Tag Archives: Democrats

Ohio Voting War

On Friday, US District Judge Peter Economus ordered the State of Ohio to restore early voting until the Monday November 5. This will give Ohioans the weekend prior to the election to vote in-person at Board of Election offices and other designated locations. Democrats claim nearly 93,000 additional Ohioans voted because of this provision in 2008. Yet, the statistics the judge in part relied on did not actually present any numbers regarding the 3-day post-election period. The statistics only covered both the total 35 day and the 7-day pre- election period of early voting. (Source: Wall Steet Journal blog.)

In the past, there presumably was no uniform state law concerning the early voting period. Since 2008, the Republican-led executive branch under the leadership of John Husted implemented uniform policies for all local board of election offices. A 35-day period was set to begin on Monday and continue to the Friday before the election except those who are stationed overseas. They are allowed to submit their ballot until the Monday before period.

Although I agree with the Democrats that voting on the weekend (Saturday) would make it easier for many to vote, the State is already making it easier for all Ohioans to vote. Ohio law allows workers to vote during business hours without being penalized by employers. The State will be mailing all Ohioans information about how to register and vote by absentee ballot, not to mention in-person early voting already been scheduled for the voting public. The Secretary of State also is also responsible for implementing a multifaceted voter registration initiative.

Liberal leaning organizations like the Children’s Defense Fund are cheerleading Obama’s judicial campaign for weekend voting. They call Husted’s rather egalitarian voting policies suppression of poor people’s voting rights. Like the inconclusive U.S. General Accounting Office study, a 93,000 additional voter turnout in 2008 does not seem very effective especially when considering the state’s new efforts to enable every voter in the state to vote on or before election day.

One proposal to decrease the burden of the poor voter is prepaid mail-in ballots. To my knowledge, the proposal has not been implemented. Seeing Obama is providing those on public assistance as well as the working poor with cell phones, maybe he and his liberal associates would like to use taxpayer money to supplies federal postage stamps. That just might get him and other liberal Democrats a few more votes.

Liberal efforts to get more of the poor to vote also raises concern of voter fraud. The Voter Participation Center (VPC) has been sending out registration cards to pets, deceased voters, and other non-voters. The organization’s leadership includes previous leaders of the infamous ACORN, which was defunded by the federal government in 2008 because of similar voting fraud. The Judicial Watch reports the founder is one of the Democrats top political strategist with roots in the AFL-CIO and SIEU unions. It current director was Other ranking members of the Democratic Party and Pres. Clinton’s staff are involved in the organization as well. Bogus voter registration cards have been reported in Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Missouri, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The problem is the VPC is mailing voter registration cards that are already filled-out to the deceased, children, those already registered, noncitizens, felons and even pets across the nation. Ohio is not being left out of the Democrat-led efforts to get out the vote.

Besides continuing to fight Obama's weekend voting lawsuit, Attorney General Mike Dewine should look into The Voter Participation Center's work in Ohio.

Perspective On Progressive Tax, Buffet Rule & Obama Plan

By Daniel Downs

In an article published in the Tax Analyst, Martin A. Sullivan explains why the tax code is not genuinely progressive.

Almost everybody assumes the individual income tax is progressive — that is, that higher income categories pay higher effective tax rates than lower income categories. That is true only up to a point, as shown in Figure 2. The schedule of effective tax rates in the United States is not steadily upward sloping. Depending on the year, average tax rates begin declining somewhere in the $2 million to $5 million range. For adjusted gross income over $10 million, the average effective tax rate was 19.7 percent in 2007 and 22.6 percent in 2009. The income tax is regressive at the upper end.

There is a simple explanation for both the declining rates at the top end and the rise in top-end rates in 2009 over 2007: the 15 percent rate on capital gains and qualified dividends. As income rises, an increasingly larger share of income comes in the form of dividends and capital gains. And there were more capital gains in the boom year of 2007 than there was in the depths of the recession in 2009.

