The "needed" conversation...

Good post... why can't we have more of that? More often?

You mentioned where the conversation needed to go... and I agree with you... but it isn't going there, is it?

Here, in the run-up to the 2012 general election, we have GOP candidates discussing issues and making and taking positions that I think are unrealistic at best... and damaging to the conservative effort as a whole, worst-case.

In order to appeal to Tea Party conservatives, we have Perry and others taking real, solid (and ultimately unmovable) positions on the US tax code. Specifically, whether or not a flat tax is something we should shoot for. Perry promises its simpler. Gingrich wants it to be an "option" for those that choose to take it. Cain seems to be focused on the "9-9-9" to the point nothing else is spoken of.

Please, people... it isn't going to happen. EVER.

It isn't simpler... and that is coming from someone that supports the flat tax idea! It just isn't.

Look, even with our progressive tax system... where does the complicated portion of the job lay? Not with figuring what percentage of taxes you owe... you take your income and match it to a percentage on a list, and find the corresponding tax amount owed. That's actually as simple as we are going to get, if you ask me.

The complications start when one is asked to determine what your "income" is. That is where one finds the deductions, credits, allowances, proportional expenses, and other such mitigating factors that effect what the specific "income" for one year has been.

Would that change in a flat tax system? I doubt it very much. One would still find loopholes, arguments and costs that they feel should "reduce" their income, and thus reduce what they owe in taxes, and thus complicate what is being promised as a "simpler" means of determining and collecting tax revenues.

Gingrich wants Americans to do their taxes TWICE, and pick the cheaper means of paying... how is THAT simpler? Cain wants to take the Laffer curve to the opposite extreme that most liberals do, and reduce the flat tax to factors of 9%... which would equal a huge tax cut to anyone making more than $26,000 a year, but increase more than 40% of the country's tax bill by 9%. THAT is not the sort of campaign promise that is going to get him elected in a general election cycle, I can tell you that. Fine print and details aside... that is a dangerous game to play when you are looking to beat the promises of an avowed progressive in a welfare-state society like ours.

Yes, reducing tax burdens increases tax revenue... this I know. So, reducing the tax burden of the top 45% of earners in this nation is a good thing, right? They are, after all, the nation's top EMPLOYERS, right? Not if you are going to correspondingly INCREASE the burden of the bottom 40%... who are the nation's largest group of CONSUMERS. In this case, at this time... the math doesn't work.

Why can't we simply take what has worked in the past and utilize it again? A reduced corporate tax rate, zero capital gains for ten years, a reduced income deduction table for the common 10-40 form, but an increased deduction form for itemized returns, and a lower (by, say... 7% to 9%?) general tax rate across the board. It worked in 1981, carried us through 1996... and it will work again NOW!

More money in the hands of consumers to free them from the needs and costs associated with bigger and bigger Government regulation and control. THAT was what brought us out of the Carter recession and ushered in the boom years of the 1990s. It is going to be tough going, no question... tough cuts will have to be made at a Federal level, but it is DOABLE, right now.

Why is this so hard?

"...to thunderous applause."

Do you remember that scene from Star Wars in which the Sith Lord, as chancellor, makes his case for assuming undemocratic powers, and the assembly wildly applauds? Senator Padame then makes the comment, "So this is how a Republic dies. To the sound of thunderous applause." Then Jimmy Smits looks all worried, remember?

I ask this question rhetorically of course, for I know my audience, and I know you recognized the quote before your eyes even left the subject line. Allow me to follow up on Titus' "hubris" post ... all due respect buddy, you haven't even scratched the surface of what this President "assumes" he can do.

The President, MY president, is landing in Las Vegas today to push for his $447 Billion "Jobs Act." It has no chance of passing the House, or even the Senate. Reason? Bipartisan opposition. So why is he wasting our time and clogging up McCarren International Airport for a Bill he can't possibly get passed into law? Maybe he doesn't care about "passing" it.

"We can't wait on congress to act."

The PoTUS actually said that. He is landing in Las Vegas in about 2 hours to make that case. His jobs bill is "stymied", so he is going to attempt to enact it ... himself. I kid you not.

"With his jobs plan stymied in Congress by Republican opposition, President Obama on Monday will begin a series of executive-branch actions to confront housing, education and other economic problems over the coming months, heralded by a new mantra: “We can’t wait” for lawmakers to act.

According to an administration official, Mr. Obama will kick off his new offensive in Las Vegas, ground zero of the housing bust, by promoting new rules for federally guaranteed mortgages so that more homeowners, those with little or no equity in their homes, can refinance and avert foreclosure.

And Wednesday in Denver, the official said, Mr. Obama will announce policy changes to ease college graduates’ repayment of federal loans, seeking to alleviate the financial concerns of students considering college at a time when states are raising tuition."
(source: HERE)

Do you see why it matters when he federalizes student loans? Why it matters whether or not to call an executive leader out as a socialist, or Marxist, often and early? This is a man who went on the record in the year 2000 with Chicago NPR describing our Constitution as "inadequate." A man who described our nation in 2008 as needing a "fundamental transformation." Well, here it is - he dislikes this pesky "Republic" system, and he isn't going to abide by it anymore. How big of a "change" is that? Pretty damned "fundemental" if you ask me.

