The tax trap

As we near the much bemoaned fiscal cliff, it appears the progressive Obama administration is making no attempt to solve the nation's budget woes. They continue to insist on a tax hike on "the rich" despite the fact that, even if they get their desired punitive tax, any money collected will only fund the government for 8 days.

This makes absolutely no sense unless you understand the end game for the progressives movement. They aren't just focused on the Unites States. They think globally. On a global scale, even the poorest U.S. citizen is actually quite rich by comparison. Just having a roof over your head and indoor plumbing makes you one of the privileged elite. Once the progressives get you to accept that "the rich" need to pay "their fair share" they will simply point out that "the rich" includes a majority of U.S. citizens regardless of their income. How long before the reality sets in that, compared to some third-world illiterate refugee living on a cup of rice a day, you are quite the fat-cat rich bastard?

With the idea that success and wealth needs to be punished via confiscatory taxing, it is easy to focus upward on the Donald Trumps of the world. Contemplating the demonization of millionaires and billionaires, hoping you might benefit from a "soak the rich" plan, remember to look behind you. There are way more desperately poor in the world who think even a lower-middle class lifestyle is quite excessive. It wont take much to convince them that you are rich and need to pay your fair share, too. If the Republicans cave in to the idea that the rich need to be heavily taxed, they are either idiots or are progressives themselves and fully understand the definition of rich might not be what voters think it is. Regardless of party affiliation, do not let anyone lead you in to the "tax the rich" trap.

The cost of Christmas

The cost of items in the classic song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" have gone up again. Why should you care how much "7 Swans a Swimming" or "5 Golden Rings" costs? Because your government is telling you there is no inflation. If that were true, the cost of these items would not be increasing.

The "Twelve Days of Christmas" inflation index reflects economic reality in a weird way. As the price of goods, especially poultry, rapidly climbs, wages for those maids-a-milking remain stagnant.

Read more here.

Captain Capitalist stikes again

Hubby has been on a role lately. Check out his latest words of wisdom directed at a left-leaning friend who thinks business owners will just keep producing no matter how much the government steals.

"Typical liberal mistake is looking at what they believe producers can AFFORD to do. In a free market, it's about what those free individuals are WILLING to do. Can you make a smart phone, perform sugery, refine fuel? At any price?" - Captain Capitalist

What now?

The election did not turn out as I had hoped and now we face 4 more years of higher taxes, high unemployment, low energy production with higher prices and increasing regulation. So now what?

Here is the perspective of my sometimes (ok, often) wise husband, Captain Capitalist. "Some have said that America will "wake up" when the economy continues to tank. History shows the opposite. The population in many countries has doubled down on big government, even as quality of life declined. If you're waiting for things to "come to a head" forget it. It doesn't happen that way. Take care of you and yours."

Not exactly a pep talk, but he is right.

Vote!

If you don't vote, you can't complain. I consider voting to be RENEWING MY BITCHING LICENSE.

Barocky Road

Booker T. Washington

From the Captain: Think before you vote

Today's words of wisdom come from my favorite super hero, Captain Capitalist.

"Remember when you vote for more government, you're providing more authority, money, influence and corruption opportunity for politicians and bureaucrats of all parties. Not just your favorite, and not just for one election cycle."

Advertising Abuse

All advertisers want to catch people's attention. Online advertisers have an even more difficult time getting people to notice their ads on busy web sites. They use all different kinds of fonts, colors, photos, and animation to get people to pay attention and hopefully, click on their ad. But sometimes advertisers go too far.

The other night I decided to check The Drudge Report before heading home. I was very shocked to see a the mug shot of James Holmes, the dirt bag who shot up the Batman Rises premier in Aurora. Some bone-headed advertiser decided using the photo of a murderer would be a nice way to get people's attention.

Now this horrible ad, while it appeared on The Drudge Report, it was not an ad created by Drudge. It is most likely part of an advertising service that The Drudge Report subscribes to and inserts a number of rotating ads in to the available ad slots placed by Drudge. Fortunately a quick email to the Drudge site and the ad disappeared.

And within a few minutes, new ads that rotated when the page was refreshed replaced the James Holmes image. After repeated page refreshing, the James Holmes ad did not appear. 

