CRASH: Give The Dog A Bone

Speaking of October Surprises, there are rumors afoot that Obama will sponsor a package of tax cuts for business.  My navy brethren have a saying about carnal knowledge with the domestic canine, which seems to fit as we talk about Obamanomics and its effects.

Unemployment (not the least unexpectedly) is up.  The economy is in the doldrums, with not a ghost of a breeze in sight.  For months, Obama and his myrmidons in Congress and his departments have been on a crusade to convert America into the Obamabanana Republic.  They have done so to an amazing extent, undermining essential concepts of contract, property, government limit, and even such rule-driven fields as bankruptcy.

Nothing is more lethal to capital formation than uncertainty.  If you know a liar is a consistent liar, that is something to which you can assign a risk value.  It is something you can manage, as well.  If you don't know what a person will do...if they are all over the map and show no ties to reality...you cannot assign a risk to that person's conduct.  The only safe, rational value to assign is one approaching unity...complete risk of loss.

The Obami and Congress have been spinning off tendrils of uncertainty like cotton candy at the County Fair, and business and capital have reacted as one would predict.  It seems that not a day goes by without some new hostility being imposed by the Federal government against business...which is to say against PEOPLE who need to work, invest, and purchase.

High taxes are one thing; a hostile environment is another.  We have both in spades.  We have a President who has signaled that he detests and distrusts the capitalist system, regardless of his professions to the contrary.

So, for him to offer a package of business tax cuts now...roughly sixty days before an election...would have the OPPOSITE effect it might have from anyone else.  From Obama it would be a crass, cynical political ploy.  It would also be of very dubious duration.

Sure, it would put some money back in the hands of those to whom it belongs...PRODUCERS, if you're fuzzy on the concept.  That is ALWAYS good and right to do.  That would have a mild stimulative effect (I shudder to use the term today).  But the greater effect of such a POLICY (as opposed to "ploy") is to assure people in an economy that that notion...keeping more of what they earn...is something they can count on.

Any turn in that direction from Obama would mean the Mad Mouse ride of his Obamanomics had just made another gut-lurching, incoherent veer.  Nobody with a brain would consider it genuine, because it would certainly not be genuine.  Everyone would see it was inconsistent with who Obama is, and what his policies have been and done, and everyone would know that...like most Obama promises or proffers...it has an expiration date.


Bottom line; after you've screwed the pooch for approaching two years, offering it a bone isn't going to bring it scampering back.  A business tax cut won't bring the magic to unicorn economics...or save Deemocrats from the WAVE.

CRASH: What I Learned From Bill White: Choice And Energy Policy

As I previously related, I attended a "town hall" sponsored by a TEA Party outfit from a northern Houston suburb featuring Bill White, the Deemocrat candidate for Texas governor. I listened VERY carefully.

White has made no secret that he hopes to peel off GOP voters (his only hope of winning), and he seems to have settled on a few themes he expects will work to that end.

Talking points:

1. Local governance is the best governance
2. He's a strong backer of the Second Amendment ("owns a pistol")
3. Any notion that Houston under White was a sanctuary city is "a myth and a lie"
4. Immigration enforcement via an Arizona-type law would damage police function
5. Cap and Trade isn't the right solution (which may mean it isn't economically invasive enough)
6. In spite of No. 1 (above), he's good with dictating where kids can go to school

 A major contradiction I found in Mr. White was his stated position about local governance (see No. 1, above), and his EXTREMELY firm...even dogmatic...stance on school choice.  According to White, he can just see no reason why his taxes should go to support your school of choice.  But, also according to White, government schools are not "monopolies".  Everybody has the right to send their kid to private schools, just like Bill White...don't they?

Well, of course not.  As I and many others have noted many times, a right without the means to effect the expression of that right is vacant.  Bill White has millions of dollars, and can effect any choice of school for his children I can imagine.  Most of the rest of us...and especially the poorest inner-city families...are effectively without a choice.  Or the choice comes at excruciatingly high cost.  The result is that Texas parents frequently are facing an effective monopoly in the education of their kids.

That is apparently exactly how Bill White would dictate...and I mean that...how things remain if he were governor.  The question of school choice for Texas families is completely off his table.

On energy policy, as on school choice, Mr. White let a character trait slip though his very carefully crafted "ordinary guy" facade.  Several times...but not too many...in the course of what little give-and-take the forum allowed, White let show a seriously jarring smarminess, a clear case of smart-ass that he quickly drew the curtain back over.  Each time he did it, several people caught him at it.  He very sincerely told us how much he respected the conservative group he was addressing.  Those little glimmers of his real feelings belied his words, though.

White was coquettish on the question of supporting Cap N' Trade, murmuring sweetly that he was "not a scientist", though he clearly supports the notion of man-made global warming.  He did prove he is no scientist by saying that coal-fired electrical generation should be replaced with natural gas to reduce carbon emissions.  Without delving into chemistry, I doubt seriously a Btu from burning gas is much, if any, improvement over one derived from burning coal.  Carbon is carbon.

But what I found most disturbing is that White skirted the issue so carefully.  He must know that his position is at odds with those of the vast bulk of Texans, and he's working hard to obscure it.

All-in-all, I found White less than candid, conflicted on what he believes versus what he tells people, and a fairly doctrinaire liberal.  All of that makes him a lousy candidate for conservative Texans, in my estimation, and nobody I'd care to have governing this state I love.

BURN: Obama Proves Idiocy On Tax Matters

In the process of blatantly breaking walking away from his "no tax" promises, Obama shows he is as vacant on tax policy as any other area of understanding.

He avoided the hottest part of this hot-button topic: He didn't say whether he'd support tax hikes that may be recommended by a bipartisan fiscal commission he has created. (He has said all options should be "on the table" for the commission to consider.)
   But in response to a town-hall questioner, Mr. Obama voiced support for efforts to streamline the tax code, even as he framed the case against a "flat tax" that many Republicans support.
   The president spoke at a town hall meeting in Buffalo, N.Y., a day after the federal government reported an unexpectedly high monthly budget deficit. The Treasury Department reported an $82.69 billion deficit for April, the highest ever recorded for that month.
   "We're going to have to spend the next couple of years making some very hard decisions," Obama said. "It's not going to be any fun. [But] it's not going to be as painful as it will be if we put it off."

 So, the "no tax increase" policy has...as all other Obamic policies...a very limited shelf life.  We knew that.  He lied, he lies, he will lie.

But the real gob-stopper of the day was this:

Obama said he expects his fiscal commission to recommend tax reforms designed to make the tax code simpler. But he argued against going to a flat tax, such as 10 percent of income. He said a flat tax might "take a bigger bite out of the cashier at the supermarket" while it "would mean a huge tax break for Warren Buffett."

As famously reported, Buffett claimed to pay about 17.7% of his fat-cat earnings (fine with me, BTW, whatever he earns), while deploring that his $60k secretary paid 30%.  So, if anything, it would mean that Buffet would get LESS a break, and there was no disparity if BOTH paid at 10%.

But here's the kicker; why is ANY citizen in the U.S. paying NO TAX?  How is that fair, equitable, and just?  Yet, just less than half of us pay NOTHING for their government.

BURN: This Isn't Rocket Science

There is a VERY clear choice for Americans, and Tax Day is a good day to recognize it.  We can thrive, or we can decline.  We can have a job-creation economy, or we can have a big government economy.  That's it.



We have very clear mechanisms, showing us these two empirical choices.  They exist.  They work every time they are tried.  Everywhere, around the world.  This is not some theory.  It is simple fact.

So, Americans, do we live or die?  Or do we languish or thrive?  Now is the time to decide.