not when they lose their jobs.

If Obama’s economic model of massive deficits and debts amid gargantuan government spending worked, we’d have a booming economy. We don’t.

But the left is in charge and they like to wave their (rhymes with) stick around and punish those who have been successful.

Unless those people are teachers, or union heads, or actors, singers…well basically any liberal.

Liberals will fight at all costs to keep teachers’ unions in power, even while they’re bankrupting local communities, and state governments. Obama’s own right-hand man, Rahm Emmanuel, saw the destructive power of unions and their inability to stand for anything other than the greed of their own union members.

You can be in favor of right-to-work laws without being anti-union. If anything, people voluntarily joining unions actually strengthens the positioning power of that union because everyone in the union wants to be there and is more likely to be engaged as a result.

Conservatives are often portrayed as the party of tradition, of people who do things just because that’s the way it’s always been.

But liberals have lately been victims of their own ideological traditionalism. We should raise taxes because we always want to raise taxes. We should have unions because we’ve always had them and they always give us money.

Why should we give money to people who don’t serve us? Unions don’t serve union workers, they serve union heads. Taxes don’t serve the people who pay them, they serve the people who don’t.

As part of the social contract, we agree to be governed in order to gain additional liberty that the state of nature deprives us. Defense and the mediation of resources that we could not otherwise handle are the main functions of government. Anything behind that must be justified, but the left has no concept of its role as a governing party, nor any concept of what a government’s relationship ought to be with its people.

That’s why we get leaders like Barack Obama who, when the chips are down, has no coherent ideology to fall back on when trying to make decisions. That’s liberalism.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Redefining a party: Building Conservatism in the 21st Century

Mitt Romney was never the leader of the Republican Party, despite winning the GOP nomination for president. But an important questions faces the GOP and conservatism in this country: if not Romney, then who?

Certainly I won’t argue it ought to be the presidential failure of a Massachusetts governor who doesn’t seem to have an ideology of any kind outside of his Mormon faith.

Republicans are now being pulled in so many directions, it’s like the party is being drawn and quartered. And if the Grand Old Party doesn’t choose its leadership wisely, it may just be pulled apart at the seams.

As one Reagan biographer put it in the Daily Caller, “People say this is a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party…“That’s bullshit. This is a fight for the mind of the Republican Party.”

Craig Shirley, the biographer in question, told Matt Lewis in the DC that conservatism has yet to be established in the 21st century, a scary idea given that we’re 12 years into the century.

Mitch Daniels believes we ought to solve economic crisis before dealing with social issues. In theory, this is congruent with the way we think about priorities. Our most basic needs must be met first and that includes food and safety, neither of which people have with unemployment hovering at 8% and 50 million people on food stamps.

But the left would never allow it, nor would the media. People don’t want to hear about the dire straights of the U.S. economy, they want to hear zingers about Big Bird and lady parts.

Conservatives can’t win the arguments surrounding fiscal and economic policies, in part because Republican social policy is viewed so negatively.

It’s why Marco Rubio is pushing to create a new Republican platform on immigration, one the entire party can embrace.

The issue with the Republican party is that the loudest voices are heard and those voices tend to be the most extreme. Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock get headlines, when Aiken in particular is a looney, radical voice that don’t represent mainstream GOP thinking.

But there are fractures in the party on abortion policies, on gay marriage, on defense spending, on taxes, and all sorts of places.

In the wake of so many election defeats, the Democratic party coalesced. They’re the gay marriage party, the pro-women’s health care party, the part of the poor, the sick and the weak.

That’s not my opinion, that’s how they’ve branded themselves and they’ve done it through united opposition to Republicanism.

Republicans, if they hope to survive, have to find similar common ground and they have to find that common ground to connect with mainstream voters. Immigration policy under Rubio is an excellent place to start.

The perception of the party has to change if the conservatives hope the outcome of elections are to change. That starts with strong leadership from men like Rubio in deciding what 21st century conservatism looks like and what the country believes they stand for – the distinction is important because what the Democrats say they stand for is actually counter to many of the policies they’ve actually implemented.

We’re now building 21st century conservatism and if we don’t choose the right architects, the foundation will crumble.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The left’s canard about Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan

Liberals struggle with facts and numbers so the fact that they can’t get their heads around the numbers in Mitt Romney’s tax plan shouldn’t be surprising.

Let’s be very clear about what Mitt Romney has actually said regarding his plan:

  • 20% across the board cuts in tax rates
  • Close deductions and loopholes to offset cuts
  • Will not have a tax plan that raises the deficit
  • Will not raise taxes on the middle class

Nowhere in there do I see the number $5 trillion and it should be noted what that number actually refers to: the decrease in revenue the government would get from the proposed cut.

That’s the only thing that number can refer to because without the revenue those $5 trillion don’t exist.

