Half of Americans Don't Pay Their Fair Share

Fully half of Americans aren't paying their fair share of taxes. But, it's not the half that you think.

Buffett Rule (Buffett): "I could pay more taxes. People like me ... " (presumably meaning billionnaires) "... could pay more taxes, too."
Buffett Rule (as translated by the Left): The rich 1% should be taxed much more, even Warren Buffett says so.

Reality Check #1: The 1% are rich people? No. In 2009, the 99th percentile income level was just under $344,000, well within the range of better doctors, orthodontists and successful small-town business people.

Reality Check #2: The 1% don't pay their share? No. In 2009, the top 1% paid 36.7% of the total taxes paid, while their taxable income represented just 16.9% of total income for the year. (Got to watch that AGI statistic, though - it's after deductions, which the 1% presumably have more of).

Reality Check #3: The rest of us pay more than our share? No. In 2009, the average tax rate of Americans was 11.06%, the average tax rate of the 1% was 24.01%. But the average tax rate of the bottom 50% of income earners was just 1.85%.

That's at least half the population, who demand and consume at least half the public services who, in 2009, paid only 2.3% of the total taxes. It's clear who isn't paying their fair share.


Check for yourself: IRS SOI Tax Stats.

Gay Marriage puts Religious Dems' Faith to the Test

"The world is bigger than gay marriage."

That seems to be one of the two themes (along with race) that explain why many Democrats who hold strong religious beliefs continue to support Obama after his announcement of his support for gay marriage. http://bit.ly/JNkXHi

It's an apologist's position. And it is an example of faith being tested and found wanting. If a person believes in God and in the truth of biblical teachings, then God is saying one thing and Obama is saying another. For believers, God's word is not negotiable. It's not a political message. God doesn't put a "spin" on his word and he never flip-flops. For a believer to choose to follow Man's word over God's word because it's convenient is a serious thing.

The world is bigger than gay marriage. But, if you believe in and follow God, the world is not bigger than His word.

Reagan Knew

Reagan had it right in 1980, because he knew some economic truths.

He knew that in an open global marketplace, when net exports are significantly and persistently negative, there is high leakage by definition, which means a relatively low multiplier for additional secondary/tertiary economic activity. Being able to put two and two together correctly, he also knew then that demand-side stimulus would be a waste, simply putting additional dollars in the pockets of foreign industries. He knew that supply-side investment was the better approach, because it would drive GDP growth and that other factors of the economy (like job growth) would follow.

History proved he was right.

But Obama doesn't seem to be able to make the connection. Not only does he continue to spend trillions of dollars in ineffective supply-side stimulus and government programs, he's putting the nation in deeper and deeper debt to do so, compounding the problem.

History is already beginning to prove just how wrong he is.

Don't Let Workplace Discrimination Go Unanswered

I also learned this (second-hand) from a friend.

Sometimes a recruiter accepts (verbally is OK, in writing is better) that you are qualified for submission for a given position based on your phone interviews, references, etc. But then, after asking you in to the agency for the "formality" of a face-to-face meeting, refuses to submit you.

This could actually be submitted as prima facie evidence of discrimination based on membership in a protected class (race, age, color, etc.) if it applies -- especially if your membership in such a class would only be evident in a face-to-face setting.

This isn't legal advice. I'm not a lawyer (and neither is my friend). But if I was to run into such a situation, I would certainly seek advice from a competent attorney.

My opinion remains that people have to stand up to abusive employers and government agencies, even if that means some personal inconvenience and sacrifice. People have to be able to work for society to function. The old adage stands: if you're not part of the solution, you're just another part of the problem.

Pre-employment Screening Madness

Pre-employment screening at Scripps Health is a perfect storm of violations of candidates' privacy and dignity. Why would anyone willingly discard their self-respect to work there?

Reportedly, pre-employment screening at Scripps Health includes:

• a background check
• a credit check
• testing for "drugs", controlled substances and alcohol
• proof of immunization records
• and a chest X-Ray

What? No tobacco or bubble gum tests? 

Get this: all for a temporary position in information technology. Not working in the hospital. Not interacting with patients or health care providers. For sitting in a cubicle writing software.

If you care about privacy and the right to work, speak out. Let them (and any abusive employer) know that it's not acceptable. Scripps Health contact information is here: http://www.scripps.org/about-us__contact-us

USA and Pakistan - Interesting Relationsihp

The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is interesting (read: insane). 

On one hand, we know that Pakistan harbors domestic and foreign terrorists, as well as serving as an extensive R&R base for the Taliban in Afghanistan. So, we ignore their sovereignty and carry out drone strikes that enrage Pakistan's citizens -- after we promised not to do that anymore (http://on.msnbc.com/JJZShY). As a direct consequence, even freely-offered humanitarian aid is met with brutality by anti-West militant extremists (http://on.msnbc.com/IBL3Zc) and the government of Pakistan turns a blind eye. 

Yet, on the other had, we continue to provide Pakistan with jobs (Pakistan is a major recipient of American jobs shipped offshore.), foreign aid and the very weapons that they will eventually use to kill Americans (http://bit.ly/IvwVWJ). 

 Regardless of who is in the Executive Office, it seems as if American foreign policy just keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. Well, that's my take, anyway.

War on Drugs Continues Under Obama

The so-called "War on Drugs" is a failed Nixon-era campaign that continues the U.S. Government's focus on prohibition and control, rather than on education and letting people choose. In addition, it serves government a handy excuse for political, economic and military intervention around the globe.

The Obama administration does not use the term "War on Drugs". They say that it isn't a productive way to term it and, besides, it is very non-PC. The real truth is that they know the term is met with derision, not just by Americans, but the world over. Instead of a war, they speak of drug addiction as a disease. Obama promised change that would make a real difference by treating the drug problem as a health issue, but the only change under Obama's leadership has been an increase in the amount of wasted money spent on ineffective interdiction and law enforcement activities. The war continues.

After 41 years and over $1 trillion dollars spent wasted, even the U.S. "drug czar", Gil Kerlikowske admits failure. The unjust disparity in sentences for drug-related crimes, along with the highest incarceration rate in the world has accomplished nothing. Nothing but to actually increase the sophistication and level of violence of the international drug trade.

Everyone recognizes that the "War on Drugs" is a complete failure, but there is substantial political pressure to continue the high level of expenditures on law enforcement, border control and foreign involvements that make up the campaign. A lot of government agencies have grown fat on the monies thrown down this particular toilet, and they don't want to see that dry up. In my opinion, it's well past time to reign in these excesses.

First Amendment takes a Bipartisan Hit

The "reauthorization" (that should be read: massive broadening) of the Violence Against Women Act is a First Amendment nightmare. This bill actually criminalizes protected speech if anyone claims to be "distressed" by it.


The Senate has passed 68-31 a bill to renew the government's main domestic violence program. Fighting domestic violence? All good. And, of course, the bill contains plenty of juicy sound bites for politicians on both sides of the aisle to leverage, so ensuring bipartisan support.

But, as usual, the Devil is in the details. For example, Section 107 of H.R. 4271 strengthens the law to make it a criminal offense for anyone who "... engages in conduct that ... would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress ...". 

Since "substantial emotional distress" is a purely individual and subjective measure and one doesn't even have to be communicating to the distressed person to run afoul of the law, it opens up all kinds of First Amendment issues. Send a tweet or make a Facebook post criticizing a public official and they may just claim to be "caused substantial emotional distress".

Read the HR bill here: http://bit.ly/Kgi7H9