Category: Jack Hellner

Obama's 'Experts' and Trump's Instincts


Why are people with foreign policy experience on North Korea and elsewhere referred to as “experts” when they so often fail to achieve their goals?  The media, Democrats, and supposed experts on North Korea are wringing their hands about President Trump’s planned meeting with the North Korean dictator.

They say that Trump doesn’t know what he is doing and that people at the State Department that have expertise are gone.

I always have trouble with all the people who are called experts because they have had so little success at what they supposedly are expert about.

For the last 25 years, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have been toyed with by North Korea while the North Koreans continually built up their nuclear weapons, and the media go to the very people who let this happen for analysis on Trump.

In October 1994, via the New York Times:

President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the country’s hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program.


“This agreement will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective – an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula,” Mr. Clinton said this afternoon, after his top foreign policy advisers described the details of an enormously complex agreement struck with North Korea late Monday.


“This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world,” Mr. Clinton said in a brief appearance in the White House press room this afternoon. “It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.” 

Somehow, this piece of paper didn’t make the world safer.  Instead, it allowed North Korea the money and time to develop the weapons.

When has appeasement ever worked?

Obama, Hillary, and Kerry, surrounded by experts (lifers), came up with the “smart” foreign policy of leading from behind, and we got policies that:

  • Had us pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS and Iran to build up their power in the region.
  • Had us pull out of our commitment to put missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic which certainly pleased Putin.
  • Had a gun-running operation to Mexico where we lost track of the guns. 
  • Had us watching North Korea as it expanded its weaponry – but we kept telling them to stop.  (It is a good thing we didn’t use rough language on Rocket Man, because then he would have really gotten dangerous.)
  • Had us watch as Putin invaded Crimea and Ukraine, and our smart policy-makers told him to stop, but we wouldn’t even give Ukraine defensive weapons, even though we are obligated to defend that nation.
  • Had our president promise Putin we would be more flexible if he was re-elected.
  • Had us leave our diplomats vulnerable to attack in Libya, and then pretended a video was responsible in order to protect the political power of Obama.
  • Had us allowing NATO countries to pay less than their treaty obligations.
  • Had us kowtowing to the U.N.
  • Had us negotiate secretly with Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world; give them hundreds of billions of dollars; and even pay them ransom.  They lied throughout the process and then signed a deal with the devil to pretend the world was now safer.  Now we have Iran, which continues to sponsor terrorism and continues to threaten death to America with more money, which continues to build more weapons.  The Iranians are also helping Assad in Syria.  Thank goodness for the “experts” Obama surrounded himself with to get this “smart” policy!
  • Had the U.S allowing  the terrorist group Hezb’allah to have a drug-running operation to appease the tyrants in Iran.
  • Had Obama’s wife respond with a “Bring Back Our Girls” hashtag when 276 girls were kidnapped in Nigeria by terrorists.
  • Had us saying climate change is more dangerous than terrorism.  Some even told us the crisis caused by Syrian and other refugees escaping was because of a potential couple-of-degrees rise in temperature rather than because tyrants were killing and raping them.
  • Had the president draw a red line in Syria over chemical weapons use and, when Syria used chemical weapons, essentially did nothing.  He and Kerry did pretend Assad got rid of all his chemical weapons.
  • Had us sign the Paris Climate Accord, which would have cost trillions and slowed down the U.S. and world economies to pretend that government officials could adjust temperatures downward by one degree forever.  Does that sound smart or true?
  • Had the State Department spending taxpayer money to interfere in Israel’s election.  Why didn’t the media do an investigation of that if collusion in elections is so dangerous?  Where was Adam Schiff?
  • Had the president and agencies under his control refusing to enforce immigration laws Congress passed in violation of their oath of office and the Constitution.
  • Had a purported 17 out of 17 intelligence agencies blame Russians for the DNC computer hack, without ever examining the computer.  Is it smart to claim that you can analyze a computer based on a piece of paper from someone else?

Not once do I remember the media caring about any of the above disastrous and dangerous policies.  But now I am supposed to believe that things are more dangerous because Trump doesn’t know what he is doing?

There were 15,708 terrorism deaths in 2008, the year before Obama, and 25,621 in 2016, the last year of his presidency.

When Bush was in office, George Clooney and the media complained a lot about inaction in the Congo and Darfur, so why did the concern all of a sudden disappear when Obama took office?

Why is it dangerous to meet Kim Jong-un but it was fine to make deals from the tyrants from Iran, Syria, and Cuba?  Didn’t it elevate their status?

The way the media are treating Trump is the way they treated Reagan.

The media and other Democrats said Reagan was going to cause World War III because of his talk and actions.  Instead, he ended the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall.  Obama had Iran collapsing with sanctions, and instead of holding the mullahs down, he lifted them up.  Trump has North Korea at least temporarily stopping its testing of nuclear weapons since November.

When Trump talks to world leaders, he tells them he always considers the American people first and tells them they should always consider their people first.  That sounds extremely smart and balanced to me.

Obama, on the other hand, wanted America to lead from behind, one of the stupidest statements ever.  Leading from behind is following, not leading at all, and that is what he did his entire eight years.

Which of the above policies is smart, and which ones are stupid?  Why do the media and other Democrats continue to get it backward, and why are people called experts when they continue to screw up so much?

Why are people with foreign policy experience on North Korea and elsewhere referred to as “experts” when they so often fail to achieve their goals?  The media, Democrats, and supposed experts on North Korea are wringing their hands about President Trump’s planned meeting with the North Korean dictator.

They say that Trump doesn’t know what he is doing and that people at the State Department that have expertise are gone.

I always have trouble with all the people who are called experts because they have had so little success at what they supposedly are expert about.

For the last 25 years, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have been toyed with by North Korea while the North Koreans continually built up their nuclear weapons, and the media go to the very people who let this happen for analysis on Trump.

In October 1994, via the New York Times:

President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the country’s hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program.


“This agreement will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective – an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula,” Mr. Clinton said this afternoon, after his top foreign policy advisers described the details of an enormously complex agreement struck with North Korea late Monday.


“This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world,” Mr. Clinton said in a brief appearance in the White House press room this afternoon. “It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.” 

Somehow, this piece of paper didn’t make the world safer.  Instead, it allowed North Korea the money and time to develop the weapons.

When has appeasement ever worked?

Obama, Hillary, and Kerry, surrounded by experts (lifers), came up with the “smart” foreign policy of leading from behind, and we got policies that:

  • Had us pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS and Iran to build up their power in the region.
  • Had us pull out of our commitment to put missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic which certainly pleased Putin.
  • Had a gun-running operation to Mexico where we lost track of the guns. 
  • Had us watching North Korea as it expanded its weaponry – but we kept telling them to stop.  (It is a good thing we didn’t use rough language on Rocket Man, because then he would have really gotten dangerous.)
  • Had us watch as Putin invaded Crimea and Ukraine, and our smart policy-makers told him to stop, but we wouldn’t even give Ukraine defensive weapons, even though we are obligated to defend that nation.
  • Had our president promise Putin we would be more flexible if he was re-elected.
  • Had us leave our diplomats vulnerable to attack in Libya, and then pretended a video was responsible in order to protect the political power of Obama.
  • Had us allowing NATO countries to pay less than their treaty obligations.
  • Had us kowtowing to the U.N.
  • Had us negotiate secretly with Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world; give them hundreds of billions of dollars; and even pay them ransom.  They lied throughout the process and then signed a deal with the devil to pretend the world was now safer.  Now we have Iran, which continues to sponsor terrorism and continues to threaten death to America with more money, which continues to build more weapons.  The Iranians are also helping Assad in Syria.  Thank goodness for the “experts” Obama surrounded himself with to get this “smart” policy!
  • Had the U.S allowing  the terrorist group Hezb’allah to have a drug-running operation to appease the tyrants in Iran.
  • Had Obama’s wife respond with a “Bring Back Our Girls” hashtag when 276 girls were kidnapped in Nigeria by terrorists.
  • Had us saying climate change is more dangerous than terrorism.  Some even told us the crisis caused by Syrian and other refugees escaping was because of a potential couple-of-degrees rise in temperature rather than because tyrants were killing and raping them.
  • Had the president draw a red line in Syria over chemical weapons use and, when Syria used chemical weapons, essentially did nothing.  He and Kerry did pretend Assad got rid of all his chemical weapons.
  • Had us sign the Paris Climate Accord, which would have cost trillions and slowed down the U.S. and world economies to pretend that government officials could adjust temperatures downward by one degree forever.  Does that sound smart or true?
  • Had the State Department spending taxpayer money to interfere in Israel’s election.  Why didn’t the media do an investigation of that if collusion in elections is so dangerous?  Where was Adam Schiff?
  • Had the president and agencies under his control refusing to enforce immigration laws Congress passed in violation of their oath of office and the Constitution.
  • Had a purported 17 out of 17 intelligence agencies blame Russians for the DNC computer hack, without ever examining the computer.  Is it smart to claim that you can analyze a computer based on a piece of paper from someone else?

Not once do I remember the media caring about any of the above disastrous and dangerous policies.  But now I am supposed to believe that things are more dangerous because Trump doesn’t know what he is doing?

There were 15,708 terrorism deaths in 2008, the year before Obama, and 25,621 in 2016, the last year of his presidency.

When Bush was in office, George Clooney and the media complained a lot about inaction in the Congo and Darfur, so why did the concern all of a sudden disappear when Obama took office?

Why is it dangerous to meet Kim Jong-un but it was fine to make deals from the tyrants from Iran, Syria, and Cuba?  Didn’t it elevate their status?

The way the media are treating Trump is the way they treated Reagan.

The media and other Democrats said Reagan was going to cause World War III because of his talk and actions.  Instead, he ended the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall.  Obama had Iran collapsing with sanctions, and instead of holding the mullahs down, he lifted them up.  Trump has North Korea at least temporarily stopping its testing of nuclear weapons since November.

When Trump talks to world leaders, he tells them he always considers the American people first and tells them they should always consider their people first.  That sounds extremely smart and balanced to me.

Obama, on the other hand, wanted America to lead from behind, one of the stupidest statements ever.  Leading from behind is following, not leading at all, and that is what he did his entire eight years.

