Taxes Too Low?

While preparing my taxes, I ran across this handy reminder on page 88 of the Form 1040 Instruction Book.

If you wish to make a gift to reduce the public debt, you can make a check payable to:

"Bureau of the Public Debt" and mail it to
Bureau of the Public Debt, Dept G
PO Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Or, you can enclose the check with your income tax return when you file. Don't add your gift to any tax you may owe, however.

If enough of us do this, then our leaders in Washington won't have to do the hard work of deciding where to make spending cuts.

All my love,
derifter

Live Within Your Means

How far can we kick the can? And how much must we disregard our kids (or the next generation, if you don't have kids) to not be willing to bite the bullet on government spending? It's getting pretty desperate, if you haven't noticed.

Fixing a budget is never fun, whether we're talking about personal finances or on a national level. "There will be pain" as President Obama's debt commission announced after presenting their non-binding recommendations. I think there needs to be pain. We're past the family-budget equivalent of skipping a movie to save money, but closer to canceling cable and selling the Lincoln to buy a used Ford Focus. If we think we can cut spending and it won't hurt then we're not cutting deep enough.

If you're on the Left, think of it this way. Lower debt = more funding, but that's in the long run. If we weren't paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year just to cover the interest on money that we've borrowed, we could hand out billions more to the poor and point some toward education while still paying down the debt. Who wouldn't rather help the poor than pay interest? Interest gets us nothing. That's what's bad about spending more than you bring in. "There will be pain", but the sooner we cut spending, the less painful it will be both for us and for the next generation.

If you're on the Right, think of it this way. Lower debt = lower taxes, but that's in the long run. The spending cuts you love won't be enough to eliminate the debt, though. We have to raise taxes too. I'm surprised to hear myself say that I actually have come to favor this, not because paying higher taxes makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, but because spending cuts alone won't do it. You've heard it said that "The problem isn't that the government doesn't have enough money." (It's that we spend more than we have.) But because there are widows and orphans among our population, you understand that we can't eliminate welfare and social security. There are limits to what we can cut and still call ourselves human. So we need to raise taxes and "There will be pain", but the sooner we do, the less painful it will be both for us and for the next generation. If we don't fix the debt who will?

If you're in the Center, well, I don't know, just mix the previous two paragraphs together or something. Seriously, we can all help by taking care of ourselves and exercising some fiscal restraint of our own. Economists would disagree, saying we need to spend like mad to spur the economy, but that's how we got here. Spending more than we had, and borrowing to cover it. If you're not paying thousands in interest, you have more to spend! Let's get used to the mellower New Normal economy, and get on with the task at hand.
Happy Thanksgiving!

No Social Security Increase

There's been quite a stink brewing about the fact that for the first time since 1975, there will be no COLA (cost of living adjustment) for recipients of Social Security. Most of the complaining is coming from seniors (as might be expected), and I suspect right-leaning news outlets are probably stoking the fires as are many people who are opposed to President Obama's policies and even the man himself. As for me, I'm a big fan of no bailouts. This administration has given away enough of our money to keep us financially underwater for decades if not generations, and they're not through yet. Right now you might be thinking, "Who said anything about bailouts?" The answer is President Obama. He's of the opinion that since seniors won't be getting a COLA, we need to give them each $250. The economy is tough, 401k's are down, seniors are struggling. We should give them money. So sez the prez.

According to the Social Security Administration,

"By law, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits increase automatically each year if there is an increase in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), from the third quarter of the last year to the corresponding period of the current year. This year there was no increase in the CPI-W from the third quarter of 2008 to the third quarter of 2009."

