Hands Up Peter! Paul Needs Some Cash!

 Watching the President give his best campaign speech of the 2012 election cycle, that same old adage kept rolling over again in my mind.  The concept that you pay off one bill by way of another is tantamount to one paying his student loans off with a credit card and thinking he just made a great deal; or the guy who talks the car salesman down from $30,000 to $25,000 and claims, “I just saved $5,000!!”  No, you just SPENT $25,000!!


As the “American Jobs Act” – that must be passed immediately, but was evidently not urgent enough to pull President Obama away fromMartha’s Vineyard– is being fleshed out in Congress, we see the same pig with a different color of lipstick. The President claims that the jobs bill will pay for itself.  When was the last time a Keynesian stimulus bill ever paid for itself?  Ever heard of the Big Bang? Before that…..

As I heard the President lay out his plan last Thursday (Sept 8), I knew it would be more of the same.  Sure, it sounded great on the surface and for those who paid no attention in Economics and Civics class in high school (by the way, I taught both for many years), it probably was the solution to all of our problems.  However, being someone who has partaken of the tree of the knowledge (of good and evil), I also knew history, particularly the President’s history.  When Barack Obama refers to “we”, he means GOVERNMENT, not “We the People”.  When you hear, “we must” this and “we must” that, he means “the GOVERNMENT” must – and when you hear “Government”, a huge red flag with the word “TAXES” must  be hoisted in your mind.

Now, being the supply-sider that I am, I might be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Obama spoke of payroll tax cuts and incentives to small businesses for hiring and so forth.  It has a shiny gold surface, but then again, so does a gilded cage.


(Warning, read the following only AFTER sitting and strapping on the seat belt)


I actually agree with Obama!  (Told you to sit down…) Tax cuts are not good.  They bring in less tax revenue when what we need is more.  We need tax increases!

Before you write me out of your will, let me explain.  Conservatives are not for tax cuts, they are for tax RATE cuts – they are NOT the same.  The dirty little secret that is now coming out about the spectacular jobs bill is that the “offset” for these so-called cuts are – you guessed it – a tax RATE increase on “the rich”.  Obama defines “rich” as making more than $250,000 per year.  Never mind that fact that in some parts of the country, a two parent family of 6 (for those edumacated in da pubric schewls, that’s 4 kids) making 250k would be considered middle class if you factor cost of living.  The real issue here is that he plans to raise taxes on the JOB CREATORS in our country to pay for the tax cuts he plans to give these same JOB CREATORS so they can hire people.  Anyone else getting dizzy?  And of course the real kicker will be this – tax RATE increases, permanent; tax cuts… what do you think?

It all comes back to the same socialist (yes, I said socialist) philosophy of filtering everything through government and giving it back out the way they see fit.  Equal outcome versus equal opportunity – the founders and framers NEVER advocated equal outcome and it has failed EVERY time it has been tried, everywhere! (By the way, if this is done in the private sector, it’s called money laundering.)

Last night, CNN hosted a Tea Party debate among Republican candidates (I know, CNN and Tea Party in the same sentence, bad form).  The question of the night came from a young man at one of the tea party remote sites (shocker it didn’t come from ‘Wolf’ Blitzer).  He basically asked, “How much of the money I earn do you think I should be allowed to keep?”  After the audible gasp and enthusiastic applause of untold millions watching, John Huntsman proceeded to run the 100 meter hurdles blindfolded, tripping over his clueless tongue several times before finishing without actually answering the question.  What I wouldn’t give to have Obama (or any other liberal in Congress) answer that question!

So what is the answer? Certainly not laundering tax money that you, the government, did NOT earn.  In principal, we deserve to keep ALL of it if we earned it legally.  Yet even responsible conservatives know that there must be some form of taxation to fund a government, but when you have a tax code that requires full time tax lawyers to take a month off to up-train every year, it’s too much.  Our tax code should take less time to read than our Constitution, which calls for limited government, not a nanny state.  Until we get a politician – no, a statesman that is willing to answer that question correctly, we should keep looking.

But please stop mugging Peter.  He and Paul are on the same side.

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Rich Mitchell

Rich Mitchell is the editor-in-chief of Conservative Daily News and the president of Bald Eagle Media, LLC. His posts may contain opinions that are his own and are not necessarily shared by Bald Eagle Media, CDN, staff or .. much of anyone else. Find him on twitter, facebook and

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. What I thought of the other night was, “I wonder just exactly how much money the government would actually need?” Now, I don’t include all the taxes we’re still paying from the 70’s for programs that failed about that long ago. I also don’t include any of the taxes we’re still paying for all the unneeded social and domestic spending programs that didn’t help no where near the people they were supposed to help that we were intimidated into thinking those particular people needed. Blacks, who by a greater majority were working and did have kids by wedlock, who were making good grades in their schools, and maybe a good third may make it to one of their colleges at some time, didn’t need any help at all. But since they were included in the whole spending program they got money but only if they put off marrage, getting that job they were applying for, and stopped saving the money they were for their kids to go to college. Many did exactly that, some didn’t. And if the government departments were eliminated that the Constitution didn’t recognize as legal like the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, and it’s accompanying subdepartments such as OSHA, or at least reduce these departments down to where they did what they were designed for and nothing else. And eliminate the IRS, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, SSI, Income for Single Parents, and the endless line of Democrat social and domestic spending and supporting monies they see to it that we cough up every year.

