Excellent On-Line Essay: Blue-State Bailout Blues

By Jay Henderson over at American Sentinel.

So, which states are the first in line to ask for federal bailouts? Those states with the largest entitlement spending programs. They are New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois.

From Jay's on-line essay:

There is a dangerous tipping point in politics. When 50.1% of the voters pay no taxes but expect and rely on "entitlements" from the government, then they will tax to infinity the remaining 49.9% of the polity. The Blue States now begging for bailouts give us a good look at what happens as that tipping point approaches. The rush for Federal bailout bucks began in November, led by California and New York. In early January, Democratic governors from Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Ohio pitched their case to the Obama transition team, proposing a $1 trillion bailout of state governments. The needy Blue States of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California provided 134 Obama electoral votes last November - - more than half of his total. Other states on the bailout list include Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 47 more Democratic electoral votes. The political pressure on the Obama administration is obvious.

Your tax dollars, money you need to take care of your own family, are going to go for paying off political allies and propping up socialist entitlement programs that are destined to bankrupt those who fund them, no matter how many ways they are taxed.

But of interesting note here is that those states are also among the wealthiest in terms of per capita income:

Ironically, the governors travelling to Washington with begging bowls represent some of the wealthiest states in the U.S. Measured in terms of per capita income, they include New Jersey (ranked number 2), Massachusetts (ranked number 3), New York (number 4), California (number 7), and Illinois (number 16), as of 2007 statistics. Per Capita Personal Income By State. How can this be? Well, these same states are at the forefront of "entitlement" spending and social engineering projects.

Finally:

While Red State America, sustained by blue collar, working class, and small business taxpayers, is called upon to bail out the wealthy but profligate Blues - - the Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration are planning to expand or adopt the same kinds of "entitlement" spending programs and social engineering projects that are breaking the backs of Blue State taxpayers. Because they work so well, right? This is a chilling insight into our national future - - if we don't derail the Obamacrat train.

So, who is going to bailout the small businesses, blue-collar workers and the working class when the U.S. government bankrupts itself by wasting trillions of dollars on the same foolish programs that bankrupted the states that are looking for bailout dollars?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Blue-State Bailout Blues
Jay Henderson
American Sentinel
February 4, 2009

Other links here:

Next Federal Bailout May Go To States; Democratic Governors Seek $1 Trillion
FoxNews.com
January 3, 2009

Facing Shortfalls, States Seek Emergency Aid From Washington
Keith B. Richburg and Ashley Surdin
Washington Post
November 16, 2008

Local Zeroes: Cities And States Are Facing Big Budget Deficits
The Economist
November 13, 2008

Democrats At The Trough: Your Taxpayer Dollars Feeding The Pigs

If only all journalists in the United States had as much integrity and courage as Cal Thomas does to write what is overwhelmingly obvious and write it with so much clarity. Take, for example, government spending, why it has become so bloated and what effect such spending has on you and I, the American taxpayers.

Cal's latest column is about overspending by governments: Federal, State and Local. And he explains clearly why such overspending occurred and what the (mostly Democrat) elected leaders in these governments want to do by way of a "solution."

From his column:

Democratic governors from overspending states like New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Ohio are among those seeking financial deliverance. The governors want Washington to pony up $1 trillion for their absolutely-essential-non-negotiable-if-we-don't-get-the-money-people-will-starve programs.

But why should we, the taxpayers, fund this bailout? Who among us would not be held responsible, as individual citizens, for spending more than we take in?

Read on:

New York Governor David Paterson claims that, because tax revenues have plunged, 43 states now have budget deficits totaling around $100 billion. No, those states have deficits because when times were good and the money was rolling in they thought they could get away with endless new programs, while putting little or no money aside for the inevitable rainy day. Neither did they consider which programs were necessary and which ones were just politically beneficial. Or, maybe they did and they opted for politically beneficial, thus creating their problem, and ours. Notice the sleight of hand about to be perpetrated on hardworking taxpayers. In the end, it is we who pay for the plans of politicians who are unable, or unwilling, to control themselves when it comes to other peoples' money. When Republicans cut taxes, Democrats scream about growing deficits. But Democrats never worry about the deficit when they spend more than what the government takes in. So it really isn't about the deficit at all. It is about how much of our hard-earned money the Democrats, mostly, will allow us to keep.

Bingo! Look at that simplicity of comparison. Conservatives cut taxes and the libs complain about not enough money to spend. Libs spend more money than they have and then delude themselves into believing that our grand-children will be happy to pay for the libs non-sense appropriations. What would happen to you if you ran your household budget like this? You would, at the very least, recieve a very low credit rating and not be able to get new loans, or at worst, go to jail.

And what is even better is that the comparison between the libs and Conservatives is valid and absolutely true.

More:

The incoming Obama administration wants to spend gobs of money on "infrastructure," creating government jobs that will end when the work is completed. Isn't infrastructure primarily supposed to be the work of state and local governments? Isn't the gasoline tax supposed to go to build and repair local roads and bridges? The federal responsibility should begin and end with the interstate highway system. The governors' request for more money from Washington is also about unfunded mandates, the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid and a lot of other "entitlement" programs that could have been made solvent during the Bush administration, which tried, but was unable to succeed due to opposition from Democrats who preferred to have an issue rather than a solution.

And there is the reason the Dems don't want any real solutions to the overspending problem. They need wasteful programs in order to buy votes and they need a way to keep people dependent on the government for their livelihood.

