Why the Pay Czar is bad...

AAL 2:

So I got a response to my facebook status....

"YAY We're all going to going to make less money! YAY for hope and change (and if you think it's just the rich that are screwed you are sorely mistaken)."

This is in reference to Obama's nomination of a Pay Czar. To "reform" (they used every word they possibly could without admitting it's a "cap") exectutive pay. And what started as a two graph response morphed into a full fledged essay, because I wanted to be as thorough as possible.

Even without going to the fact that revenue and buisness investment and jobs created all increased after the Regan Tax cut lets just think about it terms of President Obama's own words.

His stated goal is to "spread the wealth around," which lead to his campaign promise was not to touch anyone making under $250K/yr (see cu blogword OWL). According to the most recent IRS Data in 2006, The top 5% for income earners ($154K) payed 60% of the income tax despite earning just 37% of the income.

Okay we're going to have to deviate here in the context of President Obama's budget. Obama is going to spend $3,500,000,000,000 (3.5T, but I think we need the zeroes for effect) in the budget approved. Right now our tax revenues are just over $1T. To make up for this shortfall Obama assumes he can raise another 1T by letting the Bush Tax cuts expire (which I obviously question, but will let slide for the sake of argument).

But people in the top 5% are paying an average tax rate of 21% (keep in mind this does not account for any state, local, sales taxes or user fees).

Back to why the Pay Czar is bad,

If they drop the incomes of people in this bracket, that's less income they tax, plus the risk they would then be paying at a lower rate if they fall into a smaller bracket, which seems foolish beacuse these are the people he's counting on for $1T in tax revenue by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Either they will be paying a percentage on less income, or a smaller percentage on less income, unless Obama is so determined to raise his $1T that he will have to...

1) Raise taxes on the lower brackets (not just the people above the OWL)

2) Print money (which devalues all dollars in circulation, which raises prices, which is essentally a pay cut for everyone).

Both of which would be disasterous for the economy as prices would skyrocket (inflation from printing money, essentially a pay cut for everyone) and would raise unemployment. I believe unemployment hits the least qualified among us first, then paying out unemployment benefits puts a further burden on our budget (not that I'm against all forms of welfare, I'm just stating the fact there is a cost to society for it).

Of course I think the easy solution is not to propose a $3,500,000,000,000 budget in the first place, and give tax cuts to encourage buisnesses to hire and invest. (though admittedly it would probably take a few years to recover from this deficit). However, Obama will likley take the route of higher taxes, because the left generally rejoices in assigning higher percentages to higher income. But in the end, we're staring at inflation, fewer jobs, less pay for lower level jobs, therefore cutting everyone's throats in the end.

Links:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg2249.cfm

Big Budget, the Rich can't support it

AAL2:

A good opinion piece in "The Wall Street Journal"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

If you don't bother to read it yourself the basic point is raising the taxes of the wealthist 2% of filers will raise nowhere near enough to cover President Obama's budget. Even if the government were to confiscate every nickel the rich had it wouldn't cover it.

Do you know what this means?

It means we're going further in the deficits for which Pres. Obama criticized Pres. Bush. Otherwise, Obama's going to have to raise taxes on more than just the people above the OWL. Either way he's lied and he is going to hurt the economy.

True Observations (New CUB, defined below)....
As an occasional feature conservativeuncensored.com is going to develop a collection of observations to highlight flaws in liberal thought with conservative thinking.

Observation #1...
"Tax the rich" policies achieve nothing except satisfying the vengance that the bitter and jealous have toward our nations best producers.

Back for Inaguration

AAL2)

So CU took a little break between the election and today, I kind of figured not to harsh the mellow of my readers that are Obama supporters. But now that he is officially the president, I just want to say I do wish him the best for our country. Not that's there's anything he did in his campaign that leads me to believe he will. Some conservatives are trying to take solace in his vagness (anyone still know what hope and change mean?), I am not as optimistic. That said he is my president (a courtesy in recognition most liberal voters did not extend Pres. Bush for the last 8 years), and I do want him to well. (I wonder if there's a chance in hell conservative author George Will changed Obama's mind on anything when they visited earlier this week?).

Today's post is just a few quick shots...