    I don’t really know what it would take for the government to operate on if it was a Constitutional government. But my point to myself was how much of our money could we see coming back to us if we were to pay only for what the Constitution said the government needed? Truthfully, my wife and I don’t pay that much in government taxes. We don’t have enough deductions now that the government raised those amounts, we can deduct anymore, so we can’t reduce our taxable income anymore, so we pretty much have to pay the full tax owed. My question has been for many years is, “Why is it that we owe any MORE taxes at the end of the year after the government took out whatever it was our classification was taken into consideration, from our pay checks all year. Didn’t they take enough? I have believe for many years now, that whatever the government takes from your check is all they get. I think the only reason why people like my wife and me have to “file” income tax at the end of the year is to try to get some of that money back that was taken by way of itemized deductioins, and such as that. I think everyone trys to get some of that money back. I don’t know, but I think my wife takes herself as a deduction at the end of the year so that puts her into a lower tax rate so that she can get some of that money back. I do know for a fact that she files at the higher tax rate all year so she can take that deduction at the end. She may pay more tax all year, but she gets a lot of it back. Now, I’m not talking about thousands of dollars, only a few hundred. But that’s better than nothing, or having to pay more tax. And that’s another question I have, and that is, “Why do we end up having to pay more tax if we didn’t have the maximum taken out all year long?” If we file on our W-2 that we are claiming ourselves as a deduction, after all I do have to take care of myself all year long, why should I have to pay that money back at the end of the year as if I did something wrong by getting to keep that money all year to take care of myself?

    The tax code has been violated by the Democrats back in the late 90″ and 2000’s in the Bush administration by Democrats that Bush let do what they did. In the Reagan terms he created a law that was working perfectly by giving the American people a lot more of their money back to them, or rather they got to keep a lot more of the money they earned. And the name of the law is or was, because I don’t know what the Democrats did to it which destroyed all the gains Reagan built into it, so it could have been renamed, but it’s called, “The Tax Reform Act of 1986”. I was one of those laws that was gradually allowed to take affect, and came fully in 1991. What it did was create only THREE(3) tax brackets. Reagan saw that to many American’s pay was being taken from them by what was known as “Bracket Creep”. What that did was to inch, or jump, you up in a higher tax bracket if you got a raise so that not only did you loose your raise, you lost some of your regular pay by having to pay the higher tax in the higher tax bracket. It happened to me, so I know. I literally had to go to my boss and tell him not to give me anymore raises because of what this last one did to my pay, I had lost all of it and some of my regular 40 hour pay. He was shocked! He had never heard anything like that. After he looked at the tax code brackets, he said he was so sorry that the government was so greedy.

    The Tax Reform Act had three brackets after it came fully in, 15% for everyone in the single rate. That seemed a little high, but actually what it did was hurry you up to get into the next bracket because you could make huge money in it without having to pay any more tax. The next bracket was 28%. You could go from making $28,000 a year up to over a hundred thousand dollars a year without having to pay any more tax. The final bracket was 33% for everyone making that point of a hundred thousand dollars and something which was the limit of the 28% bracket, up to one million dollars a year. Then after that you got tax a percentage but who cares about that bracket because most of us would never have to worry about having to pay the tax for people making over a million a year. But that was how Reagan solved “bracket creep” was to reform the IRS income tax code down from thousands of brackets to just three, 15%, 28%, and 33%. Those brackets covered millions of American’s who had done very thing they could to get themselves down to a lower bracket so to not have to pay higher taxes. Since the law took affect, the Democrats have added three more brackets which is in violation of the law, because Reagan made specific restrictions in the law that said NO MORE BRACKETS COULD BE MADE so the American worker would never have to worry about having more of their money taken from them. The Democrats added 10%, 22%, 35%, and 39%. That was so they could put the tax code back more like it used to be which punished accomplishment, hard work, pay raises you earned, and just making more money from working more. Democrats are breaking the law just to get their greedy hands on more money! That needs to be stopped by any new President coming in office in 2012, and that is to put the law back, or eliminate the income tax altogether.