Application of the Buffett principle would eliminate the dip in tax rates at the high end. The Buffett rule is roughly equivalent to an increase in the tax rate on capital gains and dividends on millionaires.

This helps explain why secretaries of both Buffet and President Obama pay higher income tax rates while earning much less than their bosses.

Yet, Sullivan began his article stating why the Buffet Rule may not be a good idea. “[I]t is a basic tenet of tax economics that an efficient system should eliminate all taxes on capital income,” which “translates into big tax benefits for the wealthy.” In other words, it’s not a good idea to tax non-wage related investment income, capital gains or corporate profits because doing so multi-taxes wage income. (See Economist, Feb. 24, 2012)

Capitol Hill bureaucrats like Obama actually may want to raise about $5 billion more in annual revenues to help ease the imperial burden. However, it is more likely they want to create a genuine socialist economy. From the beginning of his presidency, Obama’s sought to fuflill the party’s agenda for a coherent socialist system. Evidence of his efforts is the passage of the Obamacare legislation. Another piece of evidence is his ties to the progressive policy agendas of the Communist Party.

Information about progressive Democrats ties to the Communist Party (CPUSA) is coming out since the public ire about Congressman Allan West’s statement that about 81 of the Congressional Progressive Caucus were members of the Communist Party. As journalist Cliff Kincaid recent commented, “Joelle Fishman, chair of the political action commission of the CPUSA, openly campaigned for Barack Obama” because of the progressive affiliation between the two. “Trevor Loudon,” Kincaid continued, “points out that ‘Joelle Fishman is the daughter-in-law of Soviet spy Victor Perlo. Her role within the Communist Party involves coordinating efforts to elect progressive Democrats to state and national office and seeing that the Democrats adopt Communist Party inspired policies.'” She is one of many working to achieve the same goal. The clincher is that Obama’s political mentor was Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.

Kincaid sums up the Obama plan that includes more progressive tax code: “The CPUSA is working through the Democratic Party as a whole, as well as the Obama Administration.” It is reasonable to assume that underlying Obama’s plan to tax wealthy is the goal of creating a socialist economy through progressive taxation. Such would be a win for the CPUSA. Maybe that is why neither the “Buffet Rule” nor any plan of Democrats proposes to eliminate the capital gain taxes.

Long live McCarthy!!!

Republicans Are Inconsistent with Obama, But Democrats Are Hypocritical

By Daniel Pipes

While it is certainly true that Democrats cut Obama slack on policies where they would slam Bush or McCain, as a fair-minded Republican I note that the reverse holds true as well: Republicans slam Obama and go easy on Bush. I will establish both points in my areas of expertise, the Middle East and Islam.

Obama & Bush – sometimes it matters less what the policy is than who implements it.
Start with Democratic inconsistency: Although Democrats raged against American forces fighting in Iraq and muttered about their role in Afghanistan, there were more American troops in the combined Iraq-Afghanistan theater under Obama in late 2009 than had ever been the case under Bush – and Democrats were silent about this. Democrats derided Bush for damaging America’s reputation among Muslims and Obama placed huge emphasis on establishing a new tone vis-à-vis Muslims. But his efforts had precious little impact, with polls showing Muslims seeing him about the same as Bush; and Democrats are silent. Finally, Democrats bemoaned the clandestine CIA drone program operating in countries where U.S. troops are not based, such as Pakistan. But the Obama administration authorized more targeted killings in its first year than did the Bush administration in its final year. Specifically, there were thirty-six operations in 2008 and fifty in 2009.

Republicans, however, also are inconsistent: they mock Obama’s insistence on trying diplomacy vis-à-vis Iran, but Bush did the same, authorizing 28 meetings with representatives of Tehran at the ambassadorial level or higher. Republicans excoriate Obama for setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan but said not a peep when Bush did the same for the much larger undertaking in Iraq in the status of forces agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops by the last day of 2011. Conversely, Republicans give Obama little credit for keeping the Iraqi mission basically in place, only speeding up the timetable.