This is a most excellent column and everyone should read it:

Pigs At The Trough
Cal Thomas
TownHall.com
January 6, 2009

Barack Obama's Questionable Fundraising And The Gay Lifestyle Being Forced On Massachusetts Children

There is so much to be concerned about over Barack Obama that it boggles the mind how Old Media deliberately tries to ignore the situation. Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko. Obama's relationship with the New Socialist Party. None of that ever made it to the front pages of the New York Tiems nor the Washington Post and none of it was ever the lead story for any of the major networks.

Now, we have another concern. Where is barack Obama getting all of this campaign cash from?

Michael Isikoff at Newsweek sheds some light on this. He notes that the Obama campaign recieved donations from people named "Good Will" and "Doodad pro."

In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name. "Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)

That looks exactly like the corrupt, Chicago-style politics that Barack Obama was mentored in by people like Bill Ayers.

The silence of the major networks on this issue is deafening. Can you imagine the hubbub if it were John McCain getting donations like this? It would be the lead story for weeks.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama’s ‘Good Will’ Hunting
Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
October 4, 2008

---

And the assault on our children grows worse every day. In Massachusetts, a Federal Court ruled that it is okay for Kindergarten teachers to indoctrinate six-year-olds on how to be gay and the Court said that parents do not have the right to opt their children out of it. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case.

From World Net Daily:

The U.S. Supreme Court without comment has refused to intervene in a case prompted by the actions of officials at Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, Mass., who not only were teaching homosexuality to young children, but specifically refused to allow Christian parents to opt their children out of the indoctrination. ... The dispute grabbed headlines when Parker, on April 27, 2005, "was arrested and thrown in jail by school officials over his insistence on being notified regarding his son in kindergarten being taught about homosexual relationships by adults," Mass Resistance reported. Another family was alarmed by a similar situation a short time later as the school not only continued its indoctrination, but "became more hostile to the Parkers, and local liberals and homosexual activists did their best to harass the family," Mass Resistance reported. In fact, the school, led by Supt. Paul Ash, then stated in school publications they would not "compromise" on any points regarding the homosexual agenda.

Clearly, this is another attempt by gays and lesbians to get access to little children. If you are concerned parent, you should get to know this case very well. Otherwise, some gay or lesbian will be making attempts to get to know your son or daughter behind your back.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Decision To Teach Kids To Be 'Gay' Allowed To Stand
Bob Unruh
World Net Daily
October 8, 2008

How Massachusetts Supports The Troops And Unfair Criticism Of The Fair Tax

We've already seen a few instances where the government of Massachusetts has been cracking down on displays that support the troops fighting the War on Terror. It gets even worse now. Massachusetts is now trying to eliminate U.S. flags and other diplays along the highways. According to the Boston Globe:

The crackdown comes a year after the state's last attempt to regulate the overhead displays. At the time, under pressure from military families and their advocates, highway officials said signs would be allowed if positioned behind fences, but now they are saying even these must go. "When the soldiers or their families hear about this, they're going to be up in arms," said James Wareing, the leader of a military support group who assembled and maintains the display dedicated to Jimenez, whose family lives in Lawrence. "It has nothing to do with safety. . . . Nothing has ever happened in six years." ... "I was told I could do that and they gave me their word and that was it," said Linda Noone, 49, of Reading, who put up a series of flags on an Interstate 93 overpass near the Wilmington border in 2005, a year after the death of her father, a Korean War vet.

What will they do next?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Overpass Flags, Troop Tributes To Be Removed
Noah Bierman
The Boston Globe
December 4, 2007

---

You know, when people criticize the Fair Tax, it would be a good idea if they actually read the plan before commenting on it. I showed earlier how Bruce Bartlett got his criticism wrong in this blog post:

Bruce Bartlett Gets It Wrong
84rules
August 29, 2007

Now Rich Lowry is commenting on a Tax Plan for which he has obviously not even read the plan. Here is what Lowry wrote in the New York Post:

To avoid the risk of getting both a national sales tax and an income tax, FairTaxers would have to repeal the 16th Amendment. Good luck: Huckabee's magic wand will come in handy. Then, there's the sales-tax rate. FairTaxers say that a 23 percent rate would be enough to replace current revenues. What they're really talking about is a tax of 30 cents on every dollar - what most people would call a 30 percent rate. The government would pay the tax on all its purchases, a gimmick "done solely to make revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are," notes economist Bruce Bartlett. Budget trickery aside, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the rate would have to go as high as 57 percent.

I will simply repeat what I wrote about Bartlett's misguided comments:

"This is a total misrepresentation of how the Fair Tax works and hence my conclusion that he never really researched it or he is deliberately giving false information.

What Bruce forgot (or neglected) to say was that the Fair Tax first strips away all Federal taxes that go into the price of a new consumer good at the retail level. Currently, 22% of what you pay at the retail level is taxes that have been passed on from supplier to producer to distributor to retailer to you.

Thus, under the Fair Tax, an item that costs $1 under the current tax system would be reduced in price by 22% (i.e. all of the taxes passed on to the consumer), that is, its real cost would be $.78. It is at this point where the Fair Tax is levied. A 23% tax rate would take to price of that product up to $.99. But to keep it simple, round that back up to $1."

As for the part about repealing the 16th Amendment, if Lowry and Bartlett had actually read and fully comprehended HR 25, they would have both seen that the bill includes a provision for a national referendum on repealing the 16th Amendment. But apparently, people like Lowry and Bartlett just don't want the facts to get in their way.

Lowry, Bartlett, et. al. would be better served if they would inform themselves rather than just listening to the blather of others without bothering to check out the validity of the blather. In each case here, Lowry and Bartlett both rewrote the Fair Tax Plan and then criticized their own rewrites.

Isn't that how libs do their reporting?

You can access Lowry's misguided and erroneous criticisms on-line here:

Huck's Sales Tax Lunacy
Rich Lowry
New York Post
December 4, 2007