In fact, the CPI-W actually declined 1.6% from September '08 to September '09. So the way I do math, by not taking a 1.6% cut in benefits, SS recipients are in effect receiving a 1.6% increase. The checks they get today buy 1.6% more than the same check would have bought last year. Seniors who complain about this are losing credibility with me. And President Obama, by wanting to give away more money due to this financial tragedy, well he had no credibility to lose in my book, but I am a little more angry with him. If I walked into my bank and handed them my Discover Card and said I'd like $1000.00 in cash please, would the cash in my hand suddenly make me rich? Heck no, I wouldn't have anymore money than I did before and plus, now I have to pay it back with interest. That means I'd be losing money, not getting richer.

Obama already has the Obambies in his pocket. Now, it looks like he wants to buy the Senior vote with our money. Give me a break. Please do.

Miss Me?

No Politics

Hmm, not much going on in the world of no politics. This is the first post I've written since I imposed a 24-hour moratorium on political posts at my blog, after being overwhelmed with complaints from my reader.
Oh!
Well, there's this:

It's been 70 days (yes, seventy) since Josh Crain's last post. I wonder if it's writer's block.

Hey, How about Kanye West? What a dufus.
How about Joe Wilson? What a dork.
How about Patrick Swayze? Bummer, I loved him in Road House.
How about them Vikes? Tied for the top spot in the NFL after week1.

North Korea To Face Consequences

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton today warned North Korea that they will face consequences for their "provocative and belligerent" actions. I think North Korea faces a politically correct type of discipline that they will not be able to bear. It takes a village to rein in a rogue nation, which is why other nations around the world are being contacted. Already the North has received a verbal warning from Clinton, not to mention both a verbal warning and and a stern look from President Barack Obama for having tested atomic bombs and firing missiles. That'll teach 'em. I feel good about having an author on our side. She can draw on her writing experience for more strong warnings if North Korea fails to get in line. I can almost hear the two of them saying, "Don't you do it. Do not do it. Okay you did it. But you better not do it again. Do NOT do it again."

I'd wager the consequences in store for Pyongyang for their insolence include further warnings from Clinton of grave consequences, even sterner looks from Obama on TV and online news pages, reminders that isolation is where they're headed and not inclusion, and - as a last resort - increased aid. A North Korean newspaper, the Minju Joson, said in an editorial, "...the U.S. sanctions policy toward North Korea is like striking a rock with a rotten egg". Meanwhile, the rest of the world is holding to their strategy of waiting for the U.S. to take care of the problem, then complaining that America is not the world's policeman. Person. Whatever. What an exciting time to be alive!

Eleven Dollar Stimulus

What do you think of the government's efforts to spend our way back to growth? Personally, it makes me crazy. I'm a big fan of living within your means, spending less than you earn. I think government ought to do the same. Ever since President Bush started running up the debt I've been quite a squeaky wheel when it comes to America as a nation spending more than we earn. All the recent spending referred to as "economic stimulus" really has me banging my head against the wall. I enjoy getting checks in the mail as much as the next guy, but if it's a check from me (in the form of government debt I'll have to repay over the rest of my life) I wish I could pass.

I told that to Stephen at work (who was soon to become Stephen the Obambie) when we got the $600 stimulus checks under the Bush administration. He said I could send it back. I told him I was tempted, and probably even would do it if I had the slightest inkling that the national debt would grow by $600 less if I sent my stimulus check back. But it would no doubt just be spent elsewhere, and I figured I can spend it more wisely than the government ever would. Now, thanks to the financial hemorrhage going on (surprised?) under President Obama, I have the opportunity to make good on that thought.

I told Stephen I'd like to decline the $13 per week "stimulus" added to my paycheck by Obama, since it's our own borrowed money he's giving us. But I didn't want to mail it back and have it spent on "emergency art" so I'd do that by giving that money to a homeless shelter. Stephen laughed and said Obama already has that covered. He was right. Then I considered making a statement to Obama by contributing $13 per week to the Republican Party in his honor. I wonder if that would stop the stimulus spending! But the Republicans haven't earned back my love and respect after digging such a deep hole in the first place.