On a positive note, Republicans did stand with Obama on increasing troops to Afghanistan and they did applaud his taking out Osama bin Laden. In contrast, it is hard to imagine any comparable support by Democrats for a President McCain. Although Republicans have problems with consistency, Democrats are blatantly hypocritical.

Originally published by the Daniel Pipes Blog on July 11, 2011.

Conservative Majority Decide Election

Media wonks claim this election was decided by independents. But, the so-called independents defined themselves mostly as conservatives. The following are quotes from a recent CitizenLink article:

From the U.S. Congress to state legislatures and from judges to ballot initiatives, conservatives successfully turned the political establishment on its head.

According to Edison Research, more people identified as conservatives this election – as opposed to Republicans, Democrats or Independents. When surveying those who voted for U.S House candidates, 41 percent identified themselves as conservative, 36 percent as Republicans, 36 percent as Democrats, and 28 percent as Independents.

Another positive sign was that the conservative tsunami knew no geographic, ethnic or gender boundaries.

As Paul Harvey used to say, “now you know the rest of the story.”

Most Americans Say Government Has Too Much Money and Spends It Unwisely

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% of Adults think the federal government has too much power and money.

Perhaps that’s no surprise since 66% believe America is overtaxed.

An overwhelming 70% of adults say the government does not spend taxpayer’s money wisely and fairly. Just 16% believe the government does spend this money correctly, while another 14% are not sure.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans and 60% of adults who are not affiliated with either of the major political parties believe the government has too much power and money, a view shared by just 39% of Democrats.
Just 47% of government workers say the government has too much power and money, compared to 65% of those who work in the private sector.

Republicans and unaffiliateds also feel more strongly than Democrats that the government does not spend taxpayers’ money wisely and well.

When it comes to the economy, the message from Americans is clear: Leave it in the hands of the private sector and not the government. That sentiment is shared by sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters who prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes to a more active one that offers more services and higher taxes. A plurality of Americans believe that government programs increase poverty in America.

Source: Rasmussen Reports, October 17, 2010

Election 2010 Poll: Ohio Governor and U.S. Senate Races

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Ohio shows Republican John Kasich barely ahead of incumbent Democratic Governor Ted Strickland 48% to 45%. Last month, Kaisch was running ahead of Strickland by 8 points, but, as you can see, Kaisch now leds by only 3 points.

I think Kaisch’s gruff appearance at the last televised debate negatively impacted voter perception. The opposite is was the case for Republican Robert Portman. His speech was as calm and professional as Obama, but not a polished and academic. His criticism of and retorts to Democrat Lee Fisher were effective, while Fisher’s sometimes seemed to stretch the “truth” about Portman a little too far. This has contributed to Portman’s 23 point lead over Fisher for the U.S. Senate race.

Source: Rasmussen Reports, October 13, 2010

Eugenics in 2010: Obamacare Cost-Cutting Genetic Discrimination

In the March 31st edition of LifeNews, Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life, wrote how Obamacare further the eugenics the Left introduced in the United States through abortion.

Hawkins interest in the current health care reform stems from her infant son’s battle with Cystic fibrosis, an expensive-to-treat and fatal genetic disease. Obamacare threatens to ration top notch healthcare for children like her son.

The question is does she have any support for her concern?

The following quote is from her LifeNews article:

A week before the doomed healthcare vote, Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) admitted to the National Review Online that Congressional Democrats argued that passing his pro-life amendment which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion will result in more children and therefore higher healthcare costs. They’re saying: “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more.”

This argument isn’t new but in fact is the same old 1970’s argument that John Holdren (the President’s Science Czar) used when saying that the more people there are, the less food there will be. This 1970’s argument has been regurgitated in 2010 with a healthcare slant: the more people, the less healthcare available for you and me.