But the fact of the matter is, with Mitt Romney’s tax plan, the off-setting revenue comes from job creation. If you plan to cut taxes and offset the lost revenue then what you have truly isn’t, in any practical sense, a $5 trillion cut, at least not the way President Obama means it.

President Obama wants you to believe Mitt Romney is handing more money to the rich and he’s said as much. While it’s true a 20% bite off the wealthiest Americans represents a larger chunk by tax rate percent, the practicality of what the president is saying has no basis in reality.

Think about it like you’re at the mall and you have a 20% off coupon at a department store. If you buy something that is $100 you save $20, but if you buy something that is $200, you save $40. That’s the way a rate works.

“The rich” are already paying higher rates than everyone else, so by having a 20% rate decrease for everyone, the rich will get a bigger piece of that pie to be sure. But the rate everyone is losing is equal: 20%.

A number of credible news organizations, including the Washington Post, have concluded that Mitt Romney’s explanation for why he doesn’t have a $5 trillion tax cut is accurate.

What liberals like Tommy Christopher don’t get is, you can’t put words in someone’s mouth and then when he says he never said that, call him a liar.

Mitt Romney is cutting rates and he’s raising revenues by cutting other government spending and encouraging growth.

Any study that says he needs to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it is ridiculous, considering he already said he’s lowering everyone’s rates. Why would anyone say “Well, we’re going to lower everyone’s rates, but in order to pay for the richest people to get their breaks, we actually need to now raise middle class taxes”?

You wouldn’t. Not even liberals are dumb enough to do something like that (Ok, maybe that’s a stretch).

Furthermore, a Princeton economist recently concluded that in order for Romney to add enough jobs to pay for these cuts, the economy would only have to grow at about 2.29% on average over 10 years, certainly not anything outrageous. While GDP is only growing at around 1.3% currently, it was at about 3% when 2012 began.

Maintaining that kind of growth is certainly a credible solution, particularly when you consider the regulations and anti-growth legislation enacted by Barack Obama over the last four years could be rolled back under a Romney presidency.

With news like we got today, that we only added 114,000 jobs when you need about 150,000 to keep up with population growth, that is certainly not moving this country forward.

We need a president who knows how take facts and numbers and use them to create credible solutions in the real world. You can’t do that with an ultra-liberal in the White House.

Tagged , , , , , ,

The left’s lies about Mitt Romney’s tax policies

The left’s insistence that their class warfare crusade was over, but their tour of lies and deception about Romney’s policies toward the rich have reached full bore.

Gov. Romney’s tax policies are most recently under attack, despite the fact the the Tax Policy Center who the advertisements cite, had to essentially guess about the specifics of Romney’s policy and how they would affect citizens.

Specifically, Donald Marron, who wrote the report said, “I don’t interpret (the report) as evidence that Gov. Romney wants to increase taxes on the middle class in order to cut taxes for the rich, as an Obama campaign ad claimed.”

Marron does say he believes the Romney plan cannot achieve it’s objective of cutting taxes across the board without closing some deduction loopholes for the middle class.

Certainly we can argue about the merits of Romney failing to be specific about which loopholes he’d close on the rich, but as Politifact also points out, most of the deductions in the tax code go to wealthy Americans.

The top 5 percent alone get 41 percent of the total tax savings associated with these breaks, the study found. The “middle” 60 percent of earners, by contrast, get less than a third of the benefit, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.

Moreover, President Obama’s attack ads insist “the rich” will get hundreds of thousands in lower taxes, while the middle class will see an added burden.

There’s no evidence that is true, as Romney has insisted his plan is to cut rates for everyone. It is, however, true that then you cut rates, the amounts appear skewed in favor the rich.

The fact of the matter is that when you’re talking about 4% fewer in taxes on $100,000 versus 4% fewer on $1 million dollars, the numbers will make it seem as though “the rich” are making out like bandits.

But this is how a ‘rate’ works. It’s the reason we use rates and don’t just say, “Everyone has to be pay the government $1,000 a year in taxes.”

As Politifact points out:

The big benefits for the top fifth of earners, as found by the Tax Policy Center, are in a group whose incomes start at $103,000. Is that “wealthy?”

Plenty of people would argue, particularly those near that $100,000 range, that this is the middle class. Add costs like school, especially college, and a mortgage and suddenly $100,000 doesn’t get you very far in today’s modern world.

Live in a city like New York or San Francisco, and $100,000 puts you decidedly in the middle class.

We know politicians make promises you can’t keep. Many make promises they don’t even intend to keep.

Mitt Romney has stated over and over that he wants people to pay lower effective tax rates. Remembering that half the country doesn’t pay taxes, that means a small portion of the working poor, the middle class and the so-called rich are the only ones who pay taxes in this country.

