LOL. Obama Claims "Biggest Tax Cut in History"

I think Obama has been claiming this for quite a while and he said it again, recently, on September 5.

“We said working folks deserved a break, so within one month of me taking office, we signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history, putting more money into your pockets.”

According to The Washington Post Fact Checker, Obama is telling quite a lie.  When most people think of a "biggest tax cut in history", they think total dollars, right?  But when Obama claims it, he means a tax cut to the broadest section of the population.

“The point the president was making that is there is not a tax cut that has been enjoyed by such a broad section of the population,” an administration official said, pointing to a report that said that 95 percent of working families received some kind of tax cut under the Making Work Pay provision in his stimulus bill. 

In other words, this isn’t about the size of the tax cut, but about the fact that every working family, except those making more than $190,000, received as much as $800 in tax cuts.

So he and his followers are claiming the "biggest tax cut in history" was issued by Obama when he first took office and look how it has failed to help the economy.  Well I must have been in that 5% that didn't get a "tax cut" even though I am under the millionaire and billionaire $190,000 threshold.  Maybe I did get a "tax cut" and ended up taking my family out to pizza with it.  I certainly don't remember any difference when I filed my taxes in '09 and '10.  


Despite what the ignorant Left thinks, a few hundred dollars in everybody's pocket is nice but it won't turn the economy around especially when Obama is expanding government spending at a record pace.


I am pleased the Fact Checker gave Obama 

Obama's Successes in His First Two Years

In an effort to be credible, I want to praise Obama for his successes in his first two years. Below are the things I consider successes of things he was either able or unable to accomplish even with a super majority Congress...

• Retaining the Bush era tax rates
• GITMO remains open
• The war against terror in the Middle East continuing
• No Union Card Check
• No amnesty for illegal aliens
• No gay marriage law

In addition, his incompetence as a politician, communicator and governor led to an overwhelming landslide for the GOP/Tea Party in 2010 which, hopefully, will lead to the reversal of the health care reform and lead to more policies that will actually help revitalize our sick economy.

Got My Tax Refund!

Just this past Monday, I got online and submitted my request for my Montana property tax refund. Just got back from the Griz game, picked up my mail and was greeted with a nice $400 check from Helena - in less than a week! I just about fell out of my old SUV!

To answer Scoop's question on how I'm going to spend it, it will be spent outfitting my kid for back to school clothing and supplies. I'm going to help generate economic activity in Missoula. It's nice having some of my money back to spend as I wish. And spend it I will!

Renter's Rebate

When I read this, I was a bit put off that Democratic Rep. Kendall Van Dyk would propose renters get a $400 rent equivalent property tax rebate. I was ready to fire off a post decrying what a rotten idea it was to redistribute people's earnings this way.

The more I thought, however, the more I liked the idea. It will take $43 million more from the projected $1 billion State Treasury surplus and distribute it to renters. I'm always fine with taxpayers getting to keep more of their money to spend as they see fit. Having been a renter in my younger days for many years, I knew part of my rent paid the property taxes on the property. Most renters work and pay income taxes, license their cars, and pay other state taxes and fees so I am fine with them getting some of that back.

I think the Republican alternative for permanent property tax relief is far better and more fair and would hope that it would pass but I understand it won't be as popular as the $400 rebate. I would certainly benefit more from this alternative but I also am realistic enough to understand it probably won't be successful.

Bottom line, anytime we can get people's money back into their pocket, I am for it! I'll be happy to cash my $400 check and spend it frivolously.

Missoulian Editorial Gets It Right On Tax Cuts

Yesterday's Missoulian Editorial got it right!

Tax cuts favor the wealthiest because the wealthy pay most of the taxes!!!

The Truth About Big Oil

One of the issues in the House Democrat’s “famous” First 100 Hours is they have decided to attack Big Oil. It continues to confirm the fact that Liberals simply do not understand economics or business and instead, propose legislation that seriously will hurt our economy.

In their proposed legislation, they want to raise taxes on domestic oil producers and use that tax to subsidize alternative energy sources like ethanol, solar, wind, etc. This, of course, will increase the cost of our domestic oil which will lower its demand and increase the demand and imports of OPEC oil.