There's more (and this is all dated from 10/14 through today):

"Obama told his advisers on the White House Jobs and Competitiveness Council in Pittsburgh on Tuesday that he is “not going to wait for Congress” to act on jobs.

“I’ve shown repeatedly my willingness to work overtime to try to get them to do something to deal with this high unemployment rate. What we haven’t seen is a similar willingness on their part to try to get something done,” Obama said on Thursday. “

“So my instruction to all the advisers who are sitting around the table is, scour this report, identify all those areas in which we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization, and just get it done.”
(source: HERE)

John McCain, a supposed leader in the upper House of OUR congress, went on to say that the GOP would do everything they could to stop him, but quote: "He will probably get away with it."

How many times? How many times must the PoTUS act in a way that leaves us slack-jawed and stunned before we stop saying, "Oh, he'd never do that."???

From 9/27/11:
"Republicans rebuked North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue after she suggested Congress suspend elections for two years so lawmakers can get to work stimulating the economy unencumbered by anxiety about what voters think."
(source: HERE)

Say Beverly hun, be a dear and say that again, only this time do it in German, just for kicks and giggles. No, you wouldn't want to worry about what voters think. This is a sitting governor. She is taken seriously. You should hear the audio - this was no joke, no kidding around, no hyperbole.

Just this week:

"Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”
(source: HERE)

That constitutes "dysfunctional", not agreeing with the Chief Executive. Jackson Jr. went on to describe this plan. He wants "direct hire" by the federal government of all unemployed persons, at "prevailing union wages." What do you think the price tage for that would be?

Did you know the PoTUS approved the kill order of an American citizen?

"American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior U.S. government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to U.S. officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a U.S. citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process."
(source: HERE)

His role is "fuzzy?"

Sounds an awful lot like plausible deniability to me. Search the Web, as many as 20 names are suspected to be on this "list." 20 Americans, with assassination orders pending by their own government. And Nixon's list was a problem?

The three of us are in what, the upper 2, maybe 1% of information consumers? Did you even know this panel existed? I didn't. Follow those links if you wish. They wont take you to Beck, or Savage or Drudge. They're much more wildly right wing sources than that, such as the NY Times, Yahoo News, and the UK's Daily Caller.

Here is the problem with ALL of this ... thus far the discussion, be it on television, radio, or at the water cooler, has been centered around whether this jobs bill will work. Whether we should spend more tax payer dollars. How much Jackson Jr.'s plan would cost. The infeasibility of it all working. Whether al-Awalki deserved it, etc, etc, etc.

THAT IS NOT THE NEEDED CONVERSATION.

The needed conversation is where does our Executive Branch get the authority for ANY of this?

How can he conduct his administration in this way and not have articles of impeachment brought? Where is any real opposition to the president's insistence that he need not answer to congress ... or perhaps even to voters!?

That female writer whom so cleverly came up with the 10 ways Bush was definitonally a fascist dictator, where is she now?

I don't have to tell you, but it bares repeating - history is replete with states who's chief executive went about installing "ministers", "commissars", or as we have, "czars" that are allotted make believe "administrative authority" based on the musings of a single man, a single leader. And they go about the business of circumventing Politburos, Reichstags, Parliaments and Congress's all in the name of "Getting things done."

This guy, this president, is at the border of the Rhine, spitting, cursing at the name of Versailles while eyeing Paris. And the opposition is busy debating whether the Audubon can be completed in two years, or three.

Let me ask you something. If this President wins reelection, do you believe he is above declaring a state of emergency, suspending congress, and simply implementing his policies as law? Bare in mind, we are now at a place where sitting congressmen are comfortable publicly suggesting that he do just that.

Perhaps this is a better question: do you believe this President is above doing that if he loses?

This is disturbing...

Vice President Joe Biden said that the manner in which the US "assisted" the Libyan rebels was the "new formula" in how America would respond to international crisis in the future... and the less than $1.1 billion price tag and "no lives lost" moniker would show the success of the formula.

This, to me, is the height of hubris.

Looking at the bigger picture, where will this sort of policy get the US in the long run? What historical examples to we have that can be viewed as a comparison to this "new formula"?

Well, the entire US foreign policy for the last three decades of the Cold War jump instantly to mind.

Vietnam. Laos. Honduras. Nicaragua. Iran. Iraq. All nations that we pumped support, money and material. Of these examples, only Vietnam developed into a long, drawn-out combat arena. The rest were quiet interventions that rarely made headlines as the US pumped millions and millions of dollars of material and funds to support foreign regimes and efforts. All failed utterly, in one way or another.

Of all the interventionist policies that we've adopted, the only one that I can say categorically worked was Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. Our support and aid directly assisted the Afghani fighters to beat back the Soviets over an eight year battle... but we failed to follow that support with further aid and assistance and we allowed the Taliban to take over.