Big kudos to the Drudge Report for quickly taking down the offensive image. But that still leaves the problem of who created the ad and decided that using the picture of someone who recently killed a bunch of innocent people was a great idea. 

Unfortunately I was so focused on sending The Drudge Report an email so they could take the ad down I didn't click on the ad itself to see who was responsible. I am keeping my eye out for a reappearance so I can track down the creator. I would really like to ask them what the hell they were thinking.

If you have to resort to pictures of killers to get people to pay attention to your ad, you need to find a new ad designer or a new line of business. Offending and disgusting people usually isn't the best way to get new customers. Well, unless your target audience is a bunch of dirt bags. While I am not sure how lucrative the dirt bag demographic is, if that isn't your target market, you might not want to use murderers on your ad. 

Bonus Quotes

Feeling a little "designy" this morning so you get a bonus quote...

Quote of the week

Cities try raising revenue by destroying revenue generating businesses

During the building boom, the Las Vegas Water Authority was bringing in the big bucks with tap fees on new construction. The collected $190 million in 2005 alone. But now, that flood of money has turned in to a tiny trickle with only $3.5 million collected in 2010.

In order to get more revenue in the city coffers, someone came up with the brilliant idea to change the way water bills are calculated. Instead of paying for what you actually use, you are now charged by the size of your meter. With that billing system you could have a small meter and leave your faucet running 24/7 and pay less than a person who has a large meter but hardly uses any water at all. Make sense? Of course not!

This idiotic billing scheme already claimed it's first victim at the end of June 2012 - Larry's Hideaway, a small country bar off the strip.

"The bar has been around for more than 20 years. The bad economy played a role in its closing, but a recent fee by the local water authority, of more than $400 per month, was the straw that broke the camel's back for this bar in the desert oasis." (full story)

In tough economic times, a big hike in utility fees can mean the difference between having a steady base of tax revenue generators or further losses in city income. Considering small businesses employ half of all private sector employees, generated 65% of all new jobs created over the last 17 years, yet spend 36% per employee than large firms trying to comply with federal regulations*, hiking their utility rates is just pouring salt on an open wound.

According to Yelp, Larry's seemed to be a love it or hate it place, garnering some pretty hostile reviews in with the good ones. So the exact role the unexpectedly high water bill played in its closing is not entirely clear. However, small businesses like Larry's are still the economic engine that drives the American economy. If the goal of a government is to generate tax revenue, taking measures to drive revenue generators out of business isn't what I would consider a good plan.

It's all about the math

The Mattel Corporation came under fire in 1992 for releasing a talking Barbie doll that declared "Math Class is Tough!" Women's groups claimed it fed in to the stereotype that women are bad at math. Yet now in the year 2012, it looks like it's both women and men that are bad at math. Very, very bad.

When discussing Obama care and government benefits, some of my more left-leaning friends have stated that since they are paying in to social security and medicare, it isn't an entitlement. Here is one recent comment:

"It is annoying that people think SS and Medicare are handouts. We pay for those with every paycheck. Just makes me mad when people slam things as "entitlements" when I am buying them!" (name omitted to protect the guilty)

 This is where that tough old math comes in to play. Look what happens when you actually crunch the numbers...

"No matter how much you pay into the system, whether you earn the average wage over a lifetime ($43,100 in 2010 dollars) or if you're in a two-income household where one earns a high wage and the other earns an average wage, you get back substantially more than you pay in." (more)

This means that social security and medicare ARE entitlements since people feel "entitled" to draw more out than they paid in. Let's put it this way... if you go out to dinner with a large group of friends and everyone pitches in $10 and then orders the $35 lobster platter, there's going to be a big problem when it comes time to pay the check. 

A simple solution is to refund everyone's unused Social Security and Medicare taxes and totally disband those programs. Then let people do their own savings and pay directly for their retirement and healthcare needs. Sadly a radical plan like this will never fly. It relies on things in very short supply these days... the ability to add and subtract and individual responsibility. 

Supreme Court ruling helps bring economy to a complete standstill

The Supreme Court has finally ruled on Obama care. In the good news category, they ruled that congress can not use the commerce cause to force you to buy insurance or any other products. The bad news is the Individual Mandate still stands as a tax. In 2009, President Obama emphatically declared that the penalty for not buying insurance was NOT a tax, thus proving once again he and his cohorts are lying sacks of crap. (In other news, the sky is blue, the sun rises in the east and water is wet.)


