The Bottom Line with Freddie & Fannie

In my mind:

While senior Democratic and Republican officials in successive administrations have for many years repeatedly denied that the trillions of dollars of debt Fannie and Freddie issued is guaranteed, the package, if adopted, would bring the Treasury closer than ever to exposing taxpayers to potentially huge new liabilities. The two companies could face significant new losses this year as the wave of housing foreclosures continues.

|

Cindy McCain

What was so worthy of hiding in the tax return? All the candidates seem to be raking millions, so the revelation doesn't seem particularly interesting or important.

What is more intriguing, for sure, is what's being concealed in the eerie photo shown here. Is that a mask?

UPDATE: Here's the photo. CNN took down the ticker piece and made this article instead.

|

"'Even Laura is pro-choice,' I said"

"Don't you bring my wife into this," the president snapped.

A glimpse into the workings of the first nine months of the Bush presidency, the legacy of which being big tax cuts and an unrivaled executive branch, from the perspective of a GOP senator.

|

McCain: Tax Cuts vs. Balanced Budget

Please don't continue down this path, Senator.

A balanced budget is, in fact, of paramount importance - even more so if you want to be, nay, must be the cross-over appeal Republican that redeems the nation's fiscal house in the wake of the Bush administration.

I agree with McCain's gripe:

Blaming federal spending for the economic troubles, McCain pledged to "scrub every agency of government" of wasteful expenditures and close loopholes.

"Is there any American who doesn't believe hundreds of billions of dollars can be saved?" he said. "Americans know that. That's why they're fed up."

Hold the line on taxes and reduce spending. Yes. But this a poor second step on the heels of a decision to make the Bush tax cuts permanent despite earlier opposition:

McCain also said he would not hold off on tax cuts if Congress didn't approve his spending cuts and declined to make a pledge to balance the budget by the end of his first term in office. "When economies are rough, then you've got to reduce the tax burden on people," McCain said

The rolling excuses tossed out to justify and prolong fiscally irresponsible actions need to stop.

McCain should work more diligently to shape the playing field for this issue in terms of his tried and true approach. He should insist on achieving a balanced budget by means of spending cuts and tell citizens that if they want tax cuts - which can only happen responsibly after government has been pared down and brought into equilibrium - then they need to vote Democratic or Republican legislators out of office who are preventing those spending cuts.

|

Are simpler tax forms better?

Here's why taxes are so complicated.

News outlets, on the heels of tax day, seem to be channeling the collective moans about how byzantine tax forms are today. Well, be careful what you wish for...

The best and most logical reason to stop complaining:

Taxpayers have every right to reduce their taxes by any legal means.

In all likelihood, the more tax forms are streamlined, the fewer options and means an individual payer will have to reduce its taxes through various convoluted exemptions. Knowing the nature of government, I'm willing to bet that a sleek, simple tax form would not reflect a lower tax burden in the long run.

If the prospect of a slight increase in individual tax burden was more than offset by drastically reduced preparation costs and time, however, it might be more efficient and therefore desirable for taxpayers on the whole.

|

From Obey, with love

Northern Wisconsin's own Dave Obey proposed a war tax today.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.

"The war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we're shoving off on them and it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job training possibilities, attack our long-term energy problems and build stronger communities," Obey said.

The article says Iraq costs $150 billion annually. A war tax makes sense--an extraordinary situation, like a war, would seem to call for funding completely separate from the rest of the mundane bureaucratic activity.

As for their goal of ending the war, this sounds like the most practical method to reach that end. People will see exactly how much it costs to do what we do and how much comes out of their pockets, leading them to want it ended, asap.

It's ironic that, out of all of Washington, democrats are exploiting the cost of big government to get people to want to reduce the size of it. Running up our bills now is unfair to future generations. On a side note, did you know that our legal federal debt limit was on schedule to max out yesterday, Oct 1st? Just in the nick of time, Congress raised the limit, and it'll reach it again soon.

What's even more ironic is that out of the last 15 years, the democrats, under the Clintons, managed to budget and spend more responsibly than Bush has. That's really the only thing I have to look forward to under the Hillary presidency.