Democrats in Congress know that incentivizing abortions by making them cheaper and more accessible will lead to higher abortion rates costing less healthcare dollars and making those limited funds available for some other person.

When the state is involved in the cost of healthcare, it knows that it is dealing with scare resources and that rationing will have to occur. This fact has already been reiterated multiple times by President Obama’s Comparative Effectiveness Research Council appointee and brother to his Chief-of-Staff, Dr. Zeke Emanuel.

Emanuel admitted in The Lancet medical journal last January that cost-cutting measures in healthcare reform are merely “lipstick” and rationing will have to occur in any government healthcare system.

He even went so far as to describe his ideal rationing plan where those at the beginning and end of life would receive 2nd tier healthcare when scarcity develops. In the article, he further talks about his sense of “communitarianism” and how those who are unproductive members of society are a burden and healthcare dollars could be best spent elsewhere. Bottom line Message: We only want the “genetically” superior people and less is better.

To Dr. Emanuel, my son Gunner is an excess burden on society.

Yet, he has been appointed by President Obama to serve on the President’s Comparative Effectiveness Research Council, the body that will make “recommendations” to doctors as to how to treat their patients in the most cost-effective way.

Today, new advances being made with prenatal genetic testing aren’t for the benefit of the family, but for the destruction of the pre-born child within the mother. The ability to diagnose diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, Down Syndrome, and others while the child is still in the womb means a greater chance a woman will be encouraged and pressured to abort, thus limiting that child’s “burden” on society.

It is shocking what you find if you Google search the phrase “cost benefit analysis of prenatal testing” and read the medical journal articles (especially those coming out of Europe on this issue).

Now that Obamacare has passed, will prenatal genetic tests eventually move from being voluntary to mandatory, in the name of cost-savings? Down the road, will abortions be encouraged by the state or even forced on those children who will have special needs or will need life-long medical care?

Further, what will happen to children to who are born with costly diseases? Will they receive the best medical care or just enough to “make them comfortable?” Today, in America, this rationing is already happening to many babies born with Trisomy 18 and 13, as parents have gone on the record proving medical doctors told them they had to think about “resources” when making the decision as to how to treat their children. Thankfully, the cases today aren’t uniform but the misjudgment of one or two doctors. What will happen if people like Dr. Emanuel are writing the guidelines of care for all doctors?

Let me offer some additional observations.

Obamacare as depicted above is a cost-benefit application of Darwin’s survival of the fittest, but one imposed by the socialist state. This is not much different than Hilter’s Darwinian-based eugenic program to create a superior Aryan race. The difference is not in principle but rather one of goal. Unlike Hitler, the goal of the socialist Left may not be creating the perfect race. Their goal may be more practical: Forcing on America one world socialism–their version of perfect economics and governance.

Now, that the courts and Left have declared abortion is a Constitutional right with many true believers, the Left funded by those like billionaire Soros and led by Pelosi, Reed, and Obama are seeking to further the original agenda of creating the Great Society by bankrupting the nation while promising to decrease the budget at the great expense of more innocent lives. (Remember, the reason for the Great Recession was over-indebtedness.)

The loud proponents of anti-discrimination it turns out are the most hideous of discriminators. They obstruct the right to life because they are fully prejudiced against any who they deem unworthy of it. Just as the CIA has been used to destroy uncooperative regimes, the Left uses courts and deceit to convince the masses that killing the unwanted is a right to the good life. Irresponsibility, immorality and killing is part of the Left’s definition of freedom. Freedom has thus been perverted for the benefit of killing those who may cost the socialist state too much money.

Yet, no one seems to question whether the genetic diseases of those like Hawkin’s son, Gunner, who will be discriminated against are preventable. That is, are they merely the result of genetic accidents or are they induced by a polluted environment, contaminated food, stress resulting from an unjust political economy, or other factors?
If the later, one solution maybe be in public policy that is based on a holistic view of the common good for all citizens rather than imposing ideological party or special interest agendas though piecemeal problem solving policies.