Which of the above policies is smart, and which ones are stupid?  Why do the media and other Democrats continue to get it backward, and why are people called experts when they continue to screw up so much?



Source link

Still Looking for Tax Disaster, Democrats Are in for a Surprise


The Democrats and their media allies did everything they could to defeat Trump’s tax cuts and reforms.  They continually lied to the public in a bid to make them believe that less than half of the taxpayers would actually get cuts and that the bill was meant to benefit only big, rich corporations.  Therefore, we got all sorts of articles, obviously fed to journalists by left-wing think-tanks and Democratic politicos, claiming that the tax cuts aren’t good or aren’t performing as promised. 

So, two weeks into a ten-year program, we are now hearing whining that all the promises of the broad-based reform haven’t been fulfilled yet.  (Eight years into Obamacare with nothing close to what was promised hasn’t caught their attention – they’re still telling us how good it is.)

It’s a stupid thing for Democrats to keep holding onto this mythology, because they are about to be swamped by events.

But holding onto the narrative they are.  Here’s one example of a New York Times article whose purpose is to deride bonuses and tax cuts, claiming that the prime beneficiary is solely the greedy rich, particularly the corporations.  It’s a narrative that’s pretty close to what House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has been saying, in her claims that corporations are only handing out crumbs and pretty much keeping all the tax gains for themselves.  The article tries to portray corporations as evil and greedy and keeping too much for themselves, while the bonuses are just dog biscuits to the public.  Naturally, the government is never greedy when Democrats want to take so much money and power for themselves – just corporations.

Somehow, Democrats don’t seem to care that over half Americans in surveys don’t have so much as a small savings nest egg to pay for emergencies, so my guess is that the millions of these same Americans who have gotten bonuses along with the many who have gotten raises (think of how many people Walmart alone employs) are happy that they have gotten these bonuses after eight years of Obama and essentially flat wages.  A bonus of $1,000 is certainly better than zero, which is what they would have gotten had the Democrats gotten their way. 

I am actually amazed at how fast the money from the tax cuts is trickling through.  We’re talking about millions in bonuses and raises in less than two weeks into a ten-year plan, and these are only the ones that have been announced.

Here’s another article complaining about the tax cuts.  From the Associated Press, we read: “Less than meets the eye, bonuses are not raises.”  (Isn’t it great that they use the word “less” in the headline?)

The bonuses are one-time payouts, not the permanent pay raises that Trump and congressional Republicans have said will eventually result from the corporate tax cuts.  Over time, bonuses are far less valuable to employees than wage increases.


So far, most companies haven’t said whether any permanent pay increases are in the works.  Economists caution that the corporate income tax cut’s effect on average pay, if any, might not become apparent for several years.


“As a worker, it’s great to get a one-off bonus, but that doesn’t guarantee anything for the next year,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont.  “You’d rather have the raise, because next year you’re working off the higher base.”


“The bulk of the corporate tax cuts should accrue to people who hold stock in companies,” said Ethan Harris, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.  “Workers benefit much more from a cut in taxes on ordinary income.  In other words, better to get a direct cut than a spillover from cuts to others.”


In some cases, the companies are sharing only a sliver of their tax-cut windfalls.  Bank of America’s bonuses will cost it roughly $145 million – only about 4 percent of the $3.5 billion that Goldman Sachs estimates Bank of America will receive from the tax cut.

I believe that it is great for the economy that close to 100% of Americans got a cut in their actual tax rates, but I believe that the even bigger benefit to the economy is in the large permanent tax cuts to corporations and other businesses.  I am thinking of small businesses and their owners, who create the jobs.  Under the previous tax law, corporations were parking trillions of dollars of profits overseas while politicians were pretending they would eventually get 35% of that money because of double-taxation.  It didn’t pan out as they had planned, because Democrats just don’t get human nature, including how humans respond to incentives.  Now, with the new tax regime, companies will bring a significant amount of that missing money back because of new rates up to 15.5%.  As a result, the government will now get hundreds of billions of actual dollars instead of pretending it will eventually get the overseas cash in the end, which in reality has yielded zero. 

With the lower rates and the money brought back, businesses will now spend, invest, raise dividends, buy back stock, or save the money.  All of these uses are more efficient and effective in making the economy grow than the government taking a larger share and redistributing some.  The multiplier effect will be astonishing and, as is always the case, much greater than economists are predicting.  Minorities and the young will certainly have more opportunities to move up the economic ladder.

After that, we will see companies choosing to stay in the U.S., with many more coming to the U.S. because of the new 21% corporate rate, which is finally competitive by global standards, with the added benefit of no threat of double-taxation.  In addition, there will be fewer regulations, which will cause expansion and more startups in the U.S.  The business climate is now good compared to when government was seeking to step on the throat of businesses and its leaders continually badmouthed them. 

It is a shame that the Democrats wouldn’t go along with the cuts and reform, which is why the individual rates can’t be permanent, but at least the corporate rates are permanent.  Corporations need permanent rates to be competitive and make long-term decisions. 

Something I wish everyone would learn is that when stock prices go up, they help 100% of us, whether we directly have investments or not.  This is because all of us have a stake in how much government pension funds earn on their investments.  This generation and future generations will not be taxed so much if the public pensions and entitlements such as Social Security earn more and the government has more to spend on human needs.  Capitalism is what built this country, not government. 

We will see the media continually, on behalf of Democrats, diminish the effects of tax reform and cuts on economic growth, because, after all, there is always an election coming up.  People and businesses doing well do not help the Democrats win.  That is the goal: power for the Democrats instead of the people. 

I can’t think of any other government program where the results of such a revolutionary reform have been challenged within two weeks of inception.  Democrats are in for a surprise.

Jack Hellner is a certified public accountant who works on individual and corporate taxes.

The Democrats and their media allies did everything they could to defeat Trump’s tax cuts and reforms.  They continually lied to the public in a bid to make them believe that less than half of the taxpayers would actually get cuts and that the bill was meant to benefit only big, rich corporations.  Therefore, we got all sorts of articles, obviously fed to journalists by left-wing think-tanks and Democratic politicos, claiming that the tax cuts aren’t good or aren’t performing as promised. 

So, two weeks into a ten-year program, we are now hearing whining that all the promises of the broad-based reform haven’t been fulfilled yet.  (Eight years into Obamacare with nothing close to what was promised hasn’t caught their attention – they’re still telling us how good it is.)

It’s a stupid thing for Democrats to keep holding onto this mythology, because they are about to be swamped by events.

But holding onto the narrative they are.  Here’s one example of a New York Times article whose purpose is to deride bonuses and tax cuts, claiming that the prime beneficiary is solely the greedy rich, particularly the corporations.  It’s a narrative that’s pretty close to what House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has been saying, in her claims that corporations are only handing out crumbs and pretty much keeping all the tax gains for themselves.  The article tries to portray corporations as evil and greedy and keeping too much for themselves, while the bonuses are just dog biscuits to the public.  Naturally, the government is never greedy when Democrats want to take so much money and power for themselves – just corporations.

Somehow, Democrats don’t seem to care that over half Americans in surveys don’t have so much as a small savings nest egg to pay for emergencies, so my guess is that the millions of these same Americans who have gotten bonuses along with the many who have gotten raises (think of how many people Walmart alone employs) are happy that they have gotten these bonuses after eight years of Obama and essentially flat wages.  A bonus of $1,000 is certainly better than zero, which is what they would have gotten had the Democrats gotten their way. 

I am actually amazed at how fast the money from the tax cuts is trickling through.  We’re talking about millions in bonuses and raises in less than two weeks into a ten-year plan, and these are only the ones that have been announced.

Here’s another article complaining about the tax cuts.  From the Associated Press, we read: “Less than meets the eye, bonuses are not raises.”  (Isn’t it great that they use the word “less” in the headline?)

The bonuses are one-time payouts, not the permanent pay raises that Trump and congressional Republicans have said will eventually result from the corporate tax cuts.  Over time, bonuses are far less valuable to employees than wage increases.


So far, most companies haven’t said whether any permanent pay increases are in the works.  Economists caution that the corporate income tax cut’s effect on average pay, if any, might not become apparent for several years.


“As a worker, it’s great to get a one-off bonus, but that doesn’t guarantee anything for the next year,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont.  “You’d rather have the raise, because next year you’re working off the higher base.”


“The bulk of the corporate tax cuts should accrue to people who hold stock in companies,” said Ethan Harris, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.  “Workers benefit much more from a cut in taxes on ordinary income.  In other words, better to get a direct cut than a spillover from cuts to others.”


In some cases, the companies are sharing only a sliver of their tax-cut windfalls.  Bank of America’s bonuses will cost it roughly $145 million – only about 4 percent of the $3.5 billion that Goldman Sachs estimates Bank of America will receive from the tax cut.

I believe that it is great for the economy that close to 100% of Americans got a cut in their actual tax rates, but I believe that the even bigger benefit to the economy is in the large permanent tax cuts to corporations and other businesses.  I am thinking of small businesses and their owners, who create the jobs.  Under the previous tax law, corporations were parking trillions of dollars of profits overseas while politicians were pretending they would eventually get 35% of that money because of double-taxation.  It didn’t pan out as they had planned, because Democrats just don’t get human nature, including how humans respond to incentives.  Now, with the new tax regime, companies will bring a significant amount of that missing money back because of new rates up to 15.5%.  As a result, the government will now get hundreds of billions of actual dollars instead of pretending it will eventually get the overseas cash in the end, which in reality has yielded zero. 

With the lower rates and the money brought back, businesses will now spend, invest, raise dividends, buy back stock, or save the money.  All of these uses are more efficient and effective in making the economy grow than the government taking a larger share and redistributing some.  The multiplier effect will be astonishing and, as is always the case, much greater than economists are predicting.  Minorities and the young will certainly have more opportunities to move up the economic ladder.

After that, we will see companies choosing to stay in the U.S., with many more coming to the U.S. because of the new 21% corporate rate, which is finally competitive by global standards, with the added benefit of no threat of double-taxation.  In addition, there will be fewer regulations, which will cause expansion and more startups in the U.S.  The business climate is now good compared to when government was seeking to step on the throat of businesses and its leaders continually badmouthed them. 

