The Founding Fathers on redistribution of wealth

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson ...  (The Reference Frame)

He’s far too modest: In fact, he’s been “working” on the crisis for years. I’m honestly speechless. If you’re not, read this or watch this and you will be. O’Reilly, who’s never speechless, sums things up well enough below.

Naturally, Frank’s response to McCain reminding voters of his complicity in the subprime crisis is to accuse him of homophobia, just like he accused the GOP of racism for linking the economic crisis to the mortgage disaster, just like he accused Bush of “ethnic cleansing by hurricane” to squeeze a few extra political points out of Katrina. The man never met a bad-faith accusation he didn’t like. And his party loves him.

Buzz up!

There was no good answer when Hannity asked this question months ago and there’s no good answer now.

There is an answer, though: He’s brought the country together, the professor assures us. How? Presumably by the fact that he’s reached 50 percent in the polls. Which would be one percentage point less than, er, Bush got in 2004.

Buzz up!

Found via Drudge, this recently created YouTube channel with a few doozie videos cutting the Obamachrist down a few levels is hilarious. I'll provide the sampler here.

Here is Michelle Obama saying that it is too soon for Obama to be running for President because he hasn't done anything yet. Tell us about it, honey.

We're still not quite sure what he's done since this interview that magically qualified him for the Presidency, but I guess that's all water under the bridge now, isn't it, Michelle?

Here's another of Obama himself saying that history is not made by giving a speech or getting elected. Really? Send the memo to your sycophants and disciples in the mainstream press and beyond, big guy. They're not getting the message.

One more - Obama admitting that eight years in the state legislature has allowed him to serve in complete obscurity.There aren't too many more, but these kinds of things would be played ENDLESSLY by both news organizations (which have ceased to be in this country for the most part) and in ads if a Republican had uttered them.

Eat those words, Hopey McChange.

Skeptical scientist has university certification revoked! - For ten years or more, professor David Deming has taught a course in environmental geology at the University of Oklahoma. In October 2008, he was informed that the "general education" certification for his course was being revoked. Under the University of Oklahoma system, this means that student enrollment in the course is likely to drop by two-thirds.

This is a course which receives outstanding student evaluations.

Professor Deming is well-known to be a global-warming skeptic. In 2006, he testified before the US Senate that media coverage of global warming had descended into "irrational hysteria."

Professor Deming is unaware of any other case in the history of the University of Oklahoma where the "gen ed" certification for a course has been revoked.

It would appear possible that professor Deming's position on global warming was a motivating factor. But in this case, the tragedy is that the people being punished are the students, not the professor.

Those who wish to express their concern can do so by writing or calling University of Oklahoma President David Boren.

David Boren, President
University of Oklahoma
110 Evans Hall
Norman, OK 73019
telephone: 405-325-3916
Note changed email address: email: dboren@ou.edu

What the Public Doesn't Understand About Climate Change - As I report on climate change, I come across a lot of scary facts, like the possibility that thawing permafrost in Siberia could release gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, or the risk that Greenland could pass a tipping point and begin to melt rapidly. But one of the most frightening studies I've read recently had nothing to do with icebergs or megadroughts. In a paper that came out Oct. 23 in Science, John Sterman — a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) Sloan School of Management — wrote about asking 212 MIT grad students to give a rough idea how much governments need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to eventually stop the increase in the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. These students had training in science, technology, mathematics and economics at one of the best schools in the world — they are probably a lot smarter than you or me. Yet 84% of Sterman's subjects got his problem wrong, greatly underestimating the degree to which greenhouse gas emissions need to fall. When the MIT kids can't figure out climate change, what are the odds that the broader public will? (Bryan Walsh, Time)

Wrong according to whom? As yet people have no idea how much the apparent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is actually a result of temperature change and without knowing that or what future temperature trends might be all answers are dubious. These guys assume an awful lot of facts not in evidence.

So, 82% get it: 18% - Climate Change - Climate Change survey in America: Only 18% believe it's real, caused by humans, and harmful (Tom Nelson)

Global warming caused by solar panels - This finding is kind of cute. (The Reference Frame)

The Case for Global Warming Skepticism - One of the hot-button environmental issues is Global Warming. While some people argue we must be more specific and refer to “anthropogenic Global Warming,” I do not do so. Not because I think humans are not affecting the environment in any way, but because I think it is scientifically impossible to accurately measure the temperature and compare it to historical trends in the first place. And if it is scientifically impossible to do so, then all Global Warming (anthropogenic or natural) is unscientific.