Given that he wants to lower tax rates across the board and close loopholes, something that would disproportionately effect the top earners, the left’s claim about Romney’s tax plan is disingenuous at best. When you consider Romney’s steadfastness in wanting to keep everyone’s rates low (and no evidence he “favors” the rich) the left’s accusations are baseless and essentially false.

Hopefully the GOP ticket will offer some clarity and specifics in the debates about its tax plan to finally put to bed the accusations from the left based on a study that directly disagrees with the Democratic claims.

Tagged , , , ,

Why Obama can’t run away from ‘You didn’t build that’ blunder

Despite the President’s best efforts, the “you didn’t build that,” flack isn’t going away.

His plan of attack from here will be to defer the conversation away from his comments, rather than double down.

Obama and lefties insist that the comments were “taken out of context,” despite the context being exceedingly clear.

Liberals have taken to defending the president by saying, “Well, that’s just not really want he meant.”

Except anyone who has been paying attention knows that the president meant every word of his collectivist nonsense.

Charles Krauthammer penned an excellent rebuttal to Obama where he insists that if its infrastructure and collective will which makes us successful, then everyone ought to be successful.

Leftists are saying that the president wasn’t talking about bridges and roads, except that’s exactly what said. Literally, those were the words he used.

Furthermore, even if he’s just talking about other people, the president couldn’t be more wrong. His argument that no one builds anything on their own is an obvious reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

It’s like saying Steve Jobs couldn’t have been successful if people didn’t buy his iPads. Well, of course not, but that’s the very definition of success.

Put another way, it’s like saying Apple wouldn’t be profitable if it didn’t have people in the factory to put together those iPads.

Well, no, but that’s why they have jobs. If there were no Apple or no iPad, there’s no one needed to put them together.

Obama’s logic is reversed. Ideas and innovation create jobs, not the other way around.

It’s Obama’s belief in this collectivism, the idea that we all are beholden to each other, which drives his ridiculous notion that I somehow owe you for my success or vice versa.

I can think of myriad examples of small business owners who literally built their business on their own, not taking paychecks so they can pay their employees, or perhaps they can’t even afford employees.

That sacrifice is not for me, it’s for him or her.

Those who believe the president isn’t a collectivist and a socialist will say my argument is a strawman, propped up to be knocked down.

However, the argument I made is based entirely on the president’s position on the role of government in the lives of citizens dating back through the entirety of his public life. He underscored it recently by trying to undercut the bipartisan legislation that enhanced work requirements for welfare signed under Bill Clinton in 1996. Look at the slideshow of the Life of Julia, a campaign Krauthammer calls “most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived.”

The problem is, it’s not parody, it’s Obama’s actual ideology.

Julia is a woman who succeeds thanks to the government. It’s literally as if he believes we are doomed as a people if we don’t have a government to hold our hands through the process.

It’s very clear about how someone becomes successful. His argument is as follows, “My plan is to use government to give you every chance to succeed, whereas my opponent doesn’t like government.”

That’s actually EXACTLY what he’s running on. ObamaCare is another perfect example. Obama’s solution to every problem is based on government intervention.

I’m not at all misrepresenting Obama’s positions in order to cut them down (the definition of a strawman), but rather using his own positions and words to concisely and effectively communicate his platforms.

Anyone who has followed American economic history knows that almost no major innovation or business was grown based on being on the government dole.

The obvious exceptions are companies who actually work for the government, defense contractors being an example.

Unfortunately, Obama supporters will insist, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that the president didn’t really mean what he said, or will buy the line that it was taken out of context (which it wasn’t).

Conservatives and independents (and even some liberals) though, have seen it for what it really is: a glimpse into the truth behind Obama’s ultra-leftist agenda and his mantra that government is the true way to prosperity.

Krauthammer’s most salient point is made when he discusses the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe there ought to be help for the orphans of the world. Liberals want everyone to be orphans (hyperbole of course).

It’s not that conservatives don’t believe we ought to help those who cannot help themselves. We do.

It’s that we see government as an impediment to growth and progress, not the vehicle. Only those who truly cannot help themselves ought to get something for nothing. Liberals don’t think this way and that’s why we disagree. There’s a philosophical difference between the way we view government as interacting with its citizens.

We see it more starkly in the 2012 Presidential Race than perhaps at any time in the last generation.

Tagged , , , , ,

Obama’s latest half-truth about his “progressive” tax plan

President Obama is really good at not telling the truth without actually lying. To be fair, he’s also an expert fibber, as evidence by flat-out lies about ObamaCare not being a tax (which it clearly is) or any number of other demonstrably false claims the President has made.

What a politician like Obama has learned is if you say one thing, but leave out some important facts, people will infer something that isn’t actually supported by the entirety of the truth.

Obama’s tax plan is a perfect example.