It is a shame that the Democrats wouldn’t go along with the cuts and reform, which is why the individual rates can’t be permanent, but at least the corporate rates are permanent.  Corporations need permanent rates to be competitive and make long-term decisions. 

Something I wish everyone would learn is that when stock prices go up, they help 100% of us, whether we directly have investments or not.  This is because all of us have a stake in how much government pension funds earn on their investments.  This generation and future generations will not be taxed so much if the public pensions and entitlements such as Social Security earn more and the government has more to spend on human needs.  Capitalism is what built this country, not government. 

We will see the media continually, on behalf of Democrats, diminish the effects of tax reform and cuts on economic growth, because, after all, there is always an election coming up.  People and businesses doing well do not help the Democrats win.  That is the goal: power for the Democrats instead of the people. 

I can’t think of any other government program where the results of such a revolutionary reform have been challenged within two weeks of inception.  Democrats are in for a surprise.

Jack Hellner is a certified public accountant who works on individual and corporate taxes.



Source link

It would be cheaper and more efficient if the MSM just reprinted old material about Reagan


If you want to see how things haven’t changed in the last three and a half decades, just read what the New York Times wrote about President Ronald Reagan.  They are essentially pulling the same story out to write about President Donald Trump.

From the beginning of his [p]residency, Mr. Reagan and his aides have understood and exploited what they acknowledge to be the built[] in tendency of television to emphasize appearances and impressions more than information. 


Central to the [p]resident’s overall strategy has been his unusual ability to deal with television and print reporters on his own terms – to decide when, where[,] and how he will engage them.  In short, the art of controlled access.


Under that broad definition, even [p]residents who have disliked and distrusted the press have met with reporters on a fairly regular basis and given spirited, detailed answers to their questions. 


Mr. Reagan has been an exception.  During his [a]dministration, he has tended to operate in a kind of cocoon, sheltered from the press.  Compared with his predecessors, he has held few formal news conferences.  In public appearances, he strictly limits opportunities for questions. 

The media and Democrats worried that Reagan would start World War III, but he ended the Cold War. His famous bombing comment – “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever.  We begin bombing in five minutes.” – is analogous to Trump’s instantly famous “bigger button” tweet. 

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2018

The following comments about President Reagan are enlightening because they are so similar to what is said about Trump today.  Maybe journalists could just substitute “Trump” for “Reagan” on old material using Microsoft Word and head to the bar.  It would be a lot easier than saying the same things in different ways every day. 

“Prepare yourself for some bad news: Ronald Reagan’s library just burned down.  Both books were destroyed.  But the real horror: He hadn’t finished coloring either one of them.” 

–Gore Vidal 

“For too long in this society, we have celebrated unrestrained individualism over common community.  For too long as a nation, we have been lulled by the anthem of self-interest.  For a decade, led by Ronald Reagan, self-aggrandizement has been the full-throated cry of this society: ‘I’ve got mine, so why don’t you get yours’ and ‘What’s in it for me?'” 

–Joe Biden 

“He’s cutting the heart out of the American dream to own a home and have a good job … and still he’s popular[.]” 

–Chris Matthews, Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked 

“We cannot build a vital economy by delivering pizzas to one another.” 

–Jim Wright 

“In Reagan’s world, we have to be geared up to fight a foe that could barely feed its own people.  And meanwhile, our real troubles have to be mocked.  Global warming.  Nuclear proliferation.  Corrupt governments supported by my tax dollars and everyone’s complacency.” 

–Robert Reed, Clarkesworld Magazine, Issue 108 

“Despite an unimpressive first term in office, which featured huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and tax increases for everyone else, Reagan was re[-]elected in 1984 in an unprecedented landslide, winning forty-nine of the fifty states against hapless Democrat Walter Mondale.  While he has become the patron saint of all Republicans, especially those who revel in wearing the “conservative” mantle, Reagan’s record is far, far removed from his rhetoric.  Despite this, the collective delusion of his supporters is best exemplified by noted Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan’s claims, regarding his 1980 campaign promises, that they were “[d]one, done, done, done, done, done[,] and done.  Every bit of it.” 

–Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Exposé of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics 

(Quotations courtesy of GoodReads.) 

Thank goodness we have Trump, definitely not an autocrat or dictator, who knows we should enforce laws and is trying to reduce the power of an ever powerful government and give the purse and power back to the people where it belongs.  Thank goodness we have Trump instead of Hillary, who would have continued to amass more money and power for the greedy government.

If you want to see how things haven’t changed in the last three and a half decades, just read what the New York Times wrote about President Ronald Reagan.  They are essentially pulling the same story out to write about President Donald Trump.

From the beginning of his [p]residency, Mr. Reagan and his aides have understood and exploited what they acknowledge to be the built[] in tendency of television to emphasize appearances and impressions more than information. 


Central to the [p]resident’s overall strategy has been his unusual ability to deal with television and print reporters on his own terms – to decide when, where[,] and how he will engage them.  In short, the art of controlled access.


Under that broad definition, even [p]residents who have disliked and distrusted the press have met with reporters on a fairly regular basis and given spirited, detailed answers to their questions. 


Mr. Reagan has been an exception.  During his [a]dministration, he has tended to operate in a kind of cocoon, sheltered from the press.  Compared with his predecessors, he has held few formal news conferences.  In public appearances, he strictly limits opportunities for questions. 

The media and Democrats worried that Reagan would start World War III, but he ended the Cold War. His famous bombing comment – “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever.  We begin bombing in five minutes.” – is analogous to Trump’s instantly famous “bigger button” tweet. 

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2018

The following comments about President Reagan are enlightening because they are so similar to what is said about Trump today.  Maybe journalists could just substitute “Trump” for “Reagan” on old material using Microsoft Word and head to the bar.  It would be a lot easier than saying the same things in different ways every day. 

“Prepare yourself for some bad news: Ronald Reagan’s library just burned down.  Both books were destroyed.  But the real horror: He hadn’t finished coloring either one of them.” 

–Gore Vidal 

“For too long in this society, we have celebrated unrestrained individualism over common community.  For too long as a nation, we have been lulled by the anthem of self-interest.  For a decade, led by Ronald Reagan, self-aggrandizement has been the full-throated cry of this society: ‘I’ve got mine, so why don’t you get yours’ and ‘What’s in it for me?'” 

–Joe Biden 

“He’s cutting the heart out of the American dream to own a home and have a good job … and still he’s popular[.]” 

–Chris Matthews, Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked 

“We cannot build a vital economy by delivering pizzas to one another.” 

–Jim Wright 

“In Reagan’s world, we have to be geared up to fight a foe that could barely feed its own people.  And meanwhile, our real troubles have to be mocked.  Global warming.  Nuclear proliferation.  Corrupt governments supported by my tax dollars and everyone’s complacency.” 

–Robert Reed, Clarkesworld Magazine, Issue 108 

“Despite an unimpressive first term in office, which featured huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and tax increases for everyone else, Reagan was re[-]elected in 1984 in an unprecedented landslide, winning forty-nine of the fifty states against hapless Democrat Walter Mondale.  While he has become the patron saint of all Republicans, especially those who revel in wearing the “conservative” mantle, Reagan’s record is far, far removed from his rhetoric.  Despite this, the collective delusion of his supporters is best exemplified by noted Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan’s claims, regarding his 1980 campaign promises, that they were “[d]one, done, done, done, done, done[,] and done.  Every bit of it.” 

–Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Exposé of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics 

(Quotations courtesy of GoodReads.) 

Thank goodness we have Trump, definitely not an autocrat or dictator, who knows we should enforce laws and is trying to reduce the power of an ever powerful government and give the purse and power back to the people where it belongs.  Thank goodness we have Trump instead of Hillary, who would have continued to amass more money and power for the greedy government.



Source link

Trump's First Year vs. Obama's Eight Years


Here are President Obama’s main accomplishments over eight years:

–Obamacare: This 2,000-plus page law with more than 10,000 pages of regulations and over 20 new taxes has not increased life expectancy but has taken away freedom of choice on what type of insurance everyone has to buy with greatly increased costs and deductibles.

–The Iran Deal: This took the country which is a top sponsor of terrorism and lifted its regime up with more power and money. It did not make the world or the U.S safer and stronger.

–The Paris Climate Accord: This transferred a massive amount of money and power from the U.S. private sector to its government and in turn transferred money from the U.S. to other countries. The policy is based on the belief that climate change/global warming exists and is the greatest threat to the world. So does Iran sponsor terrorists because of climate change? Does North Korea build nuclear weapons because of climate change? Does Russia take over more territory because of climate change? Do refugees from Syria and other countries escape because of climate change? CO2 is a clear, innocuous, non-polluting gas that allows plants to thrive and the billions of people to be fed. The reason Obama and other people want to regulate it is to have government control. But this accord certainly did not have its goal to make the U.S. stronger.

—- Regulatory avalanche: Obama added tens of thousands of regulations and burdens to businesses and individuals as fast as he could. This certainly helped empower and enrich the D.C. suburbs but not the rest of us.

I honestly can’t think of any policies that Obama passed or implemented that had the effect to help the U.S. economy and the people as a whole. The result of Obama’s high tax, high spending, high regulations was the slowest economic recovery in eight years and $10 Trillion more in debt along with more people being dependent on government.

Here are just some of Trump’s accomplishments in his first year:

—-He has been reducing regulations as fast as he can to free up the private sector. He has opened pipelines and drilling. Where Obama was trying to bankrupt coal companies and harm fossil fuel companies, he is building them up.

—He scrapped the burdensome Paris Accord.

—-He dumped the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement. I have not seen any country that has reduced their trade or refused to trade with the U.S as a result. Trump correctly believes that we should negotiate in smaller groups so they can be easier to monitor and fix.

—-He knocked the foundation out of Obamacare. While Trump has not been able to get rid of Obamacare, he has been whittling away. The tax bill gets rid of the individual mandate which may eventually kill it. Critics say getting rid of the mandate will increase costs and I would ask them to explain why costs went up so much with the individual mandate in effect.

—-The tax bill itself: Lowering rates for everyone and doubling the standard deduction means that around 90% will have a very simple return: This reduces the need for as many IRS auditors and bureaucrats along with reducing the need for as many tax preparers.