Another section of the ruling says that the feds can not force states to expand medicaide. It was the goal of the federal government to force states to expand those programs by installing penalties taking away existing federal funding for failing to comply. This is not allowed according to the Supremes.


As the talking heads and legal eagles pour over the full text of the ruling, the most important thing is how it effects individual business owners. What exactly is the impact? Well that's where things get tricky. Nobody really knows and that is a serious problem. The sluggish economy will now come to a complete standstill as small business owners try and figure out how this will effect their payrolls. 


Personally, I do know that despite wanting to hire someone for my small business, I wont. Not until I can calculate what this will cost me down to the penny. Without that knowledge, hiring could cause serious financial hardship to my family. If I am not hiring despite needing an extra hand, you can be assured that other business owners will be in the same situation. If the legal and political climate effecting your day to day operations is murky, the smartest decision is to make due with what you have and wait for clarity. This means economic paralysis. If you were hoping for a new job or a better paying job anytime soon, your odds just got much much worse.

CO2 from bread targeted by EPA

Progressive elements of the U.S. government have been trying to implement additional controls and regulations over CO2 emissions for years. Control CO2 and you have control over many aspects of the economy as well as private life.

One of the primary targets of increasing CO2 regulation is the coal industry. By further lowering the emission standards as proposed, the president and his progressive buddies can finally achieve their goal of bankrupting the coal industry. Don't believe me? Obama said so himself.

"if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." - Barak Obama (more)

As with most plans of elitist know-it-alls, there are unintended consequences to their grand designs. Not only could the progressive policies directed at CO2 emissions bankrupt big coal, it could destroy the baking industry. That's BAKING...not banking.

"...natural ethanol emissions from yeast may cost bakers as much as $80,000 per ton removed, which contrasts sharply with less than $1,000 per ton to scrub sulfur from a coal-fired power plant and $80 per ton to dispose of municipal garbage." (more)

Apparently the pointed-headed intellectuals are unaware that yeast, an important ingredient in any raised baked good, releases CO2 gasses as it grows and expands. Yeast is what makes cinnamon rolls, bread and donuts light and airy. According to the EPA it is also a bigger risk to the environment than land fills and sulphur-filled smoke from burning coal.

While this would be hilarious as some evil, well-thought out plot by low-carb and paleo dieters to eliminate bread, their most vile and hated nemesis, it's just another example of busy-bodies gone bad. If the government does go ahead with including bread in their war on CO2, I hope you really like tortillas and Matzo crackers.

About that pledge of allegiance...

You can't be on facebook for more than 10 minutes without seeing a post about how wonderful the world would be if we just went back to making kids recite the pledge of allegiance. Usually the person posting the pro-pledge material leans toward the conservative side. They consider themselves patriots and believe a love of god and freedom is instilled by pledge recitation. Too bad that is not at all what the pledge was designed to do.

"...the Pledge was designed by an avowed socialist to encourage greater regimentation of society."
(more)

Every time you refuse to recite the pledge, a puppy dies

That's right folks. The pledge of allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a radical socialist, as an exercise in slavish devotion to the state. It's about as american and patriotic as a matryoshka doll. The original pledge even included a very Nazi-like salute, though after the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, it was changed to the more well-known hand over the heart.

Rather creepy photo of the original pledge hand placement 

The really funny thing about the pledge is the most debated section, the 'Under God' phrase, was not even in the original version. It wasn't added in 1954. After that, all the fun court battles began.

So next time someone gets bent all out of shape because schools don't require the pledge, go ahead and give them a little history lesson. I doubt they would cling to this antiquated authoritarian exercise if they really knew its true socialist history.

Forward....or something

The 2012 Barak Obama campaign recently unveiled it's new slogan. It is one simple word. FORWARD. Unfortunately that word comes with a lot of historical baggage.

"The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism." (more)

Strange choice for someone running for the leader of the free world. Even if you pretend really REALLY hard that our president is not a radical socialist, FORWARD is still a bad choice for a campaign slogan. The first thing I thought when I heard this apparently popped in to the head of Obama's republican opponent Mitt Romney at the same time...

