Tuesday, August 16, 2011

You muffed it, Warren Buffett.

An Op-Ed piece by Warren Buffett has been published in the New York Times this week in which he advocates for higher taxes on rich people like himself.

As others have pointed out, he can donate all he wants to the federal government, but all he does by pushing this Obama theme is increase the likelihood that taxes will be raised on people like you and me.

Because, as has amply been pointed out by others, the federal government could confiscate all the wealth of the Warren Buffetts of the world and not make a dent in the deficit.

It's all about cash flow. Progressives (and the faux Republicans who enable them) do not care about our balance sheet. They care only about keeping the money flowing to special interests and voter blocs, many of whom pay no income tax at all. And it is through the middle class where most of the cash flows because, at least for now, there are so many of us and we're the ones who pay the lion's share of the taxes in terms of dollars if not percentages.

It's the middle class that those who want to raise taxes are after, not the Warren Buffetts of the world. Warren Buffett suffers from the same malady that attacks many suddenly rich celebrities and children of the rich: wealth-guilt. They realize that they have just been luckier than most, so they try to look generous by carrying the banner for redistributing other people's wealth.

Warren Buffett would serve society better by putting pressure on Obama and the whole Washington class to curtail their spending, a la the head of Starbucks. But if he can't do that, then I suggest he do this:

Stuff it, Warren Buffett.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Standard & Poor's is bumbling and slow-witted

So if Standard & Poor's is supposed to be so prescient about credit-worthiness, what took them so long to recognize what the market saw right off hand when Barack Obama was elected President of the United States?

The graph at left measures my company's FedEx package count. I posted it on the wall in my office to serve as a daily reminder of what we're up against. It is not that we lack credit. It is not that we don't have diversity in our work force. It is not that we don't do green business. Rather it shows exactly what happened in November 2009: 35% of our business disappeared virtually overnight. Thanks to regretfully shedding employees, cutting costs, and working much longer, harder hours, we've stayed in business and recovered a portion of our former volume. But it's no thanks to the socialists who have supposedly had a laser-like focus on "creating" and "saving" jobs.

Now it's nearly three years later and Standard & Poor's has just figured out that if America were strictly a business, it has been handed down to the incompetent, profligate son-in-law because none of the spoiled children of the founders stepped up and took charge?

The Republican establishment are those spoiled children. Time and time again, they have caved to the most atavistic of Democrat tendencies in the name of "civility" and "compromise", claiming false achievements to cover up their own lack of spine. Case in point: our Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander says about the recent Debt Deal that it "cuts cuts cuts" when in effect it does almost nothing nothing nothing to reduce debt and deficits. And now, Standard and Poor's downgrade is even being used to rationalize the tax hikes after which Obama, Pelosi, and Reid lust so passionately.

Believe me, my actual income is not rich. I pay an obscene amount of taxes. But just because of my company's gross receipts I qualify as one of those rich people that the Democrats want to tax yet more...

Who represents me in Congress?

If the Senator Alexanders of the Republican Party are not going to take the momentum of the Tea Party and run with it, then it is time they retire and give a chance to someone with fire in their belly to take their place.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Voters to Mayor Karl Dean: Bug Off!

Sure, Nashville "progressive" Mayor Karl Dean won reelection yesterday. He was unopposed other than a homeless guy and a couple of other fringe candidates. And the incumbent council members he supported won their races, as incumbents are wont to do.

But the bottom line from yesterday's election was that Nashvillians generally don't care for Dean's penchant for sticking it to the city's taxpayers and traditions. Each of the challengers he supported lost their bids to unseat his political opponents, and of course his lame-brain idea for raping the Fairgrounds was trounced in a landslide by referendum. Would that we could have put his other big, expensive lame-brain idea, the new convention center, to the same test.

Mayor Dean, like Barack Obama, waltzed into office on the strength of assets he did not earn and a glib style that fooled a lot of people, supported by other moochers and looters like Megan Barry and Ronnie Steine. I hope his unopposed win to a second term is not an omen for the 2012 presidential election. The voters have turned against him, yet he wins...

Monday, August 1, 2011

The Tea Party Carries the Torch

Assuming that the debt ceiling deal passes Congress, which I think is still a big assumption, it is no win for Barack Obama, but it is a save. If it doesn't pass, it is not the disaster for the U.S. economy that the Democrats have predicted. But it will be a disaster for Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all the rest of them.

Either way this whole ugly struggle has been a great moral victory for conservatives. It has forced the Democrats to confront this question in the eyes of all taxpaying Americans:

What's so hard to understand about spending less?

Passing this debt ceiling extension will take the pressure off the Democrats to answer that question. They cannot answer it. They must be thanking their lucky stars that John Boehner would deal with them at all.

Spending less means they don't get reelected. That's what all the screaming and squealing has been about for the past month of "gridlock".

If we had to rely on the Republican Party alone to get us here, the Lindsey Grahams and John McCains and Lamar Alexanders of the Senate, and even torchbearer John Boehner in the House, we would never have gotten here. Their nature is to go along to get along. They would have caved weeks ago, with no real spending cuts at all and no second stage to force the issue again.

There was nothing sweeter I heard in all this debate than the day the media was reporting that the Tea Party House members couldn't be bought: They didn't want favors and didn't particularly care if they got reelected. They came to Congress simply to do what their constituents sent them to do. How cool is that!

In the past few days I have heard the Tea Party derided by a reporter as part of a regular news report on NBC Nightly News as obstructionist. I have defended the Tea Party to a good friend who is as conservative as can be but was panicking that the markets couldn't handle the disruption. I have listened to Van Jones on NPR deriding the Tea Party for being unpatriotic. I have listened to the faux expert Howard Bloom on Coast to Coast A.M. still invoking Keynesian Economics even in the face of the abysmal failure of the Stimulus as the only strategy to save the economy! It has been maddening!

But there's no denying the bottom line:

We have the Tea Party movement to thank for finally forcing Washington to reduce its spending.