Since I am a tax professional, I will go into a bit more detail on the obvious benefits:

  • Lowering the tax rate on corporations and moving to the territorial tax system is tremendous. It makes the U.S. more competitive and takes away the impetus for tax inversions which moves headquarters to other countries. These provisions reduce the need for IRS auditors and bureaucrats along with tax accountants and lawyers who so often have been used to beat the high taxes.
  • Upping the exemption for estates. This reduces the need for as many IRS auditors and bureaucrats along with reducing the demand for tax accountants and lawyers who were used to get the wealthy out of paying the confiscatory rates that somehow the government believes it is entitled to.
  • While the tax bill isn’t perfect it is a heck of a good start. Once the economy picks up and the tax cuts generate more for the government, not the less predicted, as other previous cuts have done they can attack more of the still too cumbersome tax code.

Everything I have seen Trump do in his first year indicates his desire to help everyone who is a citizen of the U.S. I see no preference based on race, gender identity or class. He is rapidly trying to transfer the power and money from the government back to the people where it belongs. The government, after all is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.

What a great start to what will probably be an eight-year presidency. I look forward to more freedom and prosperity. Maybe someday a few Democrats will stop obstructing and recognize that capitalism is the system that has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and increasing prosperity.

Now I look forward to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats campaigning throughout the U.S saying the sky is falling and Armageddon is upon us because heaven forbid that individuals and business are allowed to keep more of the money they earn to spend as they like instead of having the government confiscate it.

It is a glorious day in America. The U.S. and the world are stronger and safer when the U.S economy and the private sector are thriving with more freedom and fewer people are dependent on government.

On a day like this I think of one of my favorite songs. Louis Armstrong’s: “What a Wonderful World.”

Here are President Obama’s main accomplishments over eight years:

–Obamacare: This 2,000-plus page law with more than 10,000 pages of regulations and over 20 new taxes has not increased life expectancy but has taken away freedom of choice on what type of insurance everyone has to buy with greatly increased costs and deductibles.

–The Iran Deal: This took the country which is a top sponsor of terrorism and lifted its regime up with more power and money. It did not make the world or the U.S safer and stronger.

–The Paris Climate Accord: This transferred a massive amount of money and power from the U.S. private sector to its government and in turn transferred money from the U.S. to other countries. The policy is based on the belief that climate change/global warming exists and is the greatest threat to the world. So does Iran sponsor terrorists because of climate change? Does North Korea build nuclear weapons because of climate change? Does Russia take over more territory because of climate change? Do refugees from Syria and other countries escape because of climate change? CO2 is a clear, innocuous, non-polluting gas that allows plants to thrive and the billions of people to be fed. The reason Obama and other people want to regulate it is to have government control. But this accord certainly did not have its goal to make the U.S. stronger.

—- Regulatory avalanche: Obama added tens of thousands of regulations and burdens to businesses and individuals as fast as he could. This certainly helped empower and enrich the D.C. suburbs but not the rest of us.

I honestly can’t think of any policies that Obama passed or implemented that had the effect to help the U.S. economy and the people as a whole. The result of Obama’s high tax, high spending, high regulations was the slowest economic recovery in eight years and $10 Trillion more in debt along with more people being dependent on government.

Here are just some of Trump’s accomplishments in his first year:

—-He has been reducing regulations as fast as he can to free up the private sector. He has opened pipelines and drilling. Where Obama was trying to bankrupt coal companies and harm fossil fuel companies, he is building them up.

—He scrapped the burdensome Paris Accord.

—-He dumped the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement. I have not seen any country that has reduced their trade or refused to trade with the U.S as a result. Trump correctly believes that we should negotiate in smaller groups so they can be easier to monitor and fix.

—-He knocked the foundation out of Obamacare. While Trump has not been able to get rid of Obamacare, he has been whittling away. The tax bill gets rid of the individual mandate which may eventually kill it. Critics say getting rid of the mandate will increase costs and I would ask them to explain why costs went up so much with the individual mandate in effect.

—-The tax bill itself: Lowering rates for everyone and doubling the standard deduction means that around 90% will have a very simple return: This reduces the need for as many IRS auditors and bureaucrats along with reducing the need for as many tax preparers.

Since I am a tax professional, I will go into a bit more detail on the obvious benefits:

  • Lowering the tax rate on corporations and moving to the territorial tax system is tremendous. It makes the U.S. more competitive and takes away the impetus for tax inversions which moves headquarters to other countries. These provisions reduce the need for IRS auditors and bureaucrats along with tax accountants and lawyers who so often have been used to beat the high taxes.
  • Upping the exemption for estates. This reduces the need for as many IRS auditors and bureaucrats along with reducing the demand for tax accountants and lawyers who were used to get the wealthy out of paying the confiscatory rates that somehow the government believes it is entitled to.
  • While the tax bill isn’t perfect it is a heck of a good start. Once the economy picks up and the tax cuts generate more for the government, not the less predicted, as other previous cuts have done they can attack more of the still too cumbersome tax code.

Everything I have seen Trump do in his first year indicates his desire to help everyone who is a citizen of the U.S. I see no preference based on race, gender identity or class. He is rapidly trying to transfer the power and money from the government back to the people where it belongs. The government, after all is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.

What a great start to what will probably be an eight-year presidency. I look forward to more freedom and prosperity. Maybe someday a few Democrats will stop obstructing and recognize that capitalism is the system that has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and increasing prosperity.

Now I look forward to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats campaigning throughout the U.S saying the sky is falling and Armageddon is upon us because heaven forbid that individuals and business are allowed to keep more of the money they earn to spend as they like instead of having the government confiscate it.

It is a glorious day in America. The U.S. and the world are stronger and safer when the U.S economy and the private sector are thriving with more freedom and fewer people are dependent on government.

On a day like this I think of one of my favorite songs. Louis Armstrong’s: “What a Wonderful World.”



Source link

Students idiots on free speech? Look to their professors and politicians


The Washington Post reports that a ‘chilling new study’ shows that large numbers of college students are hostile to free speech. They believe that shouting down speakers they don’t like and committing violence against them is acceptable. They fail to recognize that ‘hate speech’ is protected by the First Amendment. According to columnist Catherine Rampell:

A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”


That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor.

 

I believe the professors are the ones teaching the students to be against free speech. Look how many share the views of the student body with their ‘I need some muscle over here’ kind of talk in front of the students. Melissa Click of the University of Missouri got fired after public exposure of that remark, but the fact remains, she would have kept on teaching this sort of thinking had she not been caught on camera. And she is not alone. The latest practitioner of incitement to violence is one Professor Stephen Isaacson of John Jay College, who said he was privileged to teach ‘future dead cops.’

 

I chalk it up to the political atmosphere. If professors are bad on free speech, so is the political class that succors them.

 

President Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and her fellow Democrat state attorneys general threatened legal action against those who disagreed with the government on climate change. Now that is dangerous.

 

The IRS blocked political opponents of the president through tax regulations in order to infringe on their free speech. Our government stifled the groups’ ability to raise money and spread their message before the elections by failing to approve their tax-free status. That is not only extremely dangerous, it is illegal.

 

The article about the state of things, how the assault on free speech has filtered down from the top is extremely useful. The First Amendment is extremely important for our freedom and future. I am glad the press, even on the leftside, in this Washington Post column, recognize that. It is a shame they didn’t come down hard on Obama when he and his agencies stifled diverse thought.


 

The Washington Post reports that a ‘chilling new study’ shows that large numbers of college students are hostile to free speech. They believe that shouting down speakers they don’t like and committing violence against them is acceptable. They fail to recognize that ‘hate speech’ is protected by the First Amendment. According to columnist Catherine Rampell:

A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”


That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor.

 

I believe the professors are the ones teaching the students to be against free speech. Look how many share the views of the student body with their ‘I need some muscle over here’ kind of talk in front of the students. Melissa Click of the University of Missouri got fired after public exposure of that remark, but the fact remains, she would have kept on teaching this sort of thinking had she not been caught on camera. And she is not alone. The latest practitioner of incitement to violence is one Professor Stephen Isaacson of John Jay College, who said he was privileged to teach ‘future dead cops.’

 

I chalk it up to the political atmosphere. If professors are bad on free speech, so is the political class that succors them.

 

President Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and her fellow Democrat state attorneys general threatened legal action against those who disagreed with the government on climate change. Now that is dangerous.

 

The IRS blocked political opponents of the president through tax regulations in order to infringe on their free speech. Our government stifled the groups’ ability to raise money and spread their message before the elections by failing to approve their tax-free status. That is not only extremely dangerous, it is illegal.

 

The article about the state of things, how the assault on free speech has filtered down from the top is extremely useful. The First Amendment is extremely important for our freedom and future. I am glad the press, even on the leftside, in this Washington Post column, recognize that. It is a shame they didn’t come down hard on Obama when he and his agencies stifled diverse thought.


 



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Can the media read a CBO balance sheet? Not by their headlines


The headline should have been “Medicaid budget increased by $25 billion for 2018.” In the attached budget document on page 17, it shows Medicaid at $403 billion for 2018 vs. $378 billion in 2017.

For anyone who can read a balance sheet, (and plenty of journalism majors cannot), the $880 billion “cut” that was plastered all over the news comes from the previous administration’s ten-year projections vs. the Trump administration’s ten-year projections. But the only actual number is the $25 billion increase. I bet if the American people were told the actual number, it would be tough to protest — or generate such an exciting headline for the left. The obvious reason for the headline is to push an agenda. One of the main reasons we are broke is because the government not only does not cut much, but a cut in a projected increase is always portrayed as a disaster. The media is a major culprit in pushing this agenda.

Maybe the media could point out that all of Obama’s budgets were dead on arrival and that there were years during the Obama administration when the Democrat-led Senate didn’t pass a budget at all. Sort of like Illinois.

On May 25, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who sits on the intelligence committee, was asked about Obama’s illegal spying, where the Obama Administration was cited for continually violating the law since 2011 and she said she hadn’t been briefed on the subject yet. Yet somehow, Pelosi was able to critique Trump’s budget within a few days of its issuance. My guess is she read as much of the budget as she did the ObamaCare bill before she passed it.

