Billionaires Shouldn’t Give Their Wealth to Charity


There are few more wasteful, socially irresponsible things the wealthy can do than give away money

Warren Buffet, and other goofy, out of touch, guilt-ridden socialists have been pushing other billionaires to give away half of their money to charity.

But this would not be philanthropy. This would not be altruism. It would be a destructive blow against our society.

Why?

Because they would mostly be throwing that money down a black hole.

When, precisely, are Jerry’s Kids going to be cured? Jerry was panhandling for them halfway through the LAST century.

How about Red Cross? Why is it perennially struggling to make ends meat, when it managed to steal a billion dollars just from people giving to Katrina, Haitian Earthquake, and 9-11 victims?

Even the small percentage actually spent by a charity on the cause at hand just feeds existing needs. They spend the money and it’s gone. The problems remain. No charity has ever shut down because it solved its cause.

Those billionaires, on the other hand, have ALREADY given more to society than any, or in some cases, every charity combined.

Is Bill Gates worth sixty billion dollars? Then this reflects sixty billion other people voluntarily gave him, in return for software they must have valued at MORE than its asking price, otherwise they wouldn’t have bought it. Bill Gates, apparently, knows how to create wealth that benefits society…and every penny traded to him reflects that.

If he keeps the money and invests it in other wealth-creating ideas, he will do just that:

Create more wealth.

And THAT benefits society, more than all of the panhandling, anti-profit organizations ever do.

If he, or any other billionaire, wants to “give away” the money, then they should give it to ENTREPRENEURS.

The fool on Stossel right now, who says he’s giving away 75% of his six billion dollars, could simply hand out 4,500 one million dollar grants to the wildest, most unlikely, but serious and possible business plans and ideas they can find.

If just one percent of those ideas becomes a billion dollar company, he’s increased the benefit of his money to our society by TEN THOUSAND percent.

So he can toss it down the State-Mandated Non-Profit pit of poverty-enablement to be consumed by professional mendicants and vanish…or he can create a hundred times more wealth for our society, thereby permanently reducing poverty.

Political Experience is a Liability


People complained, of both Obama and Palin, that they lacked experience.

Now if that meant actual experience of being a manager or executive, a leader, it’s a reasonable discussion to have.

But when they mean lack of political experience, they are mistakenly attacking the BEST qualification of any candidate.

All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely“, as Lord Acton pointed out. And he noted that this includes power through influence, and “corruption by authority”, meaning the way that an institution corrupts its members.

And there is no more corrupting institution than government, which is set apart from all the rest of human society by the ability to legally initiate force…aka “power”.

There are few things more harmful in our society than career politicians. They know less about the real world, and find the evils of government coercion more normal. They are generally against responsibility, anywhere it should be expected.

They, and government employees, including government contractors, and their ilk, form what is now recognized as a separate class of people, the Political Class, that has the most harmful views of any segment of society.

They come to office and are indoctrinated in a culture that devours society and the economy for its own dubious benefit, becoming less aware of the real world every year they are there.

What we need is for our politicians to have less political experience, not more.

Even if we simply replaced every single politician, each year, with someone chosen from the general populace by random lottery, America would be far better off.

Why Tolerate an Unelected Congress?


This is an apt beginning to the political coup the opponents of Obama have feared...the convening of an unelected Congress. It should be stopped, its actions are not valid, including anything it passes.

You’d think it’s pretty obvious that if we had a Congress that was unelected, people be outraged. We are a constitutional republic, and our legislators should be elected.

And yet, that is what we have right now.

This “lame duck Congress” is not our elected set of legislators. In fact, not only are they not the ones we elected, they are the ones we specifically un-elected.

And that is outrageous.

You there, in the back, who just yelled out “But it’s always been that way”…yes, I saw who you were. Don’t worry, dissent is imperative to learning the truth.

And the truth is that lame duck Congresses are rare, because they are so obviously bad.

A Congress that is unelected, with members whose ideas have already been voted against, rushing those evils through a back door to lock them into place.

We specifically elected DIFFERENT politicians. The guys passing bills they know we oppose right now are, in effect, usurpers.

And, although there have rarely been lame duck Congresses before, this may be the first one that is specifically intended to violate the will of the people. Up until now, lame duck sessions are usually held NOT to pass laws the People are known to have just disapproved, but for a unique emergency, like impeachment, or the McCarthy hearings ostensibly to root out Communists.

But this political coup…and it is a coup, same as if the Army showed up in Congress with tanks one day and “temporarily” ousted the government…is unusual, because it’s all about passing new expansions of government that could not possibly get through next session:

  • A massive expansion of the FDA’s powers
  • Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
  • Gays in the Military
  • An unpopular arms treaty
  • A massive expansion in the already-overextended unemployment subsidy

All of these are important issues, that should be considered by our elected representatives, if by the Federal government at all.

Yet they’re being railroaded through by the corrupt Establishment on both sides. The Political Class have been carefully quiet about this, but we should not be. They think they can violate our will, for their own good…but it is intolerable.

As with the TEA Party backlash against the past three years of massive government expansion, we need to “rise up” and organize an objection to this coup, and stop it from continuing to seize power unconstitutionally.

REPLACE the Bush Tax Cuts


The American taxpayer suffers under the massive cost of complying with the tax code, as well as having to pay the taxes, themselves...and the Bush tax "cuts" only made this worse

Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians, independents, and even Democrats who aren’t rabidly Liberal are all defending the Bush tax cuts, insisting that some or all of them must be extended…but it’s not because any of us like them.

In reality, even Conservatives and Republicans never really liked the cuts, except as a lesser evil versus no cuts at all…and the same is even more true, today.