I guess there are a couple reasons to possibly take solace in Pres. Obama's vagueness. The rumors that he's not going to close Guantanamo Bay right away, and he's not going to soak the rich right away, would be to campaign promises I could live with him breaking. If you really think about it, if Pres. Obama breaks these two campaign promises he is officially almost as conservative as John McCain (I could send him a medal).

If he breaks these two promises, and all the people that voted for Pres. Obama don't denounce him for it, you are all officially THE WORST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD if you denounced Pres. Bush for the same thing (I'm looking at you Olberjerkoff).

So an email went out where I work to "Make sure we don't stream the Obama Inaguration while at work as that is detrimental to our resources."... Yeah, I'll try to resist...

RIR (New CUB, Rush Is Right)... Why do Pres. Obama supporters want conservatives to give him a chance before we criticize him when most of these same people crucified Justice Clarence Thomas when Pres. Bush (41) nominated him to the Supreme Court? More of THE WORST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

To Sen. McCain's credit he is being honest about the fact that Gov. Palin gave him a chance after Obama's acceptance speech (I'd like to think his praise is genuine and not being made only because it would reflect too poorly on him personally if he threw her under the bus like everyone else). As for his staffers and GOP insiders, I hope they burn in hell for by trying to blame the defeat on her.

Obama won, but conservatism didn't lose, was there conservatism anywhere on the ballot in November (Oh that's right Minnesotas 3rd and 6th districts, wtg Reps. Paulson and Bachman).

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is a much welcomed threat to the centrist GOP establishment. The 2012 presidental nomination will be a proxy fight for control of the party between the centrists and the conservatives (possibly represented by Gov. Palin).

There is no need for a centrist third party, the Republicans are now the centrist party. If a third party wants to form, there's plenty of room on the right, the Republicans don't give a damn about them anyomre.

Hey Republicans! Isn't it awesome to be the centrist party. You get votes from both the left and the right, right? How well is this brilliant PSB (new CUB, Poli-sci Brat) theory translating in to House and Senate seats...

I'm trying to respect Democratic leadership but Rep. N-Poo (New CU Blogword, Nancy Pelosi, D-CA) is making it difficult by making veiled threats to arrest Pres. Bush administration officials.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/18/pelosi-open-prosecution-bush-administration-officials/

I find it hilarous that unrepentant murderer-slash-"guy in Pres. Obama's neighborhood" Bill Ayers got denied trying to get into Canada this week. Why is he leaving? Didn't he get the memo? His guy won! Even the Baldwin brothers are staying home (even conservative Stephen isn't making the leave the country threats his brother made in 2004).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ayers-20-jan20,0,3534228.story

Oh I suppose if you read the link he's now an educrat wannabe giving lectures in Canada. Good to know the people at Canada's borders have some brains, unlike their universities (our universities are pretty brainless too for that matter).

CU promises to address all the issues of the day, praise who deserves to be praised, and damn who deserves to be damned. Regardless of party. Conservatism is the way for the american dream, not empty suits creating a class of people reliant on the government.

I made a promise, and not all is lost

AAL: 2

The one path to victory I saw for McCain closed very quickly around 8CT. After seeing PA fall to Obama, shortly followed by OH it became clear that McCain did not do enough to defeat Obama in this election.

So congragtualtions to the President-elect. I believe the office itself is deserving of respect regardless of who's holding it. In yesterday's post I promised to offer President-elect Obama that respect, which many on the left have failed to give Presdient Bush.

This means
1) I am not going to cry and move to Canada like that WLB (cu blogword, whiny little bitch) Alec Baldwin (though Canada did elect their "conservative party" to power in their election).
2) I am not going to call Obama a retard or monkeyman (these being among the tamer insults directed at President Bush)
3) I am not going to write a play or movie about the assissnation of the sitting president.
4) I am not going to draw devisive electoral maps saying the blue states aren't in my country (yes I'm talking about that anti-christian bigot Michael Moore's "Jesusland" map).

While I obviously will oppose many of the policies Presdient Elect Obama has proposed, he is still the leader of the country I love so dearly. And yes, Mrs. Obama, it is possible to be proud of your country whoever is leading it. As an opponent of your husband I believe that, I'm sorry you only believe it when you're winning.