On May 25, headlines were splashed all over the place following a Congressional Budget Office report claiming that the replacement for Obamacare would cause 23 million people to lose health care coverage by 2026. For one thing, th CBO is notoriously inaccurate in its projections. Among other things, it’s on record as claiming ObamaCare would be a runaway success with high enrollment numbers and lowered costs. It stands to reason that if there is no law forcing people to buy ObamaCare, some will obviously choose not to buy it, given its limited choices and high price tag. Why does the media post a headline implying that the number is accurate instead of a wild guess at best? Why doesn’t the media tell people how far off the ObamaCare projections have been?

Let’s look at the balance sheet specifics: In 2010, CBO predicted that by 2016 twenty three million would be covered by ObamaCare exchanges. The actual number was 10.6 million. In 2010 CBO predicted that the cost of ObamaCare would be $948 billion in its first ten years. By 2014 they had raised the projected costs to over $2 trillion.

Not once have I seen any reporter ask Obama, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Pelosi, or any other Democrat how the massive cost overruns in ObamaCare have been paid for. What did they cut or what taxes did they use to pay for the near-$1 trillion shortfall? After all, they say they insist all programs must be paid for. Why do the media and Democrats pretend that they all of a sudden care about the deficit when they haven’t for at least eight years?

I focus on health care headlines because they are so egregious right now, but they are part of an extended pattern of misleading headlines and inaccurate readings.

Something you rarely or ever see in a climate change article showing temperature changes are actual temperatures. They generally just show differences from the average. I would love to see what the actual average temperature in the U.S was in 1880, 1934, and 2016. I believe there is less than a one degree change over 150 years which would certainly be within the margin of error and therefore normal. Of course those numbers are sort of irrelevant if the weather stations weren’t all in the same place. Obviously if the weathering station is placed near cement it is warmer than in grass but that is not evidence that fossil fuels or CO2 cause warming. .

I also don’t recall ever seeing any actual sea levels in articles, only that it is rising. Did they actually measure all the seas in 1880, 1930 and today or are they estimates. I believe the research shows minor rises the last 150 years and the measurements have to be questionable.

The obvious reason that most headlines and articles are written as they are is to influence instead of inform. Almost all reporting today is to push an agenda instead of report facts. It would be much easier and cheaper if the AP, Washington Post and New York Times along with the networks plastered Democratic talking points and liberal think tanks propaganda onto their screens and broadsheets instead of pretending they are actual reporters doing research.

The headline should have been “Medicaid budget increased by $25 billion for 2018.” In the attached budget document on page 17, it shows Medicaid at $403 billion for 2018 vs. $378 billion in 2017.

For anyone who can read a balance sheet, (and plenty of journalism majors cannot), the $880 billion “cut” that was plastered all over the news comes from the previous administration’s ten-year projections vs. the Trump administration’s ten-year projections. But the only actual number is the $25 billion increase. I bet if the American people were told the actual number, it would be tough to protest — or generate such an exciting headline for the left. The obvious reason for the headline is to push an agenda. One of the main reasons we are broke is because the government not only does not cut much, but a cut in a projected increase is always portrayed as a disaster. The media is a major culprit in pushing this agenda.

Maybe the media could point out that all of Obama’s budgets were dead on arrival and that there were years during the Obama administration when the Democrat-led Senate didn’t pass a budget at all. Sort of like Illinois.

On May 25, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who sits on the intelligence committee, was asked about Obama’s illegal spying, where the Obama Administration was cited for continually violating the law since 2011 and she said she hadn’t been briefed on the subject yet. Yet somehow, Pelosi was able to critique Trump’s budget within a few days of its issuance. My guess is she read as much of the budget as she did the ObamaCare bill before she passed it.

On May 25, headlines were splashed all over the place following a Congressional Budget Office report claiming that the replacement for Obamacare would cause 23 million people to lose health care coverage by 2026. For one thing, th CBO is notoriously inaccurate in its projections. Among other things, it’s on record as claiming ObamaCare would be a runaway success with high enrollment numbers and lowered costs. It stands to reason that if there is no law forcing people to buy ObamaCare, some will obviously choose not to buy it, given its limited choices and high price tag. Why does the media post a headline implying that the number is accurate instead of a wild guess at best? Why doesn’t the media tell people how far off the ObamaCare projections have been?

Let’s look at the balance sheet specifics: In 2010, CBO predicted that by 2016 twenty three million would be covered by ObamaCare exchanges. The actual number was 10.6 million. In 2010 CBO predicted that the cost of ObamaCare would be $948 billion in its first ten years. By 2014 they had raised the projected costs to over $2 trillion.

Not once have I seen any reporter ask Obama, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Pelosi, or any other Democrat how the massive cost overruns in ObamaCare have been paid for. What did they cut or what taxes did they use to pay for the near-$1 trillion shortfall? After all, they say they insist all programs must be paid for. Why do the media and Democrats pretend that they all of a sudden care about the deficit when they haven’t for at least eight years?

I focus on health care headlines because they are so egregious right now, but they are part of an extended pattern of misleading headlines and inaccurate readings.

Something you rarely or ever see in a climate change article showing temperature changes are actual temperatures. They generally just show differences from the average. I would love to see what the actual average temperature in the U.S was in 1880, 1934, and 2016. I believe there is less than a one degree change over 150 years which would certainly be within the margin of error and therefore normal. Of course those numbers are sort of irrelevant if the weather stations weren’t all in the same place. Obviously if the weathering station is placed near cement it is warmer than in grass but that is not evidence that fossil fuels or CO2 cause warming. .

I also don’t recall ever seeing any actual sea levels in articles, only that it is rising. Did they actually measure all the seas in 1880, 1930 and today or are they estimates. I believe the research shows minor rises the last 150 years and the measurements have to be questionable.

The obvious reason that most headlines and articles are written as they are is to influence instead of inform. Almost all reporting today is to push an agenda instead of report facts. It would be much easier and cheaper if the AP, Washington Post and New York Times along with the networks plastered Democratic talking points and liberal think tanks propaganda onto their screens and broadsheets instead of pretending they are actual reporters doing research.



Source link

Imaginary Conflicts of Interest for Trump versus Actual Conflicts of Interest for Dems


After the Trump Administration released its outline for tax reform I saw a lot of consternation that the tax plan may help Trump himself, and that could be a conflict of interest.  But if it is a conflict for Trump to reduce taxes and regulations because it may help him or his business, then it would be a conflict for all politicians and bureaucrats to ever propose reducing taxes or regulations, because that might help them or their family and friends. Therefore, the only thing politicians could ever do to prevent conflicts would be to increase taxes and regulations. Maybe that is what the media and Democrats want.

I have also seen efforts to calculate how much Trump will save. I find that interesting because the media always complain that they need to see Trump’s taxes. I am a tax preparer and I have no idea whether the plan would save him money or cost him money — but why should anyone care if it helps Trump, if it is good for the majority of the people and good for the economy? If Trump pays less than 35% in taxes and he loses many deductions and breaks, some of his income could certainly be thrown into the 35% bracket.  But who knows? 

Maybe we should hold all members of Congress to the new conflict of interest rules that seem to have evolved since Trump was elected. A farmer or someone with a family member who owns a farm could no longer vote on agriculture bills. Teachers could no longer vote on education bills and business people could never vote on anything that helps businesses.  

I know that the media will tell Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that they should no longer talk about or vote on any higher education bills because their community property been enriched by the largesse of the government on higher education. 

I personally believe that it is a much bigger conflict for politicians to keep a complicated tax code, increase regulations and to increase tax rates, because that is what increases their power, and power is the goal of most politicians. Think of how many politicians have enriched themselves because of their political position. The more power and money that is transferred from the private sector to the government, the more likely corruption becomes by politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and others. 

It appears the media needs a lesson on what actual conflicts of interest are, because they seem very confused.  So here are several examples:

Many people in the mainstream media had direct family members who worked for Obama. Their biased reporting showed they knew where their bread was buttered.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation seemed to give greater access to Hillary at the State Department. There was a lot of pay to play.

The value of Bill’s speeches went up after Hillary became Secretary of State. These are obvious kickbacks. Hillary used her political position to enrich herself and her family.

The Clintons used money from the Haitian relief fund to enrich themselves as they pretend to care about the poor. 

Cash flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the Russian Uranium Deal. And the Obama Administration let the sale go through.

Huma Abedin got paid by State Department, Clinton Foundation and a consulting firm simultaneously. She must have been a really hard worker.

Cheryl Mills did hiring at the Clinton Foundation while working at State Department.

Obama got a special land deal from a fundraiser Tony Rezko to buy his Chicago mansion on the cheap. Tony did him a favor by buying part of the yard of the property and deducting that from the purchase price.  Then he left the Obamas’yard alone, at least until criticism forced the Obamas to put in a small fence to mark his portion of the property off from the rest of it.

Rezko was a crook who eventually went to jail. Obama told the media he regretted the Land Deal with his fundraiser. That is sort of like regretting that you robbed a bank, got an F on a paper or got a girl pregnant. He essentially took a kickback from a crook. 

After Barack Obama became an Illinois state legislator, his wife moved up as well, scoring a job as ‘vice president of community relations’ at the University of Chicago Hospital for a very generous salary of $121,910. When Obama became a senator in 2005, her ‘salary’ leapfrogged to $316,962 for the same job…and one of Senator Obama’s first acts in office was to see to it that the hospital received over a million dollars of your tax dollars as an earmark. After Michelle moved to DC, the job was eliminated. How could that $1 Million earmark not be illegal and a pure conflict of interest?   Michelle’s job sounds like it was a make work job created for her.?

Essentially Obama stole $1 Million from the Illinois taxpayers, sent it through a conduit, the hospital, and they in turn gave it back to him. After all he bought a $1.65 million house and an extra $106,000 lot from the crook next door and he and Michelle just didn’t have enough money to qualify for the loan and make the payments.

Why would anyone believe that Obama would follow laws when he got to DC when he never cared to follow them in Illinois? Is it any wonder that Illinois and the U.S are broke when a person who accepted $200,000 in graft each year was not only not punished but was promoted to U.S Senator and President. 

