One of the most commonly heard mantras today is:
"Diversity is what makes our nation great."
Some colleges and universities have whole departments to advance this idea.
Well, our nation indeed has benefited from diversity in our population. The various heritages and cultures making up the United States of America add to our vitality and strength. Having a nation of different races, religions, languages, and cultures is a wonderful thing.
However, what makes our nation great is not diversity. What makes our nation great is our unique American Culture that provides an umbrella over all the subcultures found here. Ours is a culture based on Judeo-Christian values, a common language, and a unique constitution and representative-democracy form of government guaranteeing our freedoms that has no equal in world history.
Diversity is a result rather than a cause of our greatness.
I can think of other nations that are very diverse. The old Soviet Union comes to mind. The Soviet Union was very diverse with many cultures, religions, languages and races. But lacking the freedoms and way of life we enjoy, it was not a place where I would choose to live. Nor can I think of any other "diverse" nation that would be preferable to ours.
When diversity becomes a way to divide us then it becomes undesirable. In order for the United States to continue to be a strong and great nation, we must celebrate our diversity but not worship diversity for its own sake. We do need to remember those things that truly make our nation great: our common American culture, a common language, our form of government and our freedoms. We should think of ourselves as Americans and not merely millions of people of different colors and backgrounds who happen to occupy the same geographical area.
Those of us who understand, value, and appreciate these concepts also understand the need to preserve our American Culture. The rate of immigration into our nation must be controlled in such a way as to allow for proper assimilation. To live here and to be an American citizen is a privilege; it is not an absolute right of everyone on the planet who might want to come here.
America is a unique place. Our way of life is a blessing from God and is worth preserving.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Leftist hatred of America
The World Doesn't Hate America, the Left Does
By Dennis Prager
November 27, 2007
One of the most widely held beliefs in the contemporary world -- so widely held it is not disputed -- is that, with few exceptions, the world hates America. One of the Democrats' major accusations against the Bush administration is that it has increased hatred of America to unprecedented levels. And in many polls, the United States is held to be among the greatest obstacles to world peace and harmony.
But it is not true that the world hates America. It is the world's left that hates America. However, because the left dominates the world's news media and because most people, understandably, believe what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe that the world hates America.
That it is the left -- and those influenced by the left-leaning news and entertainment media -- that hates America can be easily shown.
Take Western Europe, which is widely regarded as holding America in contempt, but upon examination only validates our thesis. The French, for example, are regarded as particularly America-hating, but if this were so, how does one explain the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France? Sarkozy loves America and was known to love America when he ran for president. Evidently, it is the left in France -- a left that, like the left in America, dominates the media, arts, universities and unions -- that hates the U.S., not the French.
The same holds true for Spain, Australia, Britain, Latin America and elsewhere. The left in these countries hate the United States while non-leftists, and especially conservatives, in those countries hold America in high regard, if not actually love it.
Take Spain. The prime minister of Spain from 1996 to 2004, Jose Maria Aznar, is a conservative who holds America in the highest regard. He was elected twice, and polls in Spain up to the week before the 2004 election all predicted a third term for Aznar's party (Aznar had promised not to run for a third term). Only the Madrid subway bombings, perpetrated by Muslim terrorists three days before the elections, but which the Aznar government erroneously blamed on Basque separatists, turned the election against the conservative party.
There is another obvious argument against the belief that the world hates America: Many millions of people would rather live in America than in any other country. How does the left explain this? Why would people want to come to a country they loathe? Why don't people want to live in Sweden or France as much as they wish to live in America? Those are rich and free countries, too.
The answer is that most people know there is no country in the world more accepting of strangers as is America. After three generations, people who have emigrated to Germany or France or Sweden do not feel -- and are not regarded as -- fully German, French or Swedish. Yet, anyone of any color from any country is regarded as American the moment he or she identifies as one. The country that the left routinely calls "xenophobic" and "racist" is in fact the least racist and xenophobic country in the world.
Given that it is the left and the institutions it dominates -- universities, media (other than talk radio in America) and unions -- that hate America, two questions remain: Why does the left hate America, and does the American left, too, hate America?