Democrats like to claim that Big Oil is ripping off taxpayers through deals they negotiated with the government regarding royalty payments from oil taken from the Gulf of Mexico. In 1998-99, the Clinton Administration signed leases for drilling rights in the Gulf. At the time, the price of oil per barrel was around $10. I believe there were negotiations regarding royalty payments if the price exceeded $35 per barrel but that clause was omitted for some reason. Upon investigation from the Interior Department’s Inspector General, it was determined to be a bureaucratic “snafu” by the Clinton Administration.

A few of the companies alerted the Dept of Interior about the omission and were willing to renegotiate, but were told to go ahead. I guess the thinking was it was not big deal since the price per barrel was so low then. Now that the price is over $60 and was $70, Big Oil is being accused of cheating us poor taxpayers.

The oil companies and the Dept of Interior negotiated and signed contracts in 1998-99. Big Oil made million dollar decisions based on those contracts. Why do the Democrats want to renege a contract that their administration, Clinton, negotiated?

And according to this WSJ Article they are wrong about trying to take away Big Oil “tax breaks” from the 2005 Energy Bill.

Democrats also want to raise about $5 to $6 billion by snatching away alleged tax breaks for Big Oil in the Republicans' 2005 energy bill. Sorry, that isn't true either. The Congressional Research Service reports that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry by $300 million. Nor does it make sense to repeal a domestic oil company's eligibility for a 2004 tax cut that reduced the effective corporate income tax rate to 32% from 35% on U.S. manufacturers. This tax cut increases the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers that are now penalized by a U.S. corporate tax rate that is among the highest in the industrialized world. Our objection is that every U.S. company should pay the same, lower rate.

I wish Democrats would stop playing politics and try to understand how the economy and business work in the real world. Then they would be Conservatives.

Further Evidence That Tax Cuts Grow the Economy

According to today's Missoulian, the wealthy in Montana did very well with the tax cuts enacted in in 2003 and effective for the full year of 2005. Not only did the wealthy receive a tax cut, but everybody did of which I am personally grateful. I enjoy keeping more of the money I earn.

Since the tax cuts were enacted, the state has faster growing wages and a nice treasury surplus.

Predictably, Democrats just can't bring themselves to admit the tax cuts had anything to do with growing wages and the surplus even though it has been proven nationally in the 1960s, 1980s, and now. They can't seem to understand percentages vs. dollar amount and see high income earners "unfairly" getting a higher dollar amount of tax cuts than lower income earners even though the percentages are similar.

Bottom line is the more money that people get to keep, the more they will spend in the economy which, in turn, spurs economic growth and helps out everybody.

It's not rocket surgery.

Tester and His Supporters are Uniformed, Ignorant, and Dangerous

When I read the Missoulian article about the Burns/Tester debate in Billings, I got very angry at Tester and his supporters.

Republican U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns said at a debate Tuesday night that President Bush does have a plan for winning the war in Iraq, but he isn't about to share it with the world.

Makes perfect sense to me. Why would the plan be shared? Sharing the plan would be foolish and irresponsible to say the least.


Many in the crowd, which was dominated by Tester supporters, openly laughed at Burns' claim that Bush has a plan.

Talk about arrogant and condescending. Liberal plan is to "cut and run" with our tail between our legs.

The two candidates also differed greatly on the Bush administration's tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003.

They disputed whether Tester had raised taxes on some businesses in passing a 2005 bill that eliminated the property tax on business equipment on other businesses.

Tester said he opposed most of the Bush tax cuts, which Burns said were worked out by Bush and Democratic Sen. Max Baucus and supported by him. Burns said Montanans' income taxes would rise greatly if the tax cuts weren't extended.

“How come you want to raise taxes on 336,000 folks in Montana?” Burns asked. Replied Tester: “It's about the middle class, Senator Burns. You're about your rich K Street lobbyists, and that's the issue in this race.”

Jon, I'm smack dab in the middle class and I benefited from the tax cuts that you want to eliminate! Let me keep more of my money! +30% is more that enough!

Bushes tax cuts are the spark that set off this roaring economy that we are currently in.