Fee Increases Are Not A Budget Solution

by Representative Jarrod B. Martin

Ohio’s economic crisis has presented lawmakers with the unique opportunity to examine state spending, rein in costs and create a more efficient, effective government structure. However, many of Ohio’s leaders chose to maintain the tax-and-spend status quo by placing a heavier financial burden on the people of our state.

Instead of creating a sustainable state budget, Governor Strickland and House Democrats raised taxes and created more than 150 new fines, fees and penalties to support Ohio’s ever-growing government spending. Specifically, these fees will affect each and every Ohioan because they will be imposed on everything from court costs and birth certificates to real estate licenses and hospice applications.

One way the Democrats are nickel-and-diming their way to a balanced budget is through a $20 late fee for renewing your vehicle registration and driver’s license. Since October, 400,000 individuals have been forced to pay this late fee, which has fattened the budget by more than $6 million to benefit the tax and spend party that is in control.

In times of economic hardship, state government should shrink its spending to fit its means, not grab at constituents’ pocketbooks to feed its growth. For this reason, I cosponsored legislation to repeal this $20 BMV late fee on motor vehicle registrations, driver’s licenses and motorcycle endorsements. House Bill 428, introduced by Representatives Ron Amstutz and Terry Boose, has bipartisan support in the House and will help keep Ohio’s government accountable to the public.

It is my belief that the government should serve the people, not the other way around. The day we start squeezing petty dollars out of hardworking families is the day we should finally commit to cost-saving measures to rein in state spending. There is no excuse to justify robbing the taxpayers of money that could have been used to put food on the table or help pay their bills-especially when there are so many alternatives on the table.

Since the beginning of the General Assembly, House Republicans have proposed numerous bills that would streamline state spending, reduce Medicaid waste and audit state agencies. Most of all, these bills would hold Ohio’s elected officials accountable for their expenditures and ensure that each dollar spent has a dollar’s return. Together, our bills would increase government efficiency by saving the taxpayers more than $1 billion annually, which would not only put our state on track toward a balanced budget but also eliminate the temptation to raid the wallets of our constituents.

Ohio has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. It is long overdue that state leaders stop pilfering money from individuals who are just trying to make an honest living and provide for their families. As always, I will continue the fight for an accountable, efficient state government.

Why a Constitutional Convention To Correct Unconstitutional Health Care Legislation Is Not A Good Idea

Alabama Policy Institute is calling for a constitutional convention under the 5th Amendment to correct the abuse of power by the Democrat-led Congress demonstrated by the recent passage of the Health Care Reform legislation. API’s intentions are no doubt good, but their proposed means is not.

Nevertheless, API President Gary Palmer does make some legitimate observations:

At least 36 states have introduced legislation against the implementation of the act. These actions, known as nullification, fail to address the major problem and have limited chance of success. Nullification is designed to persuade Congress to alter its action; this Congress appears immune to persuasion.

Other states have sued, claiming that the act is unconstitutional. These efforts will likely be futile because of the federal courts’ expansive reading of federal power.

Even if they are successful, repealing one act does little to address Congress’s habitual overreaching. The best course may be for the states to petition under Article V to amend the Constitution by calling a convention.

It’s that last phrase–calling a convention–that is troublesome. As with the Constitutional Convention of 1787, such a convention is a Pandora’s box. Once opened those chosen to participate from each state can rewrite the Constitutional anyway they like. No limits exist to what they may do or to what extent they may rewrite the fundamental law of the land.

Because politicians, most of whom are lawyers, are not trustworthy;
because the corruption in law and politics resembles the British government at the time of the Revolution; and because too many people vote based on the kick back in money, power or some other personal benefit they will receive, a convention presents too much potential danger to allow.

It is true as noted by Palmer that the proposed changes to the Constitution must to accepted by three-fourths of the states. Yet, a majority of the states voted in the current abusers of power. A majority of states and their representatives believe in the socialist cause of the same.