The media seemed to care very little about these obvious conflicts of interest and ways that politicians enriched themselves, because the media continually supported Obama and the Clintons. Yet they somehow are against Trump no matter what he does, so they go after him for a tax reform proposal that might help him along with a huge majority of the people. I have seen nothing in his first 100 days to suggest he is doing stuff to specifically help him or his family. Instead it appears he is intent on transferring the power back to the people from the government — which is a great thing.

And as the media trashes Trump every day and pretends that Democrat talking points are news stories, along with intentionally skewed polls. Then they go to the White House Correspondents dinner by themselves and congratulate each other by saying how great and how important they are and that they don’t report fake news. They are delusional!

I do believe the media would be important if they actually did research instead of just regurgitating what they are told. Almost all the reporting is exactly the same, and that is worthless.

After the Trump Administration released its outline for tax reform I saw a lot of consternation that the tax plan may help Trump himself, and that could be a conflict of interest.  But if it is a conflict for Trump to reduce taxes and regulations because it may help him or his business, then it would be a conflict for all politicians and bureaucrats to ever propose reducing taxes or regulations, because that might help them or their family and friends. Therefore, the only thing politicians could ever do to prevent conflicts would be to increase taxes and regulations. Maybe that is what the media and Democrats want.

I have also seen efforts to calculate how much Trump will save. I find that interesting because the media always complain that they need to see Trump’s taxes. I am a tax preparer and I have no idea whether the plan would save him money or cost him money — but why should anyone care if it helps Trump, if it is good for the majority of the people and good for the economy? If Trump pays less than 35% in taxes and he loses many deductions and breaks, some of his income could certainly be thrown into the 35% bracket.  But who knows? 

Maybe we should hold all members of Congress to the new conflict of interest rules that seem to have evolved since Trump was elected. A farmer or someone with a family member who owns a farm could no longer vote on agriculture bills. Teachers could no longer vote on education bills and business people could never vote on anything that helps businesses.  

I know that the media will tell Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that they should no longer talk about or vote on any higher education bills because their community property been enriched by the largesse of the government on higher education. 

I personally believe that it is a much bigger conflict for politicians to keep a complicated tax code, increase regulations and to increase tax rates, because that is what increases their power, and power is the goal of most politicians. Think of how many politicians have enriched themselves because of their political position. The more power and money that is transferred from the private sector to the government, the more likely corruption becomes by politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and others. 

It appears the media needs a lesson on what actual conflicts of interest are, because they seem very confused.  So here are several examples:

Many people in the mainstream media had direct family members who worked for Obama. Their biased reporting showed they knew where their bread was buttered.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation seemed to give greater access to Hillary at the State Department. There was a lot of pay to play.

The value of Bill’s speeches went up after Hillary became Secretary of State. These are obvious kickbacks. Hillary used her political position to enrich herself and her family.

The Clintons used money from the Haitian relief fund to enrich themselves as they pretend to care about the poor. 

Cash flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the Russian Uranium Deal. And the Obama Administration let the sale go through.

Huma Abedin got paid by State Department, Clinton Foundation and a consulting firm simultaneously. She must have been a really hard worker.

Cheryl Mills did hiring at the Clinton Foundation while working at State Department.

Obama got a special land deal from a fundraiser Tony Rezko to buy his Chicago mansion on the cheap. Tony did him a favor by buying part of the yard of the property and deducting that from the purchase price.  Then he left the Obamas’yard alone, at least until criticism forced the Obamas to put in a small fence to mark his portion of the property off from the rest of it.

Rezko was a crook who eventually went to jail. Obama told the media he regretted the Land Deal with his fundraiser. That is sort of like regretting that you robbed a bank, got an F on a paper or got a girl pregnant. He essentially took a kickback from a crook. 

After Barack Obama became an Illinois state legislator, his wife moved up as well, scoring a job as ‘vice president of community relations’ at the University of Chicago Hospital for a very generous salary of $121,910. When Obama became a senator in 2005, her ‘salary’ leapfrogged to $316,962 for the same job…and one of Senator Obama’s first acts in office was to see to it that the hospital received over a million dollars of your tax dollars as an earmark. After Michelle moved to DC, the job was eliminated. How could that $1 Million earmark not be illegal and a pure conflict of interest?   Michelle’s job sounds like it was a make work job created for her.?

Essentially Obama stole $1 Million from the Illinois taxpayers, sent it through a conduit, the hospital, and they in turn gave it back to him. After all he bought a $1.65 million house and an extra $106,000 lot from the crook next door and he and Michelle just didn’t have enough money to qualify for the loan and make the payments.

Why would anyone believe that Obama would follow laws when he got to DC when he never cared to follow them in Illinois? Is it any wonder that Illinois and the U.S are broke when a person who accepted $200,000 in graft each year was not only not punished but was promoted to U.S Senator and President. 

The media seemed to care very little about these obvious conflicts of interest and ways that politicians enriched themselves, because the media continually supported Obama and the Clintons. Yet they somehow are against Trump no matter what he does, so they go after him for a tax reform proposal that might help him along with a huge majority of the people. I have seen nothing in his first 100 days to suggest he is doing stuff to specifically help him or his family. Instead it appears he is intent on transferring the power back to the people from the government — which is a great thing.

And as the media trashes Trump every day and pretends that Democrat talking points are news stories, along with intentionally skewed polls. Then they go to the White House Correspondents dinner by themselves and congratulate each other by saying how great and how important they are and that they don’t report fake news. They are delusional!

I do believe the media would be important if they actually did research instead of just regurgitating what they are told. Almost all the reporting is exactly the same, and that is worthless.



Source link

Isn't it time the media told the truth about Bush Tax cuts?


I feel like I am beating a dead horse on tax cuts, but facts are extremely important if we want to get the economy growing. 

I get extremely aggravated when I read material like the following paragraph by Paul Waldmen in the Washington Post, because it is so demonstrably false. Of course the notion that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves is repeated so often that either the media has no idea that it is false or they don’t care. My guess is they don’t care because they have had almost 14 years to research the Bush tax cuts and instead of the Democrats and the media telling the truth, they just repeat bald faced lies.

“Sixteen years ago, President George W. Bush made exactly the same arguments you’re making, in defense of a similar tax cut. The results were abysmal: a huge deficit; poor growth in GDP, jobs and incomes; and eventually a financial cataclysm. What did Bush do wrong?”

Something you rarely see in the diatribes about how disastrous Bush tax cuts were for the government and the economy are actual numbers. If they used actual numbers the public would get to see the lies. It is a shame that Republican politicians don’t show the actual numbers to the public.

The media and Democrats just repeat over and over again that tax cuts cause deficits and don’t help the economy, hoping that the public becomes indoctrinated. It is exactly the way they handle climate change. Facts haven’t mattered for a long time.  

This website, http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/, shows federal revenue and expense numbers for all years in recent history. It also shows debt and deficit numbers. Anyone can download the information. The media must not be interested in the facts. Here are a few numbers and facts:

In 2002, the top income tax rates for individuals was 38.6% on ordinary income and dividends and 21.2% on capital gains. George W. Bush got Congress to lower taxes across the board and the top bracket to 35% on ordinary income and 15% on dividends and capital gains. (Bush had inherited a recession and a collapsed stock market in 2001 and the economy had been stagnant or slowing up to these tax cuts). Instead of the tax rate cuts costing the government money, revenues skyrocketed. From FY 2000 to FY 2003 income tax proceeds had declined from around $1.2 Trillion to around $900 Billion in FY 2003. After the across the board cuts, income tax revenues skyrocketed over 60% to over $1.5 Trillion by FY 2007. The deficit also went down to $161 Billion by FY 2007, including both wars and Medicare Part D. Obviously, the tax rate cuts and the increasing revenue did not increase the deficit as we are repeatedly told.

The tax cuts gave the economy the boost that it needed. It is an extremely simple concept that the more money that is left in the hands of individuals and businesses, the more opportunity there is to spend, save and invest — and all are good for the overall economy. It is also a simple concept that the more money the government confiscates, the less opportunity there is for growth.

As for jobs, in January 2001 when President Bush took office, there were 132.7 million non- farm workers. By May 2003, when Bush passed the tax cuts, employment had dropped to 130.2 million. At the end of 2007, employment had jumped to 138.4 Million. If employment was trending down before the cuts and jumped substantially after the tax cuts occurred it certainly appears that there is both a correlation and causation related to the tax rate cuts as to the significant boost to the economy

It seems that Democrats have a major interest in not simplifying the tax code and not lowering rates. They obviously have more power if they can control special tax breaks and tax penalties, picking winners and losers, and the more people they can make dependent on government, the better. The biggest winners in a complicated tax code with high rates is government itself and especially the career politicians and bureaucrats.

In 2008, candidate Obama said in so many words that he would raise capital gains rates even if that didn’t raise revenue because of “fairness.”  That truly shows the Democrats and the media’s mentality. They don’t care about helping the economy. They will spend the money even if the revenue goes down, and just charge it to future generations. They obviously don’t like individuals and business being able to keep more of the money they earned.

No one should believe that Google, Facebook or any of the other pretend fact checkers care about sorting out the news because not one of them will challenge all the reporters that say Bush’s cuts decreased revenue and increased the deficit. They obviously have exactly the same agenda as the Democrats. 

Jack Hellner is a CPA with more than forty years’ experience on tax matters.

I feel like I am beating a dead horse on tax cuts, but facts are extremely important if we want to get the economy growing. 

I get extremely aggravated when I read material like the following paragraph by Paul Waldmen in the Washington Post, because it is so demonstrably false. Of course the notion that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves is repeated so often that either the media has no idea that it is false or they don’t care. My guess is they don’t care because they have had almost 14 years to research the Bush tax cuts and instead of the Democrats and the media telling the truth, they just repeat bald faced lies.

“Sixteen years ago, President George W. Bush made exactly the same arguments you’re making, in defense of a similar tax cut. The results were abysmal: a huge deficit; poor growth in GDP, jobs and incomes; and eventually a financial cataclysm. What did Bush do wrong?”

Something you rarely see in the diatribes about how disastrous Bush tax cuts were for the government and the economy are actual numbers. If they used actual numbers the public would get to see the lies. It is a shame that Republican politicians don’t show the actual numbers to the public.