In order to demonstrate the scientific problems with Global Warming, we must first understand a bit of how scientific experiments work. The two key concepts will be our understanding of precision and accuracy. Without these two ideas firmly in place, we cannot even begin to weigh the evidence presented for Global Warming. (Triablogue via Tom Nelson)

Video: Megyn Kelly, Obama spokesman go nuclear over Fox News and the redistribution tape

Time for the daily combative Kelly interview, featuring muppet-ish Obama spokestool Bill Burton in his recurring role. The beauty of this clip is how it ties the day’s two stories together in a bow. Got a question about The One’s penchant for socialist rhetoric? Then prepare to have your motives challenged and maybe your access cut off, on top of the abuse you’ll take once his vicious little cultists get involved. Just ask “extreme hate monger” David Freddoso.

She came ready to play, though, didn’t she? The polling stats flow effortlessly! Exit quotation: “You may have the rest of the media in the tank, but Fox News reports it straight.”

Buzz up!

The tax code has always contained provisions that reduce the income tax burden for low-income workers, such as the standard deduction, personal exemption, and dependent exemption. Between 1950 and 1990, the percentage of tax filers whose entire tax liability was wiped out by these provisions averaged 21 percent. Since then, lawmakers have expanded credits—such as the earned income tax credit (EITC)—while creating a plethora of new credits, including the child tax credit, the HOPE credit, lifetime learning credit, and the credit for adoption expenses.

Most tax credits can only reduce a taxpayer's amount due to zero, but the EITC and the child tax credit were also made refundable, meaning that taxpayers are eligible to receive a check even if they have paid no income tax during the year. Those tax returns have become, in effect, a claim form for a subsidy delivered through the tax system rather than a direct payment from a traditional government program like welfare or farm supports.

As shown in Table 1 below, the Tax Foundation estimates that there will be 47 million tax returns with zero income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That's one-third of all tax returns, and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals.

Both the McCain and Obama plans would increase this number by expanding existing tax benefits or creating new ones. Senator McCain is proposing one expanded provision—the dependent exemption—and one new credit, a $5,000 refundable health care tax credit. The Obama plan contains seven new provisions, including a new "Making Work Pay Credit," a "Universal Mortgage Credit," and a plan to eliminate income taxes for seniors earning under $50,000.¹

Taken together, the Tax Foundation estimates the McCain proposals would increase the number of nonpayers by about 15 million, bringing the total number of taxpayers who pay no personal income taxes to 62 million, roughly 43 percent of all tax filers. Almost all of this is due to McCain's health care credit, which dramatically realigns health care incentives and gives people a powerful motive to buy health insurance. This tax provision has a bigger impact on cutting people's taxes than any single proposal from either party.²

Source. See also this on the McCain health plan. (h/t: Mankiw.)

I am on the local United Way board of directors, and one of the UW's foci is on "financial stability". One of the largest programs I see run under that banner is a program to help low-income families file for the earned income tax credit. (Here's an example from Seattle.) EITC has been frequently abused, to the tune of over $8 billion. It takes 15-20 minutes online to figure out if you even qualify, let alone fill out the form and be sure to carry that over to 1040A (no EZ for the EITC claimer.) Now we have one candidate proposing a single tax credit to put health benefits on an equal footing with cash wages, while the other is proposing seven additional credits. How difficult will the new tax forms be, and where will we get the volunteers to help file them?

To bet on Obama, perhaps you should go long on H&R Block.

Oh, and guess who loves EITC? And even helps with filings? ACORN. Can't wait to read Mickey Mouse's tax return.

Democrat Orson Scott Card Slams Journalists on Obama, Fannie and Freddie

Tony Blankley Gets It Right: The Birth of the Me-Too Conservative

How many will pay no federal income taxes in the next administration?

Under either John McCain or Barack Obama, millions of Americans will wind up paying no federal income taxes.  According to the Tax Foundation, tax liabilities will drop to zero (or less) for 15-16 million more Americans than now, pushing that to almost half of all filers.  While that may seem optimal to some, if it doesn’t come with significant reductions in overall revenue, it forces fewer people to pay for more government:

The tax code has always contained provisions that reduce the income tax burden for low-income workers, such as the standard deduction, personal exemption, and dependent exemption. Between 1950 and 1990, the percentage of tax filers whose entire tax liability was wiped out by these provisions averaged 21 percent. Since then, lawmakers have expanded credits—such as the earned income tax credit (EITC)—while creating a plethora of new credits, including the child tax credit, the HOPE credit, lifetime learning credit, and the credit for adoption expenses.

Most tax credits can only reduce a taxpayer’s amount due to zero, but the EITC and the child tax credit were also made refundable, meaning that taxpayers are eligible to receive a check even if they have paid no income tax during the year. Those tax returns have become, in effect, a claim form for a subsidy delivered through the tax system rather than a direct payment from a traditional government program like welfare or farm supports.

As shown in Table 1 below, the Tax Foundation estimates that there will be 47 million tax returns with zero income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That’s one-third of all tax returns, and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals.