A similar and safer method would be to seek to amend the Constitution to prevent further abuse of power by federal politicians and those employees who circulate though the various related institutions. They are often the brains behinds the abuse of power as lobbyists and elected deal-makers. The amendment process does not require a closed door free-for-all convention.

The fact that Palmer quotes Alexander Hamilton makes me a little queasy. For it was Hamilton and his like-minded investors who thwarted the Constitution in their efforts to establish a federal bank corporation. Even though the official convention record keeper failed to record the debate on the day of it final determination, others like James Madison did record the debates concerning a federal bank and federal power of incorporation. Their records clearly show a majority decision against giving the federal government authority to incorporate and particularly federal bank. How convenient of the official record keeper.

Today, we have federally incorporated Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, all recession producing corporations.

If Democrat’s Health Surtax Is 5.4 Percent, Taxpayers in Ohio would be among 39 States That Would Pay a Top Tax Rate Over 50%

By TF Staff

New taxes to fund the federal government’s plan for higher health insurance spending continue to be debated in Washington. According to a new Bloomberg report, the top surtax rate will be 5.4 percent in the House plan. That will be the top rate in a three-tiered surtax aimed at high-income tax returns:

1 percent surtax on AGI between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000)

1.5 percent surtax on AGI between $500,000 and $1,000,000 (singles between $400,000 and $800,000)

5.4 percent surtax on AGI beyond $1,000,000 (singles beyond $800,000)

States have been raising taxes on this same group, leading to concern over how high the combined tax rates would be in each state, especially in the growing number of states with double-digit tax rates. Some commentators merely sum the rates at the federal, state and local level to give a statutory total tax rate. A more accurate method is to calculate the effective marginal tax rate, which takes into consideration deductions and adjustments. For a description of the difference between effective marginal tax rates and effective average tax rates, see Average vs. Marginal Tax Rates Revisited.

In Table 1 below we present calculations of the effective marginal tax rate on top earners. We use assume that the 2008 weighted local average for each state applies to 2011, the top federal taxable income rate will rise as scheduled to 39.6 percent, the top state tax rate in each state will follow current 2011 scheduled law, and a new House plan for 5.4 percent surtax on AGI earned at very high-income levels will become law.

Table 1 (Ohio)

Top Effective Marginal Rates under Proposed Health Care Surtax by State

Sorted by Combined Top Tax Rate in 2011

State

Avg. Local Rate

Top
State Rate (2011)

Top Federal Ordinary Rate

New
Surtax

Medicare
Tax

Combined
Top Rate

Rank

Ohio

1.82%

5.93%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

54.27%

13

To see rankings of other states, go to the Tax Foundation website.

Commentary

Taxing the rich to pay for free health care is an ploy of the rich and powerful to rob the non-rich of both their freedom and their income. Anyone familiar with Roman history will recognized the strategy. The Roman imperialists tax the nations of the world to pay for their big agendas. Caesar and the Roman Senate taxed the wealthy elites of the respective states. In turn, leaders like Herod increased local taxes on productive peasants. In order to pay, many had to borrow money. When misfortune rendered them unable to pay it back, their land was confiscated. Most were allowed to continue farming the same land as long as they gave Rome via Herod or some other member of the rich elite the required amount, usually over 50 percent.

What this means under the Democrats’ taxing scheme is this: we peasants will end up paying for the huge tax increases of the rich in inflationary costs for products and services. In fact, I recently listened to what Canadians and British people have experienced under universal health care. They have had to endure long waiting lists for care and large increases in overall cost for their health care.

In every respect, universal health care is much more costly than market based care. The highest price for socialist medicine is dying while waiting to receive the promised health care.

One woman with brain cancer was able to come to the Mayo Clinic in America to get the necessary cancer treatment. That is she is suing her government. Had she waited she certainly would have died.

Americans who love the right to life as well as true liberty does not need Democrats’ impoverishing programs or their deadly health care.