The media and Democrats just repeat over and over again that tax cuts cause deficits and don’t help the economy, hoping that the public becomes indoctrinated. It is exactly the way they handle climate change. Facts haven’t mattered for a long time.  

This website, http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/, shows federal revenue and expense numbers for all years in recent history. It also shows debt and deficit numbers. Anyone can download the information. The media must not be interested in the facts. Here are a few numbers and facts:

In 2002, the top income tax rates for individuals was 38.6% on ordinary income and dividends and 21.2% on capital gains. George W. Bush got Congress to lower taxes across the board and the top bracket to 35% on ordinary income and 15% on dividends and capital gains. (Bush had inherited a recession and a collapsed stock market in 2001 and the economy had been stagnant or slowing up to these tax cuts). Instead of the tax rate cuts costing the government money, revenues skyrocketed. From FY 2000 to FY 2003 income tax proceeds had declined from around $1.2 Trillion to around $900 Billion in FY 2003. After the across the board cuts, income tax revenues skyrocketed over 60% to over $1.5 Trillion by FY 2007. The deficit also went down to $161 Billion by FY 2007, including both wars and Medicare Part D. Obviously, the tax rate cuts and the increasing revenue did not increase the deficit as we are repeatedly told.

The tax cuts gave the economy the boost that it needed. It is an extremely simple concept that the more money that is left in the hands of individuals and businesses, the more opportunity there is to spend, save and invest — and all are good for the overall economy. It is also a simple concept that the more money the government confiscates, the less opportunity there is for growth.

As for jobs, in January 2001 when President Bush took office, there were 132.7 million non- farm workers. By May 2003, when Bush passed the tax cuts, employment had dropped to 130.2 million. At the end of 2007, employment had jumped to 138.4 Million. If employment was trending down before the cuts and jumped substantially after the tax cuts occurred it certainly appears that there is both a correlation and causation related to the tax rate cuts as to the significant boost to the economy

It seems that Democrats have a major interest in not simplifying the tax code and not lowering rates. They obviously have more power if they can control special tax breaks and tax penalties, picking winners and losers, and the more people they can make dependent on government, the better. The biggest winners in a complicated tax code with high rates is government itself and especially the career politicians and bureaucrats.

In 2008, candidate Obama said in so many words that he would raise capital gains rates even if that didn’t raise revenue because of “fairness.”  That truly shows the Democrats and the media’s mentality. They don’t care about helping the economy. They will spend the money even if the revenue goes down, and just charge it to future generations. They obviously don’t like individuals and business being able to keep more of the money they earned.

No one should believe that Google, Facebook or any of the other pretend fact checkers care about sorting out the news because not one of them will challenge all the reporters that say Bush’s cuts decreased revenue and increased the deficit. They obviously have exactly the same agenda as the Democrats. 

Jack Hellner is a CPA with more than forty years’ experience on tax matters.



Source link

A Tax Expert's Take on Trump's Proposal: 'A Truly Great Tax Plan'


It certainly appears that Trump has more common sense and intelligence on taxes and the economy than many of those advising him, the career politicians from both parties, the bureaucrats, the media and most economists. I am a 64 year old CPA who has been doing taxes for approximately 40 years. This is the most intelligent tax policy I have seen since Ronald Reagan’s and my initial thoughts make me believe that it is better than Reagan’s. It is a simple and logical plan that would give everyone the incentive to earn more instead of spending so much time and money trying to beat the tax man.  I believe the impetus it would give to economic growth is immeasurable.

The summary of what I have seen on President Trump’s tax plan looks like it would greatly help almost everyone and especially the overall economy. If the U.S makes the corporate tax rates more competitive, businesses in the U.S would have a great incentive to keep businesses here and/or to move business back from overseas. Foreign businesses would also have a greater incentive to move and build businesses here which is, after all, the biggest economy in the world. Regulatory relief also helps a lot. The lower the regulatory burden, the greater the likelihood that businesses will thrive and keep their prices competitive. If you lower the tax rate, get rid of a lot of the special interest deductions along with reducing regulations, businesses and individuals will become more productive, boosting the economy.

If you get rid of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the estate tax, and many tax deductions and tax breaks, you take away the incentive to shelter income. The number of potential audits is greatly reduced, minimizing the cost of IRS. People and businesses would structure their personal lives and businesses without much regard for taxes which would make everything run more efficiently and effectively.

Democrats are already saying they are against Trump’s proposed tax policy changes. What a surprise.

Democrats seem to believe the money is all theirs. They decry any cut in taxes as if it was the government’s money in the first place. They call tax cuts a cost to the government.  In contrast, when government entities increase taxes and fees, the media and Democrats talk about the additional revenue to the government, not the cost to individuals and businesses to pay the tax.

The following article points out that networks howl about the loss of revenue to the government. I do not recall them decrying the loss of money to individuals and businesses when government increase taxes and fees. Basically the media repeats Democratic talking points.

Democrats, including the media, believe the people work for the government instead of the government working for the people.

Democratic politicians and the media are so lacking in knowledge about economics that they don’t even comprehend that as they rail against trickle-down or supply side economics, it’s their own policies that are pure trickle-down economics. They believe that more money should go to the government, then they run the money through a major bureaucracy enriching the already huge government entities and finally, they trickle out a much smaller amount to their special interest groups which they claim generates jobs. It is a simple concept that the more money that is left in the private sector, the more potential there is for growth. It is too bad so many don’t understand.

The Democrats really don’t want a simple tax code. With a simplified tax code, politicians can’t bribe as many individuals and businesses with goodies. They can’t buy votes.

According to IRS, only a little over 30% of people itemized their deductions in 2013 and Trump wants to significantly increase the standard deduction along with lower the rates. Then he wants to eliminate and cap itemized deductions. Trump’s policy suggestions help almost everyone and simplify the code so much that most people should be able to fill out the tax forms themselves. Think of all the money that could be saved if they didn’t have to spend so much time and money on tax preparation and/or planning. The only people who may be hurt by limiting itemized deductions would be the truly rich. The poor and middle class will be helped, not hurt.

Then the public is continually fed the myth that when you cut rates that it costs the government. Bush’s across-the-board significant cuts in tax rates in 2003 showed that that was absolutely not true. Bush inherited a recession and a collapsing stock market when he took office in 2001. The economy was stagnant. Income tax revenues dropped from $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2000 to $900 billion in fiscal 2003. Bush got his tax cuts approved in May 2003, the economy got a huge boost, and income tax revenues shot up to more than $1.5 trillion by FY2007. Rates were cut by around 10% across the board and revenues shot up over 60%. The CBO and other economists did not seem to understand the simple concept that the more money you leave in the hands of individuals, the more they have to spend, save and invest. All of that is more stimulating to the overall economy than having the government confiscate a continually greater share, and then picking winners and losers.

The kneejerk reaction of the Democrats and the media to such effective tax reform, seen whenever proposals to allow people and businesses to keep more of their own money is telling. They would rather have more people dependent on government than a growing, stimulated economy.

I have seen many economies that collapsed because the government got too big. (Venezuela is a current example. The Soviet Union was a previous example.)  I do not believe I have ever seen an economy collapse because individuals and businesses have been able to keep a greater share of the money that they, not the government or politicians, earned.

The bad ideas I see on tax reform all relate to some sort of national sales tax. This can be in the form of a Value Added Tax (VAT) or the “fair tax” that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckaee supported. These are highly regressive taxes that will widen the wealth gap and destroy the U.S. consumer-driven economy. They complicate the tax system instead of simplify it. The border adjustment tax also sounds stupid because it is so complicated. The best border adjustment there would be is to stop double-taxing earnings that companies legitimately allocate to other countries. Double taxation is absolutely unfair.

Some Democrats in particular seem to be entertaining the idea of a VAT lately, which shows they really don’t care about simplicity or economic growth. They also seem to have little concern for the middle class and the poor because any VAT is highly regressive and reduces purchasing power.

Trump’s proposals are for an extremely progressive income tax system. It is truly a shame that the Democrats, including the media, are so intent on punishing those they have defined as rich that they don’t mind taking away important economic opportunities from the poor and middle class in the process.

Let’s give everyone a chance to move up the economic ladder. Trump’s simplification proposals certainly appear to enhance everyone’s opportunities.

Hellner is a CPA with more than forty years’ experience on tax matters.

It certainly appears that Trump has more common sense and intelligence on taxes and the economy than many of those advising him, the career politicians from both parties, the bureaucrats, the media and most economists. I am a 64 year old CPA who has been doing taxes for approximately 40 years. This is the most intelligent tax policy I have seen since Ronald Reagan’s and my initial thoughts make me believe that it is better than Reagan’s. It is a simple and logical plan that would give everyone the incentive to earn more instead of spending so much time and money trying to beat the tax man.  I believe the impetus it would give to economic growth is immeasurable.

The summary of what I have seen on President Trump’s tax plan looks like it would greatly help almost everyone and especially the overall economy. If the U.S makes the corporate tax rates more competitive, businesses in the U.S would have a great incentive to keep businesses here and/or to move business back from overseas. Foreign businesses would also have a greater incentive to move and build businesses here which is, after all, the biggest economy in the world. Regulatory relief also helps a lot. The lower the regulatory burden, the greater the likelihood that businesses will thrive and keep their prices competitive. If you lower the tax rate, get rid of a lot of the special interest deductions along with reducing regulations, businesses and individuals will become more productive, boosting the economy.

If you get rid of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the estate tax, and many tax deductions and tax breaks, you take away the incentive to shelter income. The number of potential audits is greatly reduced, minimizing the cost of IRS. People and businesses would structure their personal lives and businesses without much regard for taxes which would make everything run more efficiently and effectively.

Democrats are already saying they are against Trump’s proposed tax policy changes. What a surprise.

Democrats seem to believe the money is all theirs. They decry any cut in taxes as if it was the government’s money in the first place. They call tax cuts a cost to the government.  In contrast, when government entities increase taxes and fees, the media and Democrats talk about the additional revenue to the government, not the cost to individuals and businesses to pay the tax.

The following article points out that networks howl about the loss of revenue to the government. I do not recall them decrying the loss of money to individuals and businesses when government increase taxes and fees. Basically the media repeats Democratic talking points.