Both the McCain and Obama plans would increase this number by expanding existing tax benefits or creating new ones. Senator McCain is proposing one expanded provision—the dependent exemption—and one new credit, a $5,000 refundable health care tax credit. The Obama plan contains seven new provisions, including a new “Making Work Pay Credit,” a “Universal Mortgage Credit,” and a plan to eliminate income taxes for seniors earning under $50,000.¹

Taken together, the Tax Foundation estimates the McCain proposals would increase the number of nonpayers by about 15 million, bringing the total number of taxpayers who pay no personal income taxes to 62 million, roughly 43 percent of all tax filers. Almost all of this is due to McCain’s health care credit, which dramatically realigns health care incentives and gives people a powerful motive to buy health insurance. This tax provision has a bigger impact on cutting people’s taxes than any single proposal from either party.

This seems very unhealthy in terms of commitment to federal government.  The government serves all Americans, and except for the poorest among us, we should all be contributing to its maintenance.  Without that kind of connection, the people who pay nothing will have no risk in demanding ever-increasing services and flat-out welfare, which is what Barack Obama’s tax plan really delivers in its seven refundables.  McCain doesn’t give away money to quite the same degree, but it has almost the same effect on taxpayers.

As the second chart demonstrates, the Bush tax cuts did not burden the poor.  It had a similar effect as what both Obama and McCain propose here.  Bush increased the number of people without any federal tax liability by 30%, from 25% to 33% overall.

Obama's Carbon Ultimatum: The coming offer you won't be able to refuse. - Liberals pretend that only President Bush is preventing the U.S. from adopting some global warming "solution." But occasionally their mask slips. As Barack Obama's energy adviser has now made clear, the would-be President intends to blackmail -- or rather, greenmail -- Congress into falling in line with his climate agenda.

Jason Grumet is currently executive director of an outfit called the National Commission on Energy Policy and one of Mr. Obama's key policy aides. In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency "would initiate those rulemakings" that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that "in the absence of Congressional action" 18 months after Mr. Obama's inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway.

Well, well. For years, Democrats -- including Senator Obama -- have been howling about the "politicization" of the EPA, which has nominally been part of the Bush Administration. The complaint has been that the White House blocked EPA bureaucrats from making the so-called "endangerment finding" on carbon. Now it turns out that a President Obama would himself wield such a finding as a political bludgeon. He plans to issue an ultimatum to Congress: Either impose new taxes and limits on carbon that he finds amenable, or the EPA carbon police will be let loose to ravage the countryside. (Wall Street Journal)

If people are dumb enough to pay for hot air... Pollution Credits Let Dumps Double Dip - CAPE MAY COUNTY, N.J. -- America's garbage dumps are reaping a windfall from the fight against global warming. But their payday might not be doing much to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

For more than a decade, the landfill here has made extra profit simply by collecting methane given off by rotting trash, and selling it as fuel. Last year, the landfill learned that doing this also qualified it to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars via a new program that pays companies to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions.

Eliminating methane lets dumps sell "carbon credits" to environmentally conscious people and companies. The long-term goal of trading credits -- basically, vouchers representing reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases -- is to reduce global pollution by encouraging others to cut emissions when the buyers of the credits can't or won't cut their own.

"It seemed a little suspicious that we could get money for doing nothing," says Charles Norkis, executive director of the Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority, which has raised $427,475 selling credits since February, or 3% of the authority's projected solid-waste revenue for the year.

The sale of credits by these landfills undermines a premise of the global fight against climate change. The credit system was designed to encourage pollution cuts that wouldn't have happened without a financial incentive. But the credits aren't helping the environment if they're merely providing extra profit for cleanups already made. And dumps already have an incentive to capture methane because selling it can be profitable [Wall Street Journal]

Are they really so deranged? Climate Deniers and Freedom of Screech - Does the right of freedom of speech extend to shouting “Hoax” on a burning planet? The climate change / global warming Deniers made much hysterical arm waving out of James Hansen’s “call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature” and David Suzuki’s call for Denier politicians to be “hold politicians legally accountable“, do the Deniers have a point?

If you check the Denialosphere’s version of both the Hansen interview and Suzuki’s comments the narrative is that both were calling for the criminalization of legitimate dissent, the suppression of freedom of speech, and the punishment of thought crimes. As Richard Littlemore notes, according the the Denialosphere it is “environmental fascism,” “enviro-totalitarianism” and/or the beginning of an “enviro-inquisition.” Is that what really happened?

No, of course not. Every demonstration that Denierism is utter nonsense get’s labeled as something like “Greenhouse robots clamp down on true climate debate.” Typically the claim is utter hogwash (Aside: as a general guideline, if it comes from the Denialosphere it is probably nonsense). (greenfyre)

Seems unlikely anyone actually subscribes to such a position unless they've been neglecting to take certain prescription medicaments...