NATO and US support of the Libyan rebels has removed and killed Qaddafi... and that is a good thing, but if we do not continue to support and aid the transitional government, we face having helped create a vacuum that any tyrannical extremist regime might fill.

This week we heard Obama say that all US troops would be out of Iraq by the New Year... and perhaps that is a good thing, too. But the position we are leaving Iraq in is far different than that which we find Libya in, and comparisons between the two by the liberal Left are unfair and grossly inaccurate. The difference between the two?

Boots on the ground... that is the only difference. What secures peace and builds stability is boots on the ground, ready to maintain the peace and security won in the first place.

Just curious...

I have just looked through more than 11 pages of articles about the "Occupy Wall Street" effort going on across the country (but mainly in NY)... and I can't find ONE thing about what these people hope to gain from their efforts.

Does anyone know what the agenda is with this "protest"? Because, as far as I can see, this is a protest purely for the sake of protesting.

I see images of "hammer and sickle" flags, but I read and watch videos of speeches that declare communism "utterly dead and justly so"... so what do they want to replace the free market system with? If capitalism is so bad... what do we replace it with? I see people calling for dialogue and tolerance in debate... and calling defenders of the traditional American lifestyle as "tyrannical Christian zealots" and "fascist warmongers" and much, much worse.

This is the Left's counter to the Tea Party movement? A pointless, angry mob ranting for days in public about what they don't like, while offering no alternative ideas or opposing points of view?

Enjoy the weather, kids... looks like rain later in the week.

I'll be damned...

The reigning Superbowl Champion Green Bay Packers are undefeated.

The University of Wisconsin Badgers are ranked #4 in the nation, and are also undefeated and are playing for a bid at the national championship.

And the Milwaukee Brewers are going to the NLCS after their win tonight.

I will be damned... Wisconsin sports is looking pretty tough right now.

I concede...

I really hadn't known the penalties were that stiff... far too stiff, if you ask me.

However, the fair market value of bullion was offered and given. "Seizure" is simply too tough a word if we are going to discuss taking gold currency out of general circulation.

The topic has been discussed before. Managing the market price of gold through arbitrary and artificial means was a handicap on our markets, and when the actual value of of a $20 gold piece was closer to $60, why would a savvy citizen spend it at all? Gold is meant to be horded... used as a hedge against inflation and economic crisis... and the US couldn't afford to have 2% of its circulation value tied up in coins that weren't being spent.

I'm not convinced that taking gold out of circulation was not a good thing... but 9 years in the "big house" for having more than $100 worth is going too far.

No thoughts on whether or not Fort Knox is empty? I thought you'd slam me for that.

Executive Order 6102

I'm sorry, I just couldn't let this slide.

"Beck and other pundits love talking about how FDR and the other "progressives" in the White House destroyed the American financial system by making it "illegal" for citizens to own gold bullion (constantly referencing the New Deal policy of removing gold coins from circulation). This was NOT a seizure of private assets as it is so often described by Congressman Ron Paul... it was a means of buying the coins back from private ownership by the Fed at an established rate and building a stockpile of bullion (at Fort Knox) to have on reserve for the US Government. Period. Were this NOT the case, Glenn Beck would not be making hourly claims to "owning" such a precious and protecting commodity as gold in his own portfolio, would he? "

I don't think Beck has ever claimed that FDR's gold seizures "destroyed" the American financial system (but yes, he has routinely referenced it as an example of progressive failings), but then again I can not claim to have bore witness to every word he's ever uttered. What you are absolutely wrong about is FDR did seize private assets. This was no simple "buy back" program. This was the equivalent to a hostile take over, an illegitimate financial eminent domain claim.

Executive Order 6102 was the Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933, by Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States". The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation over $100, in gold coins. Executive Order 6102 required U.S. citizens to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but that small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 or up to ten years in prison, or both.

Order 6102 specifically exempted "customary use in industry, profession or art", a provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers among others. The same paragraph also exempted "gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins." This protected gold coin collections from legal seizure and likely melting. The regulations prescribed within Executive Order 6102 were modified by Executive Order 6111 of April 20, 1933, both of which were ultimately revoked and superseded by Executive Orders 6260 and 6261 of August 28 and 29, 1933, which were even MORE restrictive.

The limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed after Gerald Ford signed a bill legalizing private ownership of all gold coins, bars, bullion and certificates in 1974 (post Nixon taking us off the standard, obviously).

FDR enforced the forced "buy back program" under the auspices of the Trading With The Enemy Act for goodness sake! You're right, that's not a seizure, it's totalitarianism (in my opinion). I don't care what you compensate the private owner with, to force his sale of his possessions - under penalty of imprisonment - IS A SEIZURE. And while we're at it, this post makes it perfectly plausable for Beck to simultaneously rail against FDR's executive gold seizure orders of the 1930's AND advertise the current ownership of gold within his portfolio.