That's a tanget, however I have more promises to make in support of conservatism..,

1) I am going to criticize President Obama any time a meausre passes that hurts the american people, and I will try to quantify the damage as plain as possible. As it turns out it is possible to be patriotic and criticize the President. I hope that doesn't automatically make me racist (however if Obama's house surrogates are any indication, it probably does...)

2) While I will continue to respect the office of President, the office of SCUM Journalism is still my bitch (I'm looking at you Olbeljerk-off).

Speaking of which all is not lost...

As of this writing the Dems have only flipped about 12 seats in the house, and 5 in the senate (we may wait a while for the MN result) far less than what they were expecting, the popular vote for president also is within about 4 points, though the electoral college is looking like a landslide.

Speaking of Minnesota....

We must be the most schizophrenic electorate in the country. Obama carries the state handly, carries the country pretty handly for that matter. In every other state it seems Obama's coattails were alive and well. Yet Ultra-Con Rep. Bachman, John Kline, and Eric Paulson all find their way to victory in house races (stifling Dem hopes to pick up 30 seats), Coleman and Franken are going to the wire, and I understand there is a margin which will trigger an automatic recount. So we can elect conservative house members, liberal presidents, it's going to come down to a couple hundred votes between a comedy writer and a senator/former mayor.

But all minnesotans seem to agree on higher sales and property taxes, given where the constitiutional amendment and most school board initiatives landed...

I don't get it, but what can I say, Minnesota is home.

Future of conservatism...

And lastly I want to point out before Rush does on his radio show later today, that it's not like conservatism got beat today. The RNC has had this push to become moderate, to try and pick off democrats by becoming more like them. And that's how we ended up with a rather liberal nominee like John McCain. McCain did the consevative base one favor by selecting Gov. Palin. I hope the RNC took notice that she's the only reason there was any energy about Sen. McCain in the final 2 months of his campaign. And as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, all those people that thought a moderate nominee was politically smart ended up endorsing Obama anyway once it seems an Obama victory is unlikley. The conservative rank and file should be outraged that that is what passes for leadership in the Republican party. But the RNC's culpability in this defeat is a topic for another post...

Point being the stakes are high because recovery is possible, look at 1980 and 1994, both attainable goals if the RNC gets its act together...

The Fairness Doctorine...

AAL: 2

I hesitate to post this, because all this does is give ideas to anti-press leaders (which in fairness, huh that word again, I consider both McCain and Obama to be), but this recent talk about the fairness doctorine has me worried.

People are always going to choose what they want to buy, or watch, or read, or listen to. Reviving the "Fairness Doctorine" in communicaitons would force many outlets to make sure time is equal. On the surface that seems okay, but lets look a little deeper.

I know the most common argument against the Fairness Doctorine is the trappings in finding the mythical most neutral person in the world to arbitrate this (by the way this person hangs out with Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, and all the Super Bowl trophies the Buffalo Bills have won). However I'm going to take a different look at this.

If the goverment gets to control who says what when on the media and that's percieved as fair, does it also seem fair if the government...

1) Forces you to buy an Ann Coulter book for every Al Franken book you want to buy...
2) Forces you to buy a ticket for "W" with every ticket for "An American Carol"...
3) Forces you to watch "Davey and Golaith" after you watch "Family Guy"
4) Forces you to watch Hannity after watching Olberjerkoff
5) Regulate your computer so you spend equal time on homework and facebook (now I have your attention)
6) Forces you to watch "Gary Unmarried" after watching "How I Met Your Mother" (this one is not really partisan, but only one of these shows is of legen-wait-for-it-dary quality).

I know nobody is talking about doing these thing (yet), and obviously some of them are not possible. But I would like any supporter of the Fariness Doctorine to explain to me what the moral difference is that justifies forcing the media to suddenly make sure everything is equal and forcing any of the changes on the list above.

My contention is whatever argument you can make for the Fairness Doctorine you can make for any of the things on my list.

In a sense that's what Conservativeuncensored is about, becuase the media people want to watch will be forced into media they don't want to watch. The government can get away with this because they own all the licensenes. But they don't own the internet (yet). Enjoy conservativeunsensored.com, before somebody in the goverment tries to force me to automatically redirect you to moveon.org when you're navigate away.