So I've decided that since Obama is overturning Bush's ban on federal money for embryonic stem cell research, I'll take the $13 per week that Obama is borrowing against my (and my kids, and my grandkids's) future, and donate that money to MCCL (Minnesota Citzens Concerned for Life). Call me a cynic, but who do you think will take credit for the rise in charitable giving? Even so, I invite you to find a charity you like and send them your "stimulus" too.

Finally, I thought the "stimulus" was supposed to be $13 per week beginning April 1st (Joke's on us!), but I started noticing $11 extra two paychecks ago. Not sure what's up with that.

Don't Give Up On Obama Yet!

After all the tax scandal scoundrels coming to light among the Ethics Administration nominees, the campaign-bipartisan-but-now-partisan characteristics of the president, and now the markets tanking anew after the Democratic Plan to Save the Economy was revealed, I can see where liberals might start thinking that was change that they can't believe in after all. That they might be ready to give up on President Obama. For Pete's sake, it's only been three weeks. Give it time. If he's still floundering after another three weeks, THEN it might be time to give up.

Today I tried consoling Stephen, one of our company's more outspoken Obambies, by reminding him that it was fun while it lasted. Then it occurred to me that it wasn't all that fun. In fact it's been more like a hangover since the inauguration party. Well, take a couple of aspirin and hang in there: it's less than two years till the mid-term election, and less than four till 2012.
"Yes we can!"

It's A What?

Sometimes when I get to talking politics at work, I wish I would have left it alone. But sometimes, like today, it has its rewards.
I was talking with Stephen about president-elect Obama's tax increase on the wealthy (which, for these purposes anyway, I am not). Stephen's argument was that it is not a tax increase, since Obama is only restoring the top rates to where they were before president Bush's tax cuts took effect. Calling it a tax increase? That's your right-wing propaganda, there.

I asked, "So if my taxes are more next year than they were this year, that's not a tax increase?" He said, "No - It's a tax decrease revocation!

When my laughter slowed to where I could speak again, I said "There's your left-wing propaganda right there." Even he had to laugh at himself then.

I love the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like.... Victory!

Racism Plays A Part

Is Barack Obama black?
Who should care if he is? Reading this Newsweek article, you would think that it was written in the 1960's if you judge it only by the amount of racism in it. Set aside the fact that a black man is running for president and has a good chance of winning. That wouldn't have happened in the 60's.

When someone starts singing the praises of one race over another (any race), MLK's "Dream" speech comes immediately to my mind: "...judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Some might think that he only meant that in the context of black skin being a liability. But if you're judging Barack Obama to be the best candidate for president based on the color of his skin and not on the content of his character, then you are promoting racism as surely as those you would call racist. This post is no rip on Obama, he seems to be a man of some character. But whatever happened to our goal of a color-blind society? Is Barack Obama a black man? Or is he just a man? Your answer to that question might reveal something to you about yourself.

Candidates Schmandidates

At work a few days ago, during a discussion about politics (I know- What was I thinking?), someone told me that I should feel insulted by the Republican party, because after all the years that they controlled the White House and congress, they never followed through on their promises to outlaw abortion, shrink government, lower taxes, outlaw gay marriage, and a host of other non-accomplishments.

He has a point. Although I did put up some minor arguments about abortion being constrained somewhat and a few steps toward lower taxes, I completely see what he was getting at. But having conceded that the Republican record isn't exactly impressive, I wasn't persuaded to abandon ship and vote for easier abortions, bigger government, higher taxes, gay marriage, and a host of other "accomplishments". His arguments didn't convince me that the Democrats are a better choice than the Republicans, only that politicians in general don't accomplish much. And he didn't really "convince" me, I already was convinced of that. Maybe he just highlighted the fact that I'm disappointed in our choices for candidates. But still, I know I'll be voting for a Republican for president come November, because what else can I do? I'd rather vote for someone who touts values similar to mine and then hope he (or she) stays true to their word, than to vote for someone who touts values contrary to mine and hope they're lying. ALTHOUGH... Man, that just might work!