Monthly bills have the different expenses laid out and income tax is a person's government bill. I think Obey should continue to push for this and to break up the rest of the budget to have it done this way. I can't imagine what Congress would do when more than a just a few people know where their money goes.

|

State Democrats want universal healthcare... but Hey it's Free!!!

No, it's not.

The press release from Senator Breske's office outlines the Healthy Wisconsin initiative, and at first it sounds like some sort of Utopian dream world. Everyone would have the freedom to choose their own doctor, their own plan - everything is decided by the patient and doctor.

Think about it - no more red tape, no unapproved procedures, no more heartless bureaucrats denying a claim. Michael Moore should be wetting himself.

Except none of those promises are possible. In fact, the only part of the plan that will work exactly the way it's supposed to is the way we will all pay for it. This is how it's explained:

Your Investment:
HEALTHY WISCONSIN ensures both employers and employees pay only their fair share for access to quality care. Employees’ contributions will be 4 percent of social security wages while employers will contribute 10.5 percent of social security wages. This would amount to an average monthly health care cost of just $140 to the employee and $370 to the employer. All employers will be relieved of the burden of paying premiums, unpredictable premium increases, yearly negotiations to try to stave off double-digit increases and unexpected denials of claims. Sole proprietors or those with other sources of income will pay 10 percent of income up to the social security limit.

Here's what they don't mention: "Social Security wages" are gross wages up to $97,500 per year. That's right, unless you have one heck of a good job, 14.5% of every dollar you make is going to go to the state to pay for everyone in the state to have health care. Sounds like a good deal, doesn't it.

So, not only do state Democrats want to increase taxes on cigarettes, hospitals, gasoline, selling a home or real estate, iPod/iTunes sales online, and a myriad of fee increases - but they also want to take another 14.5% from every employee and employer in the state. Do they honestly think that we pay too little in taxes in this state?

Let's add it up:

Average state income tax rate: 6.5%
Average federal income tax rate: 25%
Social Security contribution*: 12.4%
Healthy Wisconsin contribution**: 14.5%
Total taxes: 58.4%

*Includes 6.2% matching rate by employer
**Includes 10.5% contribution by employer

Yes, those figures are accurate. Those are the payroll taxes that are taken out of every employee in the state of Wisconsin would stand to have taken from them if the Healthy Wisconsin plan passes. I included the employer contribution because that money could go to private health care plans, retirement plans or higher wages for the employees. Money out of an employer's pocket is money out of the employee's too.

Also, I didn't include Medicare and Medicaid taxes, nor did I include property taxes, registration fees, and a number of other ways that the taxpayers in this state get hammered by irresponsible politicians in Madison. Can you imagine what the percentage would be then?

Don't you think it is time that state Democrats stop trying to take your hard-earned money away from you? I sure do.

|

Doyle's hypocracy on taxes

Governor Doyle is scrambling now to plug holes in the budget he claimed was balanced. Like any good liberal, he is proposing tax and fee increases - not spending cuts.

However, if one were to look at who would be affected by these increases one would see that the very people Doyle has promised to help - those with low incomes, the working poor - would be harmed the most. The Governor wants to raise the cost of licenses by $10. Although for many such an increase would be a mere nuisance, for some it may be substantially more than that - especially if some of the other proposed increases take effect.

Other increases in taxes include a proposed tax on hospitals and gas stations - all with the qualifier that they cannot be passed onto consumers. Such a provision is ridiculous. There is perhaps no way that the state can force a company to fully absorb a tax increase like this. So, if the hospitals and the gas stations do get hit, who ultimately pays? The answer is simple: we do.

The increased costs will certainly be passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices and it hurts those with the lest amount of money the most. These taxes and fees - even though they are supposedly aimed at the "rich" - are the most regressive of all taxes. The family struggling to get by is going to be hardest hit by these increases. Governor Doyle isn't attacking luxury items that only the rich purchase, he is instead going after necessities such as health care and transportation costs that all must inevitably pay for.

For a Governor who is supposed to care about the poor and downtrodden, he apparently has no problem picking their pockets.

|