Democrats, including the media, believe the people work for the government instead of the government working for the people.

Democratic politicians and the media are so lacking in knowledge about economics that they don’t even comprehend that as they rail against trickle-down or supply side economics, it’s their own policies that are pure trickle-down economics. They believe that more money should go to the government, then they run the money through a major bureaucracy enriching the already huge government entities and finally, they trickle out a much smaller amount to their special interest groups which they claim generates jobs. It is a simple concept that the more money that is left in the private sector, the more potential there is for growth. It is too bad so many don’t understand.

The Democrats really don’t want a simple tax code. With a simplified tax code, politicians can’t bribe as many individuals and businesses with goodies. They can’t buy votes.

According to IRS, only a little over 30% of people itemized their deductions in 2013 and Trump wants to significantly increase the standard deduction along with lower the rates. Then he wants to eliminate and cap itemized deductions. Trump’s policy suggestions help almost everyone and simplify the code so much that most people should be able to fill out the tax forms themselves. Think of all the money that could be saved if they didn’t have to spend so much time and money on tax preparation and/or planning. The only people who may be hurt by limiting itemized deductions would be the truly rich. The poor and middle class will be helped, not hurt.

Then the public is continually fed the myth that when you cut rates that it costs the government. Bush’s across-the-board significant cuts in tax rates in 2003 showed that that was absolutely not true. Bush inherited a recession and a collapsing stock market when he took office in 2001. The economy was stagnant. Income tax revenues dropped from $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2000 to $900 billion in fiscal 2003. Bush got his tax cuts approved in May 2003, the economy got a huge boost, and income tax revenues shot up to more than $1.5 trillion by FY2007. Rates were cut by around 10% across the board and revenues shot up over 60%. The CBO and other economists did not seem to understand the simple concept that the more money you leave in the hands of individuals, the more they have to spend, save and invest. All of that is more stimulating to the overall economy than having the government confiscate a continually greater share, and then picking winners and losers.

The kneejerk reaction of the Democrats and the media to such effective tax reform, seen whenever proposals to allow people and businesses to keep more of their own money is telling. They would rather have more people dependent on government than a growing, stimulated economy.

I have seen many economies that collapsed because the government got too big. (Venezuela is a current example. The Soviet Union was a previous example.)  I do not believe I have ever seen an economy collapse because individuals and businesses have been able to keep a greater share of the money that they, not the government or politicians, earned.

The bad ideas I see on tax reform all relate to some sort of national sales tax. This can be in the form of a Value Added Tax (VAT) or the “fair tax” that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckaee supported. These are highly regressive taxes that will widen the wealth gap and destroy the U.S. consumer-driven economy. They complicate the tax system instead of simplify it. The border adjustment tax also sounds stupid because it is so complicated. The best border adjustment there would be is to stop double-taxing earnings that companies legitimately allocate to other countries. Double taxation is absolutely unfair.

Some Democrats in particular seem to be entertaining the idea of a VAT lately, which shows they really don’t care about simplicity or economic growth. They also seem to have little concern for the middle class and the poor because any VAT is highly regressive and reduces purchasing power.

Trump’s proposals are for an extremely progressive income tax system. It is truly a shame that the Democrats, including the media, are so intent on punishing those they have defined as rich that they don’t mind taking away important economic opportunities from the poor and middle class in the process.

Let’s give everyone a chance to move up the economic ladder. Trump’s simplification proposals certainly appear to enhance everyone’s opportunities.

Hellner is a CPA with more than forty years’ experience on tax matters.



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Why the Federal Government Is Broke


The federal budget in FY 2007 was around $2.7 Trillion.  By FY 2017 it had soared to $4.1 Trillion — but it has never been enough.

Politicians of both parties have continuously added programs that benefit some people and which the politicians promise will be paid for. Once programs start, they are hard to stop because there are always some beneficiaries who will be hurt.

Even though politicians promise the programs will be paid for, they obviously aren’t, which is why we owe 20 trillion dollars and have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. They either borrow or add new taxes and fees to pay for new programs and to fund previous underfunding. There is always some service or product they can tax. It is very easy to use other people’s money or to borrow to buy votes.

Many times they promise to tax the rich, but most often they end up putting in additional taxes on which focus on income earners in higher brackets — people who don’t have the scale of resources to hire teams of experts, structure income in ways that minimize tax liability, and hire lobbyists.  But for the poor and low income, taxes may weigh even heavier, in the form of consumption taxes on essentials. With outgo always exceeding income unless they spend very carefully, each new tax increase is a challenge.

Government entities at all levels steal money from motor fuel taxes and then complain that they don’t have enough money for roads and bridges. Instead of spending the money on its intended uses, they say they need to raise fuel taxes.  The latest excuse is that all those government-subsidized electric cars is cutting into gasoline tax revenue. So those gasoline taxes have to be increased.

Recently Philadelphia instituted a heavy (and heavily regressive) sugary drink tax.

 

 

Sales crashed by as much as half, because lower income people consume a disproportional share of soft drinks, and they had to give them up. Social engineering, no doubt. But the politicians didn’t collect what they thought and stores and distributors started laying off people. Instead of the mayor recognizing the problem, the mayor called employers greedy.

Basically, through it all there has been little concern for the common man and taxpayer. It is always “How can we get more money for the government?” Surveys have shown that fewer than half of Americans can come up with $1,000 to pay for an emergency. Politicians don’t care, as they continue to raise taxes and fees and make more promises.

As the politicians and government bureaucrats have enhanced their power by buying votes with government programs, they have also enriched themselves with great salaries and benefits, have protected their power by drawing voting maps to protect incumbents, have written campaign finance laws to ward off competition and have made sure that term limits don’t make it on the ballot. None of that is done for us or our children.

What the powerful politicians can’t handle is an outsider like Trump who is not beholden to either party. Entrenched politicians of both parties, therefore, seek to destroy him each and every day. They must protect themselves. They do not want someone who will actually cut duplicate and unaffordable programs.

Obviously, the powerful politicians from both parties are responsible for the disastrous fiscal condition the country is in, but almost equally complicit are the significant majority of the media who support the massive spending and tax levels almost 100% of the time. They deride any attempt to cut or freeze as mean and disastrous. The media willingly trots out victims of any cuts because victims are the currency of progressives. Find some new victims and presto! there is a need for another government program.

Making people dependent on government enriches the governing class and provides them with job security. The media compliantly calls anyone who wants to make government smaller and cut taxes mean-spirited, inhuman, stupid, or sums up those characteristics with the expression “right wing extremist.”  They never label anyone who wants government to get bigger and more powerful a “left wing extremist.”

Economies collapse because government gets too big and powerful, not because the people have too much power. It appears that we have a chance to give some of the power of the purse back to the people. If we don’t do it now, we never will.  If the media actually cared about future generations they would be terrified of too much power going to the government. They certainly wouldn’t want to make future generations completely dependent on government.

The federal budget in FY 2007 was around $2.7 Trillion.  By FY 2017 it had soared to $4.1 Trillion — but it has never been enough.

Politicians of both parties have continuously added programs that benefit some people and which the politicians promise will be paid for. Once programs start, they are hard to stop because there are always some beneficiaries who will be hurt.

Even though politicians promise the programs will be paid for, they obviously aren’t, which is why we owe 20 trillion dollars and have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. They either borrow or add new taxes and fees to pay for new programs and to fund previous underfunding. There is always some service or product they can tax. It is very easy to use other people’s money or to borrow to buy votes.

Many times they promise to tax the rich, but most often they end up putting in additional taxes on which focus on income earners in higher brackets — people who don’t have the scale of resources to hire teams of experts, structure income in ways that minimize tax liability, and hire lobbyists.  But for the poor and low income, taxes may weigh even heavier, in the form of consumption taxes on essentials. With outgo always exceeding income unless they spend very carefully, each new tax increase is a challenge.

Government entities at all levels steal money from motor fuel taxes and then complain that they don’t have enough money for roads and bridges. Instead of spending the money on its intended uses, they say they need to raise fuel taxes.  The latest excuse is that all those government-subsidized electric cars is cutting into gasoline tax revenue. So those gasoline taxes have to be increased.

Recently Philadelphia instituted a heavy (and heavily regressive) sugary drink tax.

 

 

Sales crashed by as much as half, because lower income people consume a disproportional share of soft drinks, and they had to give them up. Social engineering, no doubt. But the politicians didn’t collect what they thought and stores and distributors started laying off people. Instead of the mayor recognizing the problem, the mayor called employers greedy.

Basically, through it all there has been little concern for the common man and taxpayer. It is always “How can we get more money for the government?” Surveys have shown that fewer than half of Americans can come up with $1,000 to pay for an emergency. Politicians don’t care, as they continue to raise taxes and fees and make more promises.

As the politicians and government bureaucrats have enhanced their power by buying votes with government programs, they have also enriched themselves with great salaries and benefits, have protected their power by drawing voting maps to protect incumbents, have written campaign finance laws to ward off competition and have made sure that term limits don’t make it on the ballot. None of that is done for us or our children.

What the powerful politicians can’t handle is an outsider like Trump who is not beholden to either party. Entrenched politicians of both parties, therefore, seek to destroy him each and every day. They must protect themselves. They do not want someone who will actually cut duplicate and unaffordable programs.

Obviously, the powerful politicians from both parties are responsible for the disastrous fiscal condition the country is in, but almost equally complicit are the significant majority of the media who support the massive spending and tax levels almost 100% of the time. They deride any attempt to cut or freeze as mean and disastrous. The media willingly trots out victims of any cuts because victims are the currency of progressives. Find some new victims and presto! there is a need for another government program.

Making people dependent on government enriches the governing class and provides them with job security. The media compliantly calls anyone who wants to make government smaller and cut taxes mean-spirited, inhuman, stupid, or sums up those characteristics with the expression “right wing extremist.”  They never label anyone who wants government to get bigger and more powerful a “left wing extremist.”

Economies collapse because government gets too big and powerful, not because the people have too much power. It appears that we have a chance to give some of the power of the purse back to the people. If we don’t do it now, we never will.  If the media actually cared about future generations they would be terrified of too much power going to the government. They certainly wouldn’t want to make future generations completely dependent on government.



Source link