ACORN and the Supreme Court

AAL2: Surpisingly Calm

So Friday's big news was that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United State) denied the Ohio GOP's.

I'm going to claim ignorance, but I think SCOTUS basically said since the Ohio GOP isn't a "citizen" they don't have the standing to bring this case.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBR781&show_article=1

So don't confuse this decision with the innocence of Ohio secratary of state Jennifer Brunner, though CNN, and the rest of the SCUM seem to be content to bury this fact at the bottom of the story, saying it's a "victory."

This was basically thrown out on a technicality, that the law wasn't designed for civil action. It sounds like another challenge will mount.

That said, I do understand the other side of this, and this is one situation where I would prefer the scalpel to the hatchet. I think they need to be careful how they purge the roles, and make sure they are following up on the discrepancies and not just discarding them. It wouldn't be the first time government information is wrong, and disenfranchising voters because the DMV has the wrong address wouldn't be right.

It would be decent of Brunner to at least acknowledge that she shares the goal of an honest election and supports the idea of getting fraudulent registrations off the rolls. However, at best I interpret her actions as she's decided to be apathetic about this (at worst she's conspiring, but I'll need more proof on that) for whatever reason, and seems okay with the risks posed with fraudulent names on the rolls, which I find irresponsible.

This isn't over, those sounding the Brunner victory horns may have to backpedal...

Joe the Plumber (Can we fix it, yes we can)...

AAL 2:

This is a little Limbaugh Echo Syndrome here, but I do want to ask, "What if the media investiaged Sen. Barak Obama the same way they've investigated Joe the Plumber?"

The SCUM seem to be very selective who they go after. They've turned Sarah Palin's life upside down within a couple days of her selection, they've done the same now with Joe the Plumber (who knew he would be the October Suprise).

But there's no way you can say CNN has been that in-depth on Obama. Otherwise, Rev. Wright would've come to light a year ago when radio host Sean Hannity was beating that drum, or more people would know about mobster Rezko giving Obama a sweetheart deal (I'm not going to use "bribe" in two posts in a row, oops too late) on his house. Or Biden, caught plagerizing a speech from the British parliment, if you are hearing these things for the first time, you're a victim of the SCUM.

Even a columust at Slate (no bastion of conservative thought mind you) admitted Biden is getting very different treatment than Palin.

http://www.slate.com/id/2200302/

We pause here for a couple asides:

* For the Record, Fox is reporting that Joe the plumber isn't expected to earn above the OWL (new blogword, Obama Wealth Limit, slang for $250,000, sample sentence: New York Ranger Aaron Voros now earns 4 OWLs a year since leaving the Minnesota Wild), and reporting that he has tax liens and may not be licensed. I got all that without having to watch a SCUM network like CNN or MSNBC.

* This post was originally going to be added thoughts from the debate, I did want to say Schieffer did the best job of all the moderaters. I liked his question formula "You said, such and such and you said such and such, why are you right and why does the other guy suck."

Back to the post:

All I wanted to establish is the right never get a fair shake, those that disagree with the right seldom go after the ideas (there are exceptions), they go after the person. I get it that with regular politicans, they put themselves in the public eye. But if the personal attacks aren't backed up by policy relavance it's sounds flat.

I do find it disturbing that the SCUM have gone after a voter for just asking the politican a legitamate question. If every voter gets scrutinized this heavily for asking questions I weep for the 1st Amendment (much I like I did after McCain-Feingold passed, but that's another issue).

Does the fact that Joe the Plumber is still below the OWL mean that he's not allowed to believe in not screwing those above the OWL? This is certainly the implication of Obama's condesending question "How many plumbers do you know that make $250,000?" As if that disqualifies Joe from having an opinion about those above the OWL?

Does the fact that Joe the Plumber isn't licensed mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?

Does the fact that Joe the Plumber owes taxes mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?

If you answered yes to any of those questions you have a serious 1st amendment problem. Joe the Plumbers alleged problem probably mean he's too checkered to run for president, but remember there was only one guy running for president in that conversation, and it wasn't Joe.

The guy that answered the question gave the "share the wealth" answer, that's an answer american on all parts of the political spectrum don't like. That is now a problem for the Obama campaign. And to cover the fact they need to run from that answer, they are attacking the questioner.