What he’ll say is that the tax cuts on income below $250,000 are a boon for the middle class. Anyone who opposes them are schills for the rich, the kind of class war mongering that has become a staple of the left under Czar President Obama.

But what Obama fails to mention is that that without the Social Security tax break that has been extended the last few years, this tax credit isn’t going to help “the little guy,” but mostly the upper portion of the so-called middle class.

As the Business Insider points out, essentially what this does is give $150 billion and take $120 billion away, according to a federal analysis.

Bruce Kasting described it thusly:

Households in the lower tax brackets will not get much benefit from extending the Bush tax cuts, but they will, on average, see their take home pay reduced by $1,200 a year.

The President’s tax proposal is a half-assed compromise.

In this case a “half-assed compromise” is actually doing the president a favor. It’s an obfuscation of the facts, an intentional one, meant to shield the working class from the truth that this is a political move and would actually screw the lower end of the economic scale.

Furthermore, the influx of new money, a net of only about $30 billion, is hardly enough to stimulate any kind of new spending over the short or long term, making this proposal just another chess piece in the political game Obama is waging with Mitt Romney and the GOP.

Much like it’s the best interest of the Republicans not to pass any laws until the election, it’s equally as advantageous for Obama because he won’t have to deal with any of those pesky facts.

When his stimulus plan failed, he just blamed the GOP for preventing it from being large enough to have an impact. Most people see through that kind of obvious pandering attempt.

 Any policy Obama enacts has the chance to fail. Any policy he proposes, but doesn’t become law, has the luxury of being used by the president to say it would have been the greatest thing since the Declaration of Independence.

 Unfortunately for the Republicans and for people who make less than $250,000, Obama is the best in the game when it comes to telling believable half-truths.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Democrat’s hollow criticism of GOP in fight over economy

Government spending, for liberals, must take place in a vacuum: No responsibility, no accountability, no sustainability.

In their minds, these things must just happen and since we know government is the way to eternal happiness, when it comes to government spending, if some is good more is better.

That’s why no one ought be shocked that after creating the most reckless fiscal administration in American history, Democrats are eschewing the blame for the lack of economic progress.

Instead, it’s the Republican’s fault.

I received two identical e-mails to my work account titled ‘5 Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth.’

This has become the marching beat to Obama’s campaign, despite the fact that he said that if he couldn’t get the economy turned around in three years that he’d be a one-term president.

Blame the GOP.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s see if what they’re saying has any actual validity.

The line of the e-mail seems straight-forward enough “New numbers released yesterday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the economy added a mere 80,000 jobs in June. That’s down from an average of 150,000 jobs a month for the first part of the year, and far too little to keep up with population growth.”

We know, and people should be pissed. The economy is getting worse, not better despite insistence from the White House that the trillions in debt we’re incurring is going to spur economic growth.

“Republican intransigence on economic policy has been a key contributor to the sluggish recovery.”

And there we are. So, despite the fact that the Democrats had a majority in both chambers for two years, only to lose the House because they were doing such a heinous job, it’s the GOP’s fault things continue to go badly because they’re being so stubborn.

The Democrat-controlled Senate doesn’t seem to care that they haven’t passed a budget since Obama was elected, nor have they passed a single one of the Republican reforms passed in the House including a number of job-creating measures, budget cuts or tax cuts.

Democrats insist the stimulus failed because it simply wasn’t big enough. Apparently $800 billion wasn’t sufficient, what really would have jump-started the economy was $1.2 trillion.

Maybe, except that the money that was used didn’t at all serve it’s intended purpose and keep unemployment down and the reason is simple: simply throwing money at a problem isn’t a way to fix it.

Republicans are blamed for killing the American Jobs Act, despite the fact that it had bipartisan disapproval, especially among Democrats who faced contested elections.

Just to drive home how incredibly misguided this plan was, the Treasury Secretary (!!!) actually said that at a cost of about $200,000 per job, the Jobs Act was still a good deal.

The e-mail I received had a myriad of other reasons: stonewalling quantitative easing, threatening a debt default, cutting spending (they used that one twice).

This is the mantra of the left: if they don’t do it our way, they’re being intransigent.

It takes two parties to make our system work. It takes two houses to pass a bill and a president to sign it. That’s the way this has to be.

The Republicans have approved bill after bill while the Senate has passed nothing, yet it’s the GOP who stand in the way of progress.

Democrats are content to drive up the debt ceiling without austerity measures, yet it was the President himself who criticized Republican leaders under Bush for irresponsible spending driving up the debt ceiling.

But the left sees the world through its own lens, one where tax payers ought to be grateful that the government is providing for them, even if it’s through wildly unsustainable programs and mechanisms.

It’s ok, they’re the government. They know what they’re doing.

Tagged , , , , , , ,