The answer to the first question is that America and especially the most hated parts of America -- conservatives, religious conservatives in particular -- are the greatest obstacles to leftist dominance. American success refutes the socialist ideals of the left; American use of force to vanquish evil refutes the left's pacifist tendencies; America is the last great country that believes in putting some murderers to death, something that is anathema to the left; when America is governed by conservatives, it uses the language of good and evil, language regarded by the left as "Manichean"; most Americans still believe in the Judeo-Christian value system, another target of the left because the left regards all religions as equally valid (or more to the point, equally foolish and dangerous) and regards God-based morality as the moral equivalent of alchemy.
It makes perfect sense that the left around the world loathes America. The final question, then, is whether this loathing of America is characteristic of the American left as well. The answer is that the American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc. The American left, like the rest of the world's left, loathes that America.
So what America does the American left love? That is for those on the left to answer. But given their beliefs that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, it is a fair question.
By Dennis Prager
November 27, 2007
One of the most widely held beliefs in the contemporary world -- so widely held it is not disputed -- is that, with few exceptions, the world hates America. One of the Democrats' major accusations against the Bush administration is that it has increased hatred of America to unprecedented levels. And in many polls, the United States is held to be among the greatest obstacles to world peace and harmony.
But it is not true that the world hates America. It is the world's left that hates America. However, because the left dominates the world's news media and because most people, understandably, believe what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe that the world hates America.
That it is the left -- and those influenced by the left-leaning news and entertainment media -- that hates America can be easily shown.
Take Western Europe, which is widely regarded as holding America in contempt, but upon examination only validates our thesis. The French, for example, are regarded as particularly America-hating, but if this were so, how does one explain the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France? Sarkozy loves America and was known to love America when he ran for president. Evidently, it is the left in France -- a left that, like the left in America, dominates the media, arts, universities and unions -- that hates the U.S., not the French.
The same holds true for Spain, Australia, Britain, Latin America and elsewhere. The left in these countries hate the United States while non-leftists, and especially conservatives, in those countries hold America in high regard, if not actually love it.
Take Spain. The prime minister of Spain from 1996 to 2004, Jose Maria Aznar, is a conservative who holds America in the highest regard. He was elected twice, and polls in Spain up to the week before the 2004 election all predicted a third term for Aznar's party (Aznar had promised not to run for a third term). Only the Madrid subway bombings, perpetrated by Muslim terrorists three days before the elections, but which the Aznar government erroneously blamed on Basque separatists, turned the election against the conservative party.
There is another obvious argument against the belief that the world hates America: Many millions of people would rather live in America than in any other country. How does the left explain this? Why would people want to come to a country they loathe? Why don't people want to live in Sweden or France as much as they wish to live in America? Those are rich and free countries, too.
The answer is that most people know there is no country in the world more accepting of strangers as is America. After three generations, people who have emigrated to Germany or France or Sweden do not feel -- and are not regarded as -- fully German, French or Swedish. Yet, anyone of any color from any country is regarded as American the moment he or she identifies as one. The country that the left routinely calls "xenophobic" and "racist" is in fact the least racist and xenophobic country in the world.
Given that it is the left and the institutions it dominates -- universities, media (other than talk radio in America) and unions -- that hate America, two questions remain: Why does the left hate America, and does the American left, too, hate America?
The answer to the first question is that America and especially the most hated parts of America -- conservatives, religious conservatives in particular -- are the greatest obstacles to leftist dominance. American success refutes the socialist ideals of the left; American use of force to vanquish evil refutes the left's pacifist tendencies; America is the last great country that believes in putting some murderers to death, something that is anathema to the left; when America is governed by conservatives, it uses the language of good and evil, language regarded by the left as "Manichean"; most Americans still believe in the Judeo-Christian value system, another target of the left because the left regards all religions as equally valid (or more to the point, equally foolish and dangerous) and regards God-based morality as the moral equivalent of alchemy.
It makes perfect sense that the left around the world loathes America. The final question, then, is whether this loathing of America is characteristic of the American left as well. The answer is that the American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc. The American left, like the rest of the world's left, loathes that America.
So what America does the American left love? That is for those on the left to answer. But given their beliefs that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, it is a fair question.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
A Barnyard Tale
Once upon a time, on a farm in Indiana , there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
'Not I,' said the cow. 'Not I,' said the duck. 'Not I,' said the pig. 'Not I,' said the goose. 'Then I will do it by myself.', said the little red hen. And so she did.