UK Telegraph falls prey to photo cherry picking - They say a picture is worth a thousand words right? Depending on what you are trying to present, that picture can make or break any presentation.

So it was with great interest that I noticed this picture in the article from the UK Telegraph with this alarming title: Climate change is ‘faster and more extreme’ than feared (Watts Up with That?)

Obama's Carbon Ultimatum: The coming offer you won't be able to refuse. - Liberals pretend that only President Bush is preventing the U.S. from adopting some global warming "solution." But occasionally their mask slips. As Barack Obama's energy adviser has now made clear, the would-be President intends to blackmail -- or rather, greenmail -- Congress into falling in line with his climate agenda.

Jason Grumet is currently executive director of an outfit called the National Commission on Energy Policy and one of Mr. Obama's key policy aides. In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency "would initiate those rulemakings" that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that "in the absence of Congressional action" 18 months after Mr. Obama's inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway.

Well, well. For years, Democrats -- including Senator Obama -- have been howling about the "politicization" of the EPA, which has nominally been part of the Bush Administration. The complaint has been that the White House blocked EPA bureaucrats from making the so-called "endangerment finding" on carbon. Now it turns out that a President Obama would himself wield such a finding as a political bludgeon. He plans to issue an ultimatum to Congress: Either impose new taxes and limits on carbon that he finds amenable, or the EPA carbon police will be let loose to ravage the countryside. (Wall Street Journal)

If people are dumb enough to pay for hot air... Pollution Credits Let Dumps Double Dip - CAPE MAY COUNTY, N.J. -- America's garbage dumps are reaping a windfall from the fight against global warming. But their payday might not be doing much to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

For more than a decade, the landfill here has made extra profit simply by collecting methane given off by rotting trash, and selling it as fuel. Last year, the landfill learned that doing this also qualified it to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars via a new program that pays companies to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions.

Eliminating methane lets dumps sell "carbon credits" to environmentally conscious people and companies. The long-term goal of trading credits -- basically, vouchers representing reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases -- is to reduce global pollution by encouraging others to cut emissions when the buyers of the credits can't or won't cut their own.

"It seemed a little suspicious that we could get money for doing nothing," says Charles Norkis, executive director of the Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority, which has raised $427,475 selling credits since February, or 3% of the authority's projected solid-waste revenue for the year.

The sale of credits by these landfills undermines a premise of the global fight against climate change. The credit system was designed to encourage pollution cuts that wouldn't have happened without a financial incentive. But the credits aren't helping the environment if they're merely providing extra profit for cleanups already made. And dumps already have an incentive to capture methane because selling it can be profitable [Wall Street Journal]

Are they really so deranged? Climate Deniers and Freedom of Screech - Does the right of freedom of speech extend to shouting “Hoax” on a burning planet? The climate change / global warming Deniers made much hysterical arm waving out of James Hansen’s “call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature” and David Suzuki’s call for Denier politicians to be “hold politicians legally accountable“, do the Deniers have a point?

If you check the Denialosphere’s version of both the Hansen interview and Suzuki’s comments the narrative is that both were calling for the criminalization of legitimate dissent, the suppression of freedom of speech, and the punishment of thought crimes. As Richard Littlemore notes, according the the Denialosphere it is “environmental fascism,” “enviro-totalitarianism” and/or the beginning of an “enviro-inquisition.” Is that what really happened?

No, of course not. Every demonstration that Denierism is utter nonsense get’s labeled as something like “Greenhouse robots clamp down on true climate debate.” Typically the claim is utter hogwash (Aside: as a general guideline, if it comes from the Denialosphere it is probably nonsense). (greenfyre)

Seems unlikely anyone actually subscribes to such a position unless they've been neglecting to take certain prescription medicaments...

UK Telegraph falls prey to photo cherry picking - They say a picture is worth a thousand words right? Depending on what you are trying to present, that picture can make or break any presentation.

So it was with great interest that I noticed this picture in the article from the UK Telegraph with this alarming title: Climate change is ‘faster and more extreme’ than feared (Watts Up with That?)

527 ad: “Concerned about Obama?”

The Republican Jewish Coalition has a new ad hitting Barack Obama on his naïve foreign policy.  They take Obama’s pledge to meet without preconditions with the heads of five terror-supporting nations, and compare his answer to Hillary Clinton’s:

I’d call this an overdue assessment of Obama’s lack of depth.  We’ve been talking about it for over a year, but not surprisingly, the Tanning Bed Media have mostly ignored it.  The timing of this ad seems pretty serendipitous, though, coming on the heels of Joe Biden’s remarks on how an untested and unprepared Obama administration will motivate our enemies abroad to create an international crisis to see just how weak Obama really is.

A case study in redistributionism

Finally, "Straight Talk" From the Homosexual Agenda