"Mitt Romney...poked fun at President Obama's newly unveiled campaign slogan, "Forward," remarking, "Forward, what, over the cliff?"" (more)

Based on reactions from friends and family, more than a few people thought the very same thing. Since they are going to go forward with the FORWARD theme regardless of it's comedic assistance to the republican party, I thought I would be helpful and make the Obama campaign a graphic to go with their new slogan...

Government doesn't really create jobs

With the election looming, you will be hearing more and more about job creation. For the record, politicians do NOT create jobs. Hard-working, entrepreneurial individuals do. People who take the risks, have the ideas, and have the drive to start a corporation or small business create jobs. When you hear about government jobs, what you are really hearing about are drains on the economy. In order for that government job to be created, the government has to first confiscate money from tax payers. Government is a "job creator" like Vampires are "blood donors". Sure, vampires are interested in the blood business as a whole, but they certainly aren't going to be creating any.

Your new job title is Lunch.

Government is so bad at job creation, that even having your resume handled personally by the President of the United States does not guarantee employment.

"More than two months after President Barack Obama asked for Darin Wedel's résumé, the phone is quiet, e-mails are no longer flooding in and the long-sought-after job interviews -- which had begun to be scheduled -- have petered out.

"Not even recruiting companies are calling anymore," said Jennifer Wedel, the Fort Worth mother of two who chatted online this year with Obama about her out-of-work husband." (more)

If the most powerful man in the free world can't hook up one job, do you really think he will be able to create enough jobs to save the failing economy?

Since government can't really create jobs, what can government do? Simple. Get the hell out of the way. Reduce unnecessary regulation, restrictions, reduce taxes, and simplify work rules. The people can handle the rest. Without the burden of excessive government - without political vampires sucking them dry - the business community will thrive.

Sandra Fluke on How To Be a Ho

Heard about the kefluffle between Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the poor, broke, horny college student?

"Following Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke’s controversial testimony about the alleged cost of birth control, conservative talk radio hosts Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have been having a field day. Specifically, they take issue with the piece of Ms. Fluke’s testimony where she claims birth control can cost over $3000 over the course of law school — a claim which would only be true if a particular student had sex at least three times in a single day using condoms." (more)

Here's my take on it. Last time I checked, there were two people (or more - we are talking about college here) involved in any sex act requiring birth control. If you can't chip in together to afford a condom, maybe sex shouldn't be the first thing on your financial obligation list.

As for Rush and Glenn, if you aren't asking for them as tax payers to subsidize your sexual activity, how often you have sex and what birth control method you choose is none of their damn business. Go before congress and give a sob story about how difficult it is to afford getting laid while going to law school so your birth control needs to be subsidized? Then you, as a student allegedly smart enough to be enrolled in a law program should expect negative feedback. Yes, even to the extent of being called a slut. Because, if someone else is paying for you to have sex...well...admit it...ya are.

This is not a slam against women, some kind of moral judgement on premarital sex or a handy way to drag women's reproductive freedoms back in to the dark ages as some people might think. None of that is even the issue. The issue is expecting other people to pay for your lifestyle choices. If you want people to pay for you to have sex, be prepared to be called a ho.

A simple school transfer could help Sandra immensely

New Election Vocabulary

"Electile Dysfunction : the inability to become aroused over any of the candidates for election."

From Maddie Stretch via Ann Rein.

Grumpy Old Man for President

While watching the news yesterday, I saw a clip of Newt Gingrich making a speech standing in front of a model T car. I couldn't tell you what he was saying because I was totally focused on the image of 68 year old Newt standing in front of an even older automobile.

When you are a grumpy old man running for president trying to connect with younger generations, does it really help to stand in front of a Model T when you make a speech? Why not just come out in your underwear and robe, yell "Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!" and get it over with?

Taking the News out of Newsweek

Newsweek, an increasingly irrelevant weekly news magazine, has given up the illusion of even being remotely concerned with news. Instead, they have used their latest issue to show they are simply cheerleaders for the Obama administration.

Disagree with Obama's policies? You must be an idiot. Notice how much he has grown the deficit? That's a good thing! How dumb are you? There can't be anything wrong with what President Obama's done during the last 3 years to take a bad economy and make it worse. You, dear average schmuck, are just too simple to realize how awesome he truly is.

Yeah...right. How about this cover instead?