On the war on terror and taxes, Tester and his supporters are uniformed, ignorant, and dangerous. Reason enough not to support or vote for the man.

Burns Puts Taxes at Center of Campaign

The Missoulian ran their profile on Conrad Burns yesterday. In it, Burns declares that the race boils down to one thing - taxes. “I will tell you, that's what this election is all about,” Burns says. “He wants to repeal all of those tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003.”

While Burns will protect those tax cuts, Tester will be more than comfortable in working to not renew them. I am one who enjoys keeping more of the money I earn. They don't need more than the +30% that they already take from me. I have little use for the government telling me that they know better on how to spend my earnings.

I really liked the profile because it does boil down to two things for me when Nov 7 comes - taxes and the Patriot Act. Both of which Tester has stated he wants to repeal.


The profile did clarify Tester's tax stance with the following:

Tester, in fact, has favored keeping two tax breaks ending the marriage penalty and the tuition tax credit while ending the others.

Confusing Letter to the Editor

In a Letter to the Editor in the Missoulian today, I'm not sure if Mr. Elander is pleased with Rehberg's votes or unhappy with them.

I am assuming he is a Liberal, being in the Missoulian, and thinks that these votes are something to be ashamed of. To a conservative like me, Rehberg's votes go right down the line of what I agree with and confirms his conservative idealogy.


Check up on Rehberg's votes

No doubt, the thinking voter reads the "How your lawmakers voted" graphic in the Sunday paper, but it is hard to recall on their votes over the past year.The following may help you; unfortunately the riders and earmarks are not reported by the press.

The following are only with regard to Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont.:

HR 4297: tax cut, to extend through 2010 the 15 percent capital gains and business write-offs for business equipment. Rehberg's vote: yes, to extend.

HR 2863: United States should abide by the U.N. convention pertaining to torture of prisoners. Rehberg's vote: no, not to abide.

HR 4437: border fences, U.S.-Mexico border. Rehberg's vote: yes, for the fences.S 1932: deficit reduction, mainly targeting student loans, and Medicaid and Medicare. Rehberg's vote: yes, for the cuts.

HR 5429: Arctic drilling. Rehberg's vote: yes, to open the refuge to drilling.

The above are all from the Missoulian during the past year.

Jim Elander, Missoula

Raising the Minimum Wage is a Bad Idea

I was navigating through the New West Missoula web site yesterday and ran across an article about the minimum wage vote coming up in November's election. I read with interest the debate in the comments that followed and, of course, was reminded how many uninformed and uneducated people there are out there. I was compelled to add to the comments, particularly one that attacked republicans and President Bush's tax cuts. The entire minimum wage argument is one of the Liberal's classic class warfare techniques. They attack President Bush's tax cuts for the rich while keeping the minimum wage so low without acknowledging that the top 1% of wage earners pay 34% of the taxes and the top 50% pay 94.5% of the taxes. That tax cuts fuel economic growth by putting more money into the hands of people that know how to generate more economic production. I would argue that the tax cuts help increase the wages of the bottom 50% of wage earners.

People who count on the government to pass a law increasing the minimum wage to give them a raise are not what an employer would consider a good employee. Those people who cannot earn a raise on their own work ethic or drive deserve to earn the minimum wage. When I was a teenager making the minimum wage at my first job, I worked hard and quickly became an asset to my employer who, in turn, gave me a raise within two months - that was the last time I ever earned minimum wage. Now, as an employer, I rarely hire anybody at minimum wage because the job market is so competitive in Missoula. Those that work hard and produce for me, I give regular wage increases to show my gratitude and reward them for their contribution and to not lose them to another employer. Those that are mediocre or poor performing employees, I will not increase their wages. Why reward mediocrity and poor performance? I hope the mediocre find other jobs and I dismiss the poor performers. This is the reality.

If one can only make minimum wage, that is all he is really worth to an employer. If one honestly is a hard working, good producing employee but finds himself with a rotten employer who does not pay fairly, there will be hundreds of other employers willing to pay more for that employee. If he is a mediocre or poor employee, he will be paid poorly. It's that simple.