The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. 'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen. 'Not I,' said the duck. 'Out of my classification,' said the pig. 'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow. 'I 'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose. 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread. 'Who will help me bake the bread?', asked the little red hen. 'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow. 'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck. 'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig. 'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose. 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.' 'Excess profits!' cried the cow. 'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. 'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. The pig just grunted in disdain. And they all painted 'Unfair!!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities. Then a government agent came, he said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.' 'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen. 'Exactly,' said the agent. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.'
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.' But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared .. as long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.
'Not I,' said the cow. 'Not I,' said the duck. 'Not I,' said the pig. 'Not I,' said the goose. 'Then I will do it by myself.', said the little red hen. And so she did.
The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. 'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen. 'Not I,' said the duck. 'Out of my classification,' said the pig. 'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow. 'I 'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose. 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread. 'Who will help me bake the bread?', asked the little red hen. 'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow. 'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck. 'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig. 'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose. 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.' 'Excess profits!' cried the cow. 'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. 'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. The pig just grunted in disdain. And they all painted 'Unfair!!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities. Then a government agent came, he said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.' 'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen. 'Exactly,' said the agent. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.'
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.' But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared .. as long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth
Attention Al Gore:
Residents of Argentina and Brazil are wondering when Global Warming will ever come.
Buenos Aires recorded November 15, 2007, the lowest November temperatures in 90 years.
Well, evil oil companies and all their Bush cronies must be to blame.
But climatologists (not the wacko leftist apologists ones) say the real culprit is a developing
la Nina, which is a normal cyclical event. La Nina events result in a cooling of the water in the Eastern Pacific along the South American coast similar to the last one that dominated from 1947 to 1977.
NASA has recently indicated that the circulation of the Arctic Ocean has changed from counterclockwise of the 1990's to the clockwise circulation of years before 1990. This shift will result in a cooling trend in the Arctic as well.
I doubt if Al and other anti-capitalists posing as environmentalists will let pesky facts as these alter their beliefs.
Residents of Argentina and Brazil are wondering when Global Warming will ever come.
Buenos Aires recorded November 15, 2007, the lowest November temperatures in 90 years.
Well, evil oil companies and all their Bush cronies must be to blame.
But climatologists (not the wacko leftist apologists ones) say the real culprit is a developing
la Nina, which is a normal cyclical event. La Nina events result in a cooling of the water in the Eastern Pacific along the South American coast similar to the last one that dominated from 1947 to 1977.
NASA has recently indicated that the circulation of the Arctic Ocean has changed from counterclockwise of the 1990's to the clockwise circulation of years before 1990. This shift will result in a cooling trend in the Arctic as well.
I doubt if Al and other anti-capitalists posing as environmentalists will let pesky facts as these alter their beliefs.
Hillary's Devine Right
Does Marrying Bill Clinton Qualify Someone To Be President?
By John Hawkins
November 16, 2007
If a CEO of a fortune 500 company were to retire, would anyone seriously consider his wife to be an adequate replacement simply because she was married to him when he ran the company? What about a Super Bowl winning football team? What do you think the reaction of their fans would be if their coach's wife was being seriously discussed as his replacement?
It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet, Hillary Clinton has practically been anointed by the press and the punditocracy as our next President, despite the fact that her run at the presidency is almost entirely based on being Bill Clinton's wife.
By that, I mean that if Bill Clinton had meant the sweet nothings that he whispered in Monica Lewinsky's ear and he had divorced Hillary and married Monica, today Monica would be planning her Senate reelection campaign while Hillary would probably be working as a lobbyist for the Chinese toy manufacturers association.
But isn't Hillary Clinton is a brilliant politician in her own right? Oh, please. She has been involved in more scandals than the whole rest of the Democratic and Republican fields combined, she's a participant in an off-putting sham marriage, she has minimal charisma, she is one of the most polarizing figures in politics, she has a reputation as a shameless liar, and so far, in her entire tenure in the Senate, she has never once accomplished anything of great significance or displayed notable leadership on any issue. Additionally, this is a woman who has gotten away with taking bribes, which is what her famous "cattle futures" scandal was really all about and had she been Hillary Jones, ordinary person, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, First Lady, she would have ended up in a jail cell over White Water.
However, if you listen to the talking heads on TV, she's talked about as if she's a political genius. Does it make you a political genius to poll test every publicly stated position you have and then script out a response that allows you to change your position and go the other way if public opinion changes or, more importantly, if you think you can get away with it? Maybe it does -- if you can come across as being genuine while you do it. But, Hillary comes across as exactly what she is: An amoral shrew who's willing to lie about anything and everything, destroy the lives of people who get in her way, and help cover up and enable the frequent affairs of her husband, all because she has an all-consuming urge to achieve power for power's sake -- and that's just what liberal Democrats like John Edwards and Maureen Dowd think of her. Republicans generally aren't as kind in their assessments of her personality and character.
So, how in the world has she managed to become the favorite in the race for the presidency? Simple: because of her husband, she has been the beneficiary of a double standard that is outrageous, even by the standards of the mainstream media.
Many of the liberal movers and shakers in the press are Baby Boomers who look at Bill Clinton as being "one of them" while many of the women in the MSM have the same attitude as Time Magazine's Nina Burleigh, who once famously said, "I would be happy to give him [Bill Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." (PS: Would anyone be surprised to find out that Bill Clinton took her up on that offer?)
Out of love for Bill, Hillary has received the sort of fawning press coverage that'd you expect a Soviet premier to get from Pravda before the Berlin Wall fell. That's why Hillary can get away with staging questions at her political events and also why her campaign was so grievously offended when Tim Russert actually tried to get her to come down on one side or the other on a question about giving illegal aliens driver's licenses: Hillary Clinton is so used to being treated with kid gloves by the mainstream press, that she was shocked when she was asked to play by the same rules as the other candidates.
Sometimes people like Clinton, who've been given every break and then some because of nepotism, try to step it up a notch to prove to people that they're worthy of the high honors they've so effortlessly acquired. For example, whatever you may think of Ted Kennedy, nobody can say that he hasn't been a great champion of liberal causes. George W. Bush is another example. He may have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he ran a business, he flew fighter jets in the National Guard, and he was elected twice as Governor of Texas before he became President. On the other hand, Hillary has not only never run a business, every job she ever held the private sector was given to her because of who her husband was.
Yes, she did manage, again, because of who her husband was, to get elected as a Senator in New York, one of the most liberal states in the nation, but that's a rather thin reed to use as justification for a run at the Presidency. Just as a point of comparison, Dan Quayle was relentlessly bashed as being too inexperienced and green to be Vice-President, despite the fact that he has served in the Senate just as long as Hillary Clinton and had spent two terms as a Congressman besides. Even more impressively, Quayle won office on his own merit, not because he happened to have married the right person.
What it all boils down to is that Hillary Clinton is Kevin Federline becoming famous because he was married to Britney Spears. She's "Brownie" being appointed as head of FEMA, not because he was the best-qualified person for the job, but because he knew the right person. She's every 22 year old "C" student with a business degree who has been allowed to leapfrog over dozens of more capable people and start as a top executive because his daddy happens to be a heavy hitter in the company.
Does that mean she can't win the Presidency? Oh no, she could certainly pull it off. In fact, people like Hillary Clinton get ahead of their more qualified competitors so regularly that, "It's not what you know, it's who you know," has become a cliche. But, Americans should be forewarned that who holds the presidency, particularly during the war on terror, is not a trivial matter and unlike the Senate, where you're just one of 100 members, the President alone has to make decisions of great import. Since that's the case, don't Americans deserve better than a leader of the free world whose chief qualification for the job is being Mrs. Bill Clinton?
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News.
By John Hawkins
November 16, 2007
If a CEO of a fortune 500 company were to retire, would anyone seriously consider his wife to be an adequate replacement simply because she was married to him when he ran the company? What about a Super Bowl winning football team? What do you think the reaction of their fans would be if their coach's wife was being seriously discussed as his replacement?
It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet, Hillary Clinton has practically been anointed by the press and the punditocracy as our next President, despite the fact that her run at the presidency is almost entirely based on being Bill Clinton's wife.
By that, I mean that if Bill Clinton had meant the sweet nothings that he whispered in Monica Lewinsky's ear and he had divorced Hillary and married Monica, today Monica would be planning her Senate reelection campaign while Hillary would probably be working as a lobbyist for the Chinese toy manufacturers association.
But isn't Hillary Clinton is a brilliant politician in her own right? Oh, please. She has been involved in more scandals than the whole rest of the Democratic and Republican fields combined, she's a participant in an off-putting sham marriage, she has minimal charisma, she is one of the most polarizing figures in politics, she has a reputation as a shameless liar, and so far, in her entire tenure in the Senate, she has never once accomplished anything of great significance or displayed notable leadership on any issue. Additionally, this is a woman who has gotten away with taking bribes, which is what her famous "cattle futures" scandal was really all about and had she been Hillary Jones, ordinary person, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, First Lady, she would have ended up in a jail cell over White Water.
However, if you listen to the talking heads on TV, she's talked about as if she's a political genius. Does it make you a political genius to poll test every publicly stated position you have and then script out a response that allows you to change your position and go the other way if public opinion changes or, more importantly, if you think you can get away with it? Maybe it does -- if you can come across as being genuine while you do it. But, Hillary comes across as exactly what she is: An amoral shrew who's willing to lie about anything and everything, destroy the lives of people who get in her way, and help cover up and enable the frequent affairs of her husband, all because she has an all-consuming urge to achieve power for power's sake -- and that's just what liberal Democrats like John Edwards and Maureen Dowd think of her. Republicans generally aren't as kind in their assessments of her personality and character.
So, how in the world has she managed to become the favorite in the race for the presidency? Simple: because of her husband, she has been the beneficiary of a double standard that is outrageous, even by the standards of the mainstream media.
Many of the liberal movers and shakers in the press are Baby Boomers who look at Bill Clinton as being "one of them" while many of the women in the MSM have the same attitude as Time Magazine's Nina Burleigh, who once famously said, "I would be happy to give him [Bill Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." (PS: Would anyone be surprised to find out that Bill Clinton took her up on that offer?)
Out of love for Bill, Hillary has received the sort of fawning press coverage that'd you expect a Soviet premier to get from Pravda before the Berlin Wall fell. That's why Hillary can get away with staging questions at her political events and also why her campaign was so grievously offended when Tim Russert actually tried to get her to come down on one side or the other on a question about giving illegal aliens driver's licenses: Hillary Clinton is so used to being treated with kid gloves by the mainstream press, that she was shocked when she was asked to play by the same rules as the other candidates.
Sometimes people like Clinton, who've been given every break and then some because of nepotism, try to step it up a notch to prove to people that they're worthy of the high honors they've so effortlessly acquired. For example, whatever you may think of Ted Kennedy, nobody can say that he hasn't been a great champion of liberal causes. George W. Bush is another example. He may have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he ran a business, he flew fighter jets in the National Guard, and he was elected twice as Governor of Texas before he became President. On the other hand, Hillary has not only never run a business, every job she ever held the private sector was given to her because of who her husband was.
Yes, she did manage, again, because of who her husband was, to get elected as a Senator in New York, one of the most liberal states in the nation, but that's a rather thin reed to use as justification for a run at the Presidency. Just as a point of comparison, Dan Quayle was relentlessly bashed as being too inexperienced and green to be Vice-President, despite the fact that he has served in the Senate just as long as Hillary Clinton and had spent two terms as a Congressman besides. Even more impressively, Quayle won office on his own merit, not because he happened to have married the right person.
What it all boils down to is that Hillary Clinton is Kevin Federline becoming famous because he was married to Britney Spears. She's "Brownie" being appointed as head of FEMA, not because he was the best-qualified person for the job, but because he knew the right person. She's every 22 year old "C" student with a business degree who has been allowed to leapfrog over dozens of more capable people and start as a top executive because his daddy happens to be a heavy hitter in the company.
Does that mean she can't win the Presidency? Oh no, she could certainly pull it off. In fact, people like Hillary Clinton get ahead of their more qualified competitors so regularly that, "It's not what you know, it's who you know," has become a cliche. But, Americans should be forewarned that who holds the presidency, particularly during the war on terror, is not a trivial matter and unlike the Senate, where you're just one of 100 members, the President alone has to make decisions of great import. Since that's the case, don't Americans deserve better than a leader of the free world whose chief qualification for the job is being Mrs. Bill Clinton?
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tax the Rich?
Congressional and Leftist Lies
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
An important component of the leftist class warfare agenda is to condemn President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. This claim is careless, ignorant or dishonest on at least two counts. First there's the constitutional issue. Article I, Section 8 reads, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes . . ." That means the president has no taxing authority.
Presidents can propose or veto taxes and Congress can override vetoes. The bottom line is that all taxing authority rests with the U.S. Congress. The next time you hear someone condemn or praise Bush's tax cuts, ask them whether the Constitution has been amended to give the president taxing authority.
But what about those tax cuts for the rich? Are the rich now sharing a smaller burden of the federal income tax because their fair share of the burden has been shifted to the poor? The most recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statistics can give us some guidance. In 2005, the top 1 percent of income earners, those with an annual adjusted gross income of $365,000 and higher, paid 39 percent of all federal income taxes; in 1999, they paid 36 percent.
In 2005, the top 5 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $145,000 and higher, paid 60 percent of all federal taxes; in 1999, it was 55 percent. The top 10 percent, earning income over $103,000, paid 70 percent. The top 25 percent, with income of over $62,000, paid 86 percent, and the top 50 percent, earning $31,000 and higher, paid 97 percent of all federal taxes.
What about any argument suggesting that the burden of taxes have been shifted to the poor? The bottom 50 percent, earning $30,000 or less, paid 3 percent of total federal income taxes. In 1999, they paid 4 percent. Congressmen know all of this, but they attempt to hoodwink the average American who doesn't.
The fact that there are so many American earners who have little or no financial stake in our country poses a serious political problem. The Tax Foundation estimates that 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indian and Aleut Eskimo and 40 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders had no 2004 federal income tax liability. The study concluded, "When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of the U.S. population -- who are outside of the federal income tax system." These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?
Similarly, what do you care about tax cuts if you're paying little or no taxes? In fact, you might be openly hostile toward tax cuts out of fear that they might lead to reductions in handout programs from which you benefit. Survey polls have confirmed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350 billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes.
Whether you're for or against President Bush matters little, but what do you think of politicians and their media dupes winning you over with lies about the rich not paying their fair share? And, by the way, $145,000 or even $345,000 a year hardly qualifies one as rich. It's not even yacht money.
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
An important component of the leftist class warfare agenda is to condemn President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. This claim is careless, ignorant or dishonest on at least two counts. First there's the constitutional issue. Article I, Section 8 reads, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes . . ." That means the president has no taxing authority.
Presidents can propose or veto taxes and Congress can override vetoes. The bottom line is that all taxing authority rests with the U.S. Congress. The next time you hear someone condemn or praise Bush's tax cuts, ask them whether the Constitution has been amended to give the president taxing authority.
But what about those tax cuts for the rich? Are the rich now sharing a smaller burden of the federal income tax because their fair share of the burden has been shifted to the poor? The most recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statistics can give us some guidance. In 2005, the top 1 percent of income earners, those with an annual adjusted gross income of $365,000 and higher, paid 39 percent of all federal income taxes; in 1999, they paid 36 percent.
In 2005, the top 5 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $145,000 and higher, paid 60 percent of all federal taxes; in 1999, it was 55 percent. The top 10 percent, earning income over $103,000, paid 70 percent. The top 25 percent, with income of over $62,000, paid 86 percent, and the top 50 percent, earning $31,000 and higher, paid 97 percent of all federal taxes.
What about any argument suggesting that the burden of taxes have been shifted to the poor? The bottom 50 percent, earning $30,000 or less, paid 3 percent of total federal income taxes. In 1999, they paid 4 percent. Congressmen know all of this, but they attempt to hoodwink the average American who doesn't.
The fact that there are so many American earners who have little or no financial stake in our country poses a serious political problem. The Tax Foundation estimates that 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indian and Aleut Eskimo and 40 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders had no 2004 federal income tax liability. The study concluded, "When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of the U.S. population -- who are outside of the federal income tax system." These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?
Similarly, what do you care about tax cuts if you're paying little or no taxes? In fact, you might be openly hostile toward tax cuts out of fear that they might lead to reductions in handout programs from which you benefit. Survey polls have confirmed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350 billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes.
Whether you're for or against President Bush matters little, but what do you think of politicians and their media dupes winning you over with lies about the rich not paying their fair share? And, by the way, $145,000 or even $345,000 a year hardly qualifies one as rich. It's not even yacht money.
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
Tomorrow's news today
It is November 5th, 2008, the day after the presidential elections.
With the announcement of the capture of Osama Bin Laden, the successful conclusion of the war in Iraq, and the discovery of the huge New Mexico oil field the Democrats never recovered after the GOP's "October Surprise." That along with the new highs in the stock market and the economy, all the good news for the nation was bad news for the Democrats.
In an historic upset of Biblical proportions, the GOP had regained the White House in a landslide and conservatives everywhere are celebrating and looking forward to the inauguration of President-elect Mitt Romney and Vice President Mike Huckabee. But the biggest surprise was the recapture of both the US Senate and the House of Representatives.
Adding to the Democrats' woes, the recent retirement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court's two most liberal Justices, the path has been cleared finally to tilt the high court back to its original intent.
It has been reported that Hillary Clinton was taken into custody by Federal Marshals early this afternoon on charges of conspiracy to commit treason and violation of the Ricco Act. Reportedly, she had to be constrained in a straight jacket during her arrest and was seen kicking, screaming obscenities and foaming at the mouth as she was dragged away. Her estranged husband, former President Bill Clinton was seen at Washington National Airport buying a one-way ticket to Las Vegas. His female companion could not be identified but appeared to be approximately 18 years old.
Other notable Democrats in the news today include Senator Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada who announced their retirement from public service. Senator Ted Kennedy was checked into the hospital with a recurrence of delirium tremors and Senator John Kerry was taken away by paramedics when he was found in a fetal position on the floor of his senate office.
The Democratic National Committee announced just within the hour that they had contacted Al Gore, Michael Moore and George Soros for an emergency telephone conference call on future strategy.
The final 20 feet of the fence along the southern border was delayed to coincide with January inauguration ceremony. As a symbolic measure, an Honor Guard of 100 crack Army Rangers was assigned to protect this unfenced area from any illegal intrusion.
The sun is shinning brightly in North America.
With the announcement of the capture of Osama Bin Laden, the successful conclusion of the war in Iraq, and the discovery of the huge New Mexico oil field the Democrats never recovered after the GOP's "October Surprise." That along with the new highs in the stock market and the economy, all the good news for the nation was bad news for the Democrats.
In an historic upset of Biblical proportions, the GOP had regained the White House in a landslide and conservatives everywhere are celebrating and looking forward to the inauguration of President-elect Mitt Romney and Vice President Mike Huckabee. But the biggest surprise was the recapture of both the US Senate and the House of Representatives.
Adding to the Democrats' woes, the recent retirement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court's two most liberal Justices, the path has been cleared finally to tilt the high court back to its original intent.
It has been reported that Hillary Clinton was taken into custody by Federal Marshals early this afternoon on charges of conspiracy to commit treason and violation of the Ricco Act. Reportedly, she had to be constrained in a straight jacket during her arrest and was seen kicking, screaming obscenities and foaming at the mouth as she was dragged away. Her estranged husband, former President Bill Clinton was seen at Washington National Airport buying a one-way ticket to Las Vegas. His female companion could not be identified but appeared to be approximately 18 years old.
Other notable Democrats in the news today include Senator Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada who announced their retirement from public service. Senator Ted Kennedy was checked into the hospital with a recurrence of delirium tremors and Senator John Kerry was taken away by paramedics when he was found in a fetal position on the floor of his senate office.
The Democratic National Committee announced just within the hour that they had contacted Al Gore, Michael Moore and George Soros for an emergency telephone conference call on future strategy.
The final 20 feet of the fence along the southern border was delayed to coincide with January inauguration ceremony. As a symbolic measure, an Honor Guard of 100 crack Army Rangers was assigned to protect this unfenced area from any illegal intrusion.
The sun is shinning brightly in North America.
Thanks, Ed
As I finally join the Blogisphere, I wish to thank my longtime friend and buddy Ed (who has been my comrade-in-arms since kindergarten) for assisting me with this project. We have rambled through life together with humor and purpose as schoolmates, in the same boy scout troupe, little league teammates, basketball teammates (undefeated in 6th grade), pen pals throughout college, golf buddy, and fellow conservative observer of life. True friends are rare.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)