  2. I am a supporter of the “Fair Tax”, which is actually a return to the Constitutional tax which is what the Constitution calls the excise tax, or the sales tax on everything you buy. Every dollar taken in by sales tax is in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. You don’t want to put restrictions on that because it’s the most dynamic part of the taxes that come into the government. That means the amount fluctuates from literally week to week, month to month, and year to year. When the government raises the “tax rate”, or the taxes that come out of everyone’s paycheck, and also what Obama and others call the “payroll tax”, which is the Social Security tax. I don’t understand why they call that the “payroll tax” and not what it is that they are calling that, the Social Security tax? Why don’t they call it what it is, the Social Security tax? Well, they just don’t, so that’s what that is. But everytime they call the Social Security tax a payroll tax I can only think that they are trying to cover something up, or deceive people into thinking one way when things are actually some other. They are trying to hide something by confusing people.

    But isn’t that what Democrats do, is always try to keep people as confused as much as possible? Yes. American’s don’t need to be confused anymore. We need to be as clear thinking as possible, but when we have people like Democrats who believe that the more we are kept confused the better it is for them because it’s like Rahm Emanuel said “Why let a crisis go to waste? It let’s you do things you couldn’t during normal times.” Or something to that affect. And that is why Democrats are always telling us there’s some crisis going on, somewhere about something. They just make that crap up as they go along. Like, “Hey, let’s make that a crisis. We can make a lot of money on that if we do.” So we are always seeing something going on, but that’s because they call something a crisis before anything is going on. That’s when we see them doing things to cause a crisis to happen. It’s like I heard some time ago that Democrats come up with solutions to problems taht don’t exist. And if they see that a situation may need to be cranked up, they always have something waiting in the wings just in case they need something like that to occur. Before that though, they have already come up with the solutions to that particular problem, which hasn’t happened yet, but IF it did….

    I’ve learned that there are two things that don’t exist. And they are “IF” and “What IF”. Those two things can’t exist because you put a precursor on a situation that you may have a fear of before you even come up with it. People who are “fearful” people have this problem. And those of us who’ve heard these people many times before, remember what they said, and then we repeat what we’ve heard them say because we have little fears to. It’s part of our human nature. And human’s are fearful beings. We have a fear of things that could hurt us in some way. And there are people in our government who really have the psychological problem for real, in that they fear things all the time and are always coming up with something to say “IF” or “What IF” about. What if this happens, or they say, if this happens this will happen to us. Then in their mind they come up with all these plans in order to protect one’s self or will correct a problem that was caused by that “if” or “what if” happening to you. Actually people who have this psychological problem are also “co-dependent” as well because they need someone who will become as fearful as the person is about something they think will or might happen to them. The people who have this problem try to suck in as many people around them as they can because no one wants to suffer by themselves. You know, no one would want to have some calamity to happen and be by themself. Who would help them come up with solutions to the problem (that hasn’t happened yet), and who would help them get themselves out of this trouble? That is a Democrat. They always walk around wondering what would happen IF, or WHAT IF something happens. Let’s make a bill that covers any and every possible situation that could happen, and all the solutions to those situations that could, might, or may happen to the country.

    My money belongs to me. I don’t need any politician trying to take it away because they thought something migjht happen so they need to take somemore of my money to help pay for any and all solutions that they might come up with. And you can repeat that over and over again until I don’t have any money left. All because of fears, real or unreal, that the government is saying I have to pay for solutions to said problems. What crap!

  3. I wish Marco Rubio would run, now, not in 2016, because it might be to late by that time for anyone to run for anything. There are people in this world who aren’t going to wait that long to get done what they are doing right now. And no, it’s not Obama. And yes, he’s been embarked on tearing this nation down ever since he’s been in the Federal government. We need somebody, either man or woman who will stop all that the Democrats, and their evil friends on the outside who are damaging this nation.

    See, Obama is not the man to bring this nation down. He’s capable of it, but that’s not his job, right now. If he is elected for another term, then that will be the signal he needs from the American people that he is to move forward with the destruction of this nation. People need to be damn careful this coming election as to who it is they vote for. Obama could do some serious damage, especially since the country is hurt so badly. But see, that is his job right now and that is to hurt this countries foundation. His job is to hurt this countries economic foundation. Why just that, right now? Because of the plans that all these people he answers to on the outside who are the ones who are setting this nation up for the fall. If we can change the person at the top, the President who knows about all these people on the outside who are chipping away at our foundation, and already knows about what this current President has let them do to hurt this country, then he might be able to put a stop to some of the damage. Some damage can never be repaired, but can be fixed so that it won’t be any problem later on.

    Marco Rubio is that man, but I don’t believe he is running this time, and that is to bad because he could really do some permanent damage to liberalism’s foundation that would be much worse than what they’ve done to us, and this country. These outside people like, Maurice Strong need to be exposed for all they do. The leadership of the U.N. need to be exposed for what and WHO they are. Strong calls himself a Socialist, but to me, he’s a Communist/Marxist, or just plain Communist. He is the main man behind our EPA and all the environmentlaist movement and all that it does. He is a open borders supporter who is the reason why our borders are still open and we are paying billions a year taking care of these people.

    Marco Rubio knows what our laws are suppposed to be.

Back to top button