Why aren’t the Bush “cuts” likable? Because they’re ridiculously bloated with rules, exceptions, special favors for special interests, bureaucracy, government winner-picking and other distortion of the economy, and therefore are insanely expensive to implement.

In other words, Americans have to PAY billions of dollars, in time and actual cash, to deal with the complexity it adds to the tax code.

Unlike the Reagan tax cuts, that may actually have saved taxpayers even more in compliance cost than in taxes reduced, the Bush tax cuts were estimated to add up to $114 billion per year in compliance cost, with its maze of tax credits, exemptions, and other economy-distorting favoritism and punishments. This nearly cancelled out the actual “cuts”.

It is estimated that simply complying with the overall income tax costs about $350,000,000,000 every year. That is a little less than ten times as much as the “tax cuts for the rich” that the Liberals are trying to block being extended right now. It is far more than the ENTIRE set of Bush tax cuts being debated now. It is over several times as much as ALL of the cuts, including the Stimulus welfare disguised as “tax cuts” that Obama is demanding be extended as well.

We could let the ENTIRE tax cut package expire…all of the Bush cuts for the “wealthy” AND “middle class”, all of the Obama stimulus “cut” handouts, including in both cases all of the tax credits that give free money to people who don’t pay real income taxes at all…and yet leave the taxpayer with MORE money in their own hands, if:

We simplify the tax code.

We could flatten it, while letting the overall revenue estimate INCREASE to eliminate all of those “cuts”, and people would still save so much that the economy would prosper.

This could be done by eliminating most exemptions, credits, and other economy-distorting favoritism, and reducing the number of tiers of taxpayers.

We should, as any real economist has insisted for at least two decades, implement a flat tax…everyone pay the same tax rate…whatever it takes to match the current income tax revenue. Exempt everyone’s income up to the poverty level, so nobody in poverty has to pay, but leave everyone else paying the EXACT same amount.

This would reduce tax compliance to less than one tenth of its current cost. But let’s imagine it leaves compliance as high as $100 billion dollars per year.

That means we’d save $250 billion next year. Inflating this over ten years the way tax cut estimates usually are, this would “inject” between three and four TRILLION dollars into the economy in the next decade.

We don’t need Bush/Obama “cuts” that cost us more in compliance than they actually save us per year. What we need is a simpler, fairer tax system that we can pay and then get on with our job of creating wealth for ourselves, and therefore the economy.

Arizona’s Death Panel?


It’s bad enough that the Federal government created its first actual death panels thirty years ago, with organ transplants.

But, shortly after the Obamacare plan set up conditions that are likely to cause rationing, we have an example of how government health care is forced to decide who lives and dies, because of rationing.

In order to stay within their budget, Arizona has been forced to limit who is allowed to get organ transplants…literally picking who lives and dies. Already, 98 people have been identified who will not be allowed to get these transplants on Medicaid. This is what government health care must, inherently, do. It’s not the fault of Arizona, but part of Medicaid’s very nature.

In the 1980s, the Federal government imposed a ban on paid organ transplants, creating such a shortage that panels had to be set up to decide who got the rationed transplants, while a majority of transplant patients die while waiting, with lists up to ten years long.

Now, they are being forced by a socialized health care program to cut off even the few who might get transplants, dooming them to die.

We need real health care reform, not more of the very same government intervention that has caused the problem in the first place.

Gingrich and Santorum are Enemy Combatants


Freedom of speech is one of the most important, fundamental, sacred American values.

Secrecy in government, on the other hand, is one of the worst forms of tyranny.

So when politicos like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum call for people fighting against government secrecy to be falsely classified as “enemy combatants”, “a terrorist organization”, or even to be assassinated or publicly executed, it’s pretty clear who the real enemy of America is.

What Wikileaks, and its founder Julian Assange, have vowed to do…and done, far more than most of us ever expected…is to bring the openness to American politics that politicians like Obama, McCain, and Bush promised but ended up opposing in almost all things.

They exposed Hillary Clinton ordering DNA samples and credit card information stolen from top UN officials.

They revealed a source of the bizarre push to attack Iran; it’s being ordered by the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia.

They showed that the US is secretly using its missiles and drones to slaughter people in foreign countries, while the tyrannical, abusive governments of those countries claimed credit.

The response to the whistle-blowing of these inexcusable coverups?

Above, we have a list of crimes against the American Constitution…but the criminals are named in the first half of each sentence, not the second.

Why Steal $700,000,000,000 from the US Economy?


Robin Hood stole from the Political Class and returned to the taxpayers made poor by the government's burden

With the US economy suffering its first depression in sixty years, why would the Liberal Democrats in Congress want to suck seven hundred billion dollars from the economy?

But that is what they’re demanding, with their bizarre claim that we should raise taxes in the midst of this economic crisis.

When they say letting job-producing businesses and families making more than $250K per year keep their money “will cost seven hundred billion dollars”, of course that means that NOT letting them keep it will cost the private economy that same amount.

And, of course, the private economy is what creates wealth and permanent jobs.

We have seen that for the past year, when the government’s make-work “stimulus” jobs each ended, causing unemployment to worsen.

A “stimulus” job is a burden on the economy that must eventually end, leaving the worker unemployed again…but a job at at a real company pays for itself…as long as the worker makes the employer a profit, the business keeps employing him.

So, in order to save our economy, we need to leave money in private hands, to create wealth that sustains private jobs, that create more wealth, on and on.

Remember, the Political Class thinks that it owns the money it confiscates in taxes…but in the real world, WE own it, and the entire economy is robbed when it’s taken by the government.

The T.E.A. Party is correct: We are Taxed Enough, Already.

%d bloggers like this: