Tax Rate Compromise - A Conservative Victory?

Is may be too soon to talk about this since nothing has been voted into law, but there seems to be a solution to the impending tax increases.

Newt Gingrich, from American Solutions, sent out an e-mail claiming this is our first conservative victory….”Last night's tax compromise between President Obama and the GOP is good news for the economy, and is proof that elections do matter. If the Left had won on November 2nd, there's no doubt that this deal wouldn't have happened. But the GOP leadership stood by their promise to prevent a massive tax increase on the American people.”

Really?! Just how firm did the Republicans stand for no more tax increases or no more wasteful spending or spending that we cannot afford?

New commentators are falling all over themselves saying this proves Obama is a Statesman and has demonstrated his ability to compromise. Not really. Obama proposed an increase in the death tax,….what was it?..something like a 35% tax on assets over 5 million? At any level this is an abomination on the American People. Imagine a rancher having assets over $5 million, tied up mostly in the land and his stock. The rancher dies, his wife or children have to sell off the cattle and some of the land in order to pay the death tax! This is not only government re-distribution of wealth but Government confiscation of property without due process.

Obama not only proposed the death tax increase but another one year extension of unemployment benefits. Are you kidding me? Get fired or layed off, which is a terrible thing, but now the government is going to fund your unemployed period for up to 3 years?.....another massive government spending program without the funds to back it up. We cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. Some people are predicting a collapse of the dollar, and hence this country, within 6 months if we don’t take massive course correction now.

Plus, Obama did not go willing to his proposal for compromise. He is under extreme pressure from such notables mutts as Harry Reid and Nancy Stretch Pelosi (and others) not to compromise. Obama got in his lying licks too when he call Republicans “hostage takers” holding the American people hostage in order to secure tax cuts for the rich. Tax Cuts – really? No, you idiot this is keeping the tax rates at the status quo.

One thing that is over looked in the whole tax debate is just how fair is it for someone to bust their butt building a business or enterprise then getting taxed at a higher rate. We need the fair tax.

Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says that extending unemployment with paying for it and increases the death tax was unacceptable – and I for one am thankful that one of the conservatives we voted in, is standing pat on the values that got him elected.

Making The Rounds: What People are Saying

....About social security, taxation, government waste and over spending...

Just a short roll up on some of the blog comments making the rounds:

"I believe the gov. tolerates the low and middle class people only because they pay in enormous amounts of tax revenues and they make the best soldiers in the world. when or if they reach retirement age or for whatever reason they are not as productive as they once were they are then expendable, like most things today " they're throw a-ways"...once the elected officials in washington get elected they never look back, they're are then above the law. the lobbiests, special interest groups, big businesses and drug cartels run and own washington d.c. the american dream is a farce to keep people working, washington enjoys a life style unequaled anywhere on the face of the earth,they are never going to give that up..."

"Maybe all you people crying that you can't live off of what they give you or that somebody else gets more then you for less, should have prepared better. yes the system is broken and run poorly. But what happened to self preservation? Take of care of yourself and not sit around whining you don't get enough. Cause factually everyone gets more then they put in due to cost of living adjustments. People receiving $600month could live off of that easily back when they started putting money into social security. So in the end, you should have gotten off your rump and prepared for your retirement yourself and quit waiting for someone else to take care of you."

"We are all just pigs at the trough of the government and destroying the country for our children. We are the first generation of Americans to leave our country in worse shape for our kids than our parents left us. We should be ashamed."

"If you work for the federal government your pension funds are invested in stocks and bonds listed on the stock exchange. If you are wrapped in the loving arms of Social Security, your retirement funds cannot be invested in the market. Social Security funds are loaned to the govt. and yields about 2% return, the govt. pension funds invested in the market probably yields between 5% to 10% or more."

The above comments were ones that were more reasnable or articulate. Of course you still have people who are blaming Bush for everything,.... people who believe that the Worldwide Wrestling Federation on television is real,.... and people who believe that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Cal Thomas - Telling It Like It Is

Sent to me by a buddy, his comment....."Cal Thomas has done it again. He should be arrested for trying to tell the truth and be sensible.

Cal Thomas, is a political commentator of a conservative bent and is the co-author (with Bob Beckel - a noted Liberal) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".

Cal's article:

People who take polls for a living will tell you that depending on the methodology, the sample, how a question is asked and the understanding of the ones being polled, the outcome can pretty much be predetermined.

If you are dependent on a superior for your job and that superior tells you he wants a certain conclusion reached about a policy he wishes to implement, that, too, can affect the outcome.

Such is the case with President Obama, who has told gay rights groups he intends to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. From the comments by Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, it appears the president's message has placed their job security above what is best for the military and the country. Many lower-ranking officers do not share their opinion about the effects openly gay service members would have on our military.

The Pentagon poll touted by Gates and Mullen was "rigged," said a recent editorial in The Washington Times, which noted, "From the outset, the Pentagon had no interest in eliciting honest responses from the troops about whether the law ... should be preserved or repealed. Instead, soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines were addressed in terms of implying that repeal is inevitable."

Furthermore, said the newspaper, "63 percent of respondents live off-base or in civilian housing and consequently answered that a change in policy might not affect them. Those in combat roles -- where unit cohesion and trust are life-and-death concerns -- gave a different response."

Of all the arguments made by the Obama administration for repealing the law, the one mentioned by Secretary Gates is the least defensible. Gates said Congress had better act before the law was "imposed immediately by judicial fiat." Perhaps Gates should re-read the Constitution, especially the part about the separation of powers. Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to make rules for the government and regulate land and naval forces. A National Review Online editorial labeled Gates' comment, "... blackmail via judicial imperialism."

What is more likely to happen if the policy is reversed is that tens of thousands of those currently in service will retire, or quit. During Senate Armed Services Committee hearings last week, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), cited another Pentagon survey, which found that repealing the ban could create an "alarming" troop retention problem at a time when the military is already shorthanded.

McCain said, "If 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military earlier than they had planned." McCain wondered if that is a "good idea in a time of war." The question should answer itself.

Gates and Mullen suggest that the troops can be conditioned into accepting openly gay service members. Would that include chaplains and religious soldiers for whom homosexual behavior is thought to be a sin? Will chaplains be disciplined if they counsel someone who is gay that they can change and be forgiven, just as heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of marriage can also repent and discover a new path? This proposed change in the law has more of a "fundamentalist" tone than fundamentalism. Submit, or else.

Why are we witnessing so many challenges to what used to be considered a shared sense of right and wrong? It is because we no longer regard the Author of what is right. Loosed from that anchor, we drift in a sea of personal "morality," deciding for ourselves what we want and ought to do and defying anyone who shouts "wrong way" as a fascist imposer of their personal beliefs.

The military is one of our primary national underpinnings. So is marriage. No wonder the gay rights movement seeks to undermine both. There are consequences when foundations are destroyed. The Congress has a duty to save us from the pursuit of our lower nature if we won't listen to that other voice. If they care.