Just as I was afraid of, the Dems areplanning to pass a Pay-As-You-Golaw, which alhtough disguised as a "fiscal responsibility measure," is really just a way to end Bush's tax cuts. (For those who think the tax cuts were just for the wealthy, just compare your pay stubs when the changes go into effect.)
Although the rhetoric from talking heads will be that this is a great measure designed to offset tax cuts with other revenue ("tax") increases or spending cuts, it does not require a cut to spending to any existing programs (the article gets that point wrong). Instead, it simply would not allow spending on new programs without corresponding tax increases. But come on - Dems have never had a problem with raising taxes anyway. Then, once that new program is in place, it will be nearly impossible to cut taxes again. The only way it would be possible to cut taxes is for the government to eliminate a program. And when has that ever happened?
Don't buy into the coming rhetoric - Pay-Go is a $2 trillion tax increase.
Unsurpirsingly, Virginia's Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine is proposing another round of large tax increases for big transportation projects. This despite the fact that he ran on a platform of no new taxes. This despite the fact that Virginia is already running a large budget surplus.
So if you believe the load of B.S. that Dems in Congress are saying about not raising your taxes, you're not being realistic.
Nancy Pelosi's push to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour sounds nice, but the majority of people making minimum wages are either part-timers or kids. Further, as George Will points out, most making the minimum wage are not poor at all.
So essentially the new bill that the Dems are proposing is nothing more than an allowance increase for high school kids (paid for by us of course). Another study shows that the increased wages has an adverse effect - it actually promotes more kids to drop out of school to work. Maybe that's what the Dems are hoping for - an increase to their loyal base...
The National Archives and Records Administration released a damning report on the Sandy Berger episode of stealing and shredding classified documents. It appears that former President Bill Clinton "authorized" (read: instructed) Berger to review the documents. Berger was repeatedly told that he was not to take any documents outside of the building.
This guy should be going to jail for a long time. Instead, he will do 100 hours community service and get his security clearance back within two years. If Ford's pardon of Nixon was an outrage, then the DOJ's pardon of Berger is unconscionable.
Bush is. Whether it be donated drugs to stop malaria or AIDS, or in helping stop the conflicts in Liberia, Congo and parts of the Sudan - yes - a lot has been and is being done. But NOT A LOT is being reported. Seems the more that is done, the less credit is given, at least when the giver is Bush. Now if Clinton were president, let's take a guess on what you'd see on CNN every day.
Anyway, the figures speak for themselves - Bush has tripled aid to Africa since being in office and his plan is to double that again. Read the article.
It now seems that groups are starting to come out of the woodwork to say what a heinous crime that Saddam's death penalty was. The Italian government and the Vatican are two groups to slam the decision to kill the Iraqi leader. I can pretty much predict which other groups will be next in line.
If groups oppose all deaths, of both innocent and guilty, that is their prerogative and this is respected. But where were these groups' protests when innocent American contractors were being beheaded in Iraq?
Andrew Ferguson reviews a few basic misconceptions that most people have in his summary of the latest book by Arthur Brooks a Syracuse economist.
He indicates that contrary to popular belief - that Americans actually do give to charity - about 75% of all families. It comes to $1800 on average. No other developed country in the world (except Israel) gives so much. On average, this is 5x the amount that German families give, and 7x the amount that Italian families donate.
Why is this so surprising? Well, it isn't to Americans, but probably is to Europeans because every so often there's some Eurocrat from Brussels or the UN on his high horse saying that Americans don't give as much as we should. (Remember that Norwegian guy during the tsunami?) So what else is new?
Among those that give, conservative households give 30% more than liberal households, even though liberals earn more. South Dakotans give almost twice as much as San Franciscans. Also, religious people give more - not just money - but twice as much blood!
The conclusion is that if you're an American conservative - this doesn't surprise you. However, if you're an American liberal or from some other part of the world it may. Thanks to Arthur Brooks for his book on charity giving.
I kind of agree with Polipundit on this one. It's great to recognize and mourn the death of our Presidents. However, he died on December 26th. We've had 7 days to digest this and recognize his achievements and now today, day number 8, we have a national holiday.
It costs a lot of money to close down the economy for a day, and provide paid holidays for all the nation's federal workers.
Again - not tryin to disrespect - just think 7 days is enough.
