Republican presidential candidate John McCain drew a sharp rebuke Monday from conservatives after he signaled an openness to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, contrary to previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind.

Speaking with reporters on his campaign bus on July 9, he cited a need to shore up Social Security, saying: “I cannot tell you what I would do, except to put everything on the table.”

He went a step farther Sunday with his reponse on a nationally televised talk show to a question about payroll tax increases.

“There is nothing that’s off the table. I have my positions, and I’ll articulate them. But nothing’s off the table,” McCain said. “I don’t want tax increases. But that doesn’t mean that anything is off the table.”

That comment drew a strong response Monday from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group. McCain’s comments, the group said in a letter to the Arizona senator, are “shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances.”

ABC News

McCain has been holding up pretty well in the polls and them he goes and does something stupid like this.  Of all the things to have a change of heart on, why in the hell would he back off a pledge not to raise taxes?  Taxes don’t need to be raised.  Spending needs to be cut and Social Security doesn’t need to be shored up.  It needs to be phased out of existence.

CNN did a spot on how each income bracket would be effected under McCain’s tax plan and Obama’s tax plan.

They said they received their information from the Tax Policy Center, which they claim is a non-partisan organization. I don’t know anything about the TPC and like most Americans I am always skeptical about what I hear from the not-so-mainstream media, however if this comparison is accurate McCain ought to be adopting some of Obama’s tax policy. Instead of soaking wealthier Americans with higher taxes like Obama would do, McCain should continue his policy of sustaining the Bush tax cuts for everyone, but he should make additional cuts on middle and lower income Americans, more than Obama does. Hell, I’d even be as aggressive as eliminating income taxes entirely from people making less than $50,000 a year, just as an example. The Democrats would no longer be able to paint McCain as the second coming of W and his “tax cuts for the rich.” With rising inflation in just about every sector and the middle class being hit the most by it, this would bring a lot of swing voters solidly into McCain’s camp as well as some current Obama supporters.The second thing McCain should do is to change his stance on ANWR and support drilling there as well as off our continental shelves. The price of oil is the culprit behind a lot of the inflation we are experiencing and a lot more people in this country are getting behind expanding domestic drilling. McCain continues to be against drilling in ANWR and that is just stupid in the current political environment. He should claim that he will open the door to ANWR drilling as well as off the oceans and Gulf Coast and that rally voters behind him.

These are two fairly common sense issues in my opinion that would chip away at a lot of Obama’s popularity right now. There is no way that Obama would come back and try to one up him on either of these. These positions would provide the GOP with a solid platform to take to the voters and help not just with the Presidential race but also with Congress.

WASHINGTON — As hurricane season begins, Democrats in Congress want to nationalize a chunk of the insurance business that covers major storm-damage claims.The proposal — backed by giant insurers Allstate Corp. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., as well as Florida lawmakers — focuses on “reinsurance,” the policies bought by insurers themselves to protect against catastrophic losses. The proposal envisions a taxpayer-financed reinsurance program covering all 50 states, which would essentially backstop the giant insurers in case of disaster.

The program could save homeowners roughly $500 apiece in annual premiums in Florida, according to an advocacy group backed by Allstate and State Farm, the largest writers of property insurance in the U.S.

The Wall Street Journal

The program could save homeowners $500 a year by pushing the cost on to the rest of us who don’t live in hurricane prone areas. This another example of government involving itself and making the situation worse. Read on.

The proposed plan is roughly analogous to the National Flood Insurance Program, which has been criticized for encouraging construction in risky floodplains. Nevertheless, in recent weeks the Senate voted to renew the flood-insurance program, and also to forgive $17 billion in debt incurred after Hurricane Katrina.

Critics cite that debt forgiveness as an example of how states with little or no hurricane risk can end up footing the bill for damage in flood-prone areas. “For years, federal flood-insurance backers told us the program was financially sound, but the storms of 2005 left it $17 billion in the hole,” said Steve Ellis of nonpartisan budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Even some analysts hired by lobbyists for the federal program acknowledge it has its risks. “If you charge something less than the private-market cost for homeowners’ insurance, that creates a potential incentive to increase exposure on the coast” — in other words, to build in risky or flood-prone areas — said David Chernick of Milliman Inc., an actuarial firm hired by ProtectingAmerica.

Naturally. One of the reasons it’s so expensive to live on the Florida coast, other than being prime real estate, is the cost of insuring a building. Hurricanes hit Florida every year. It’s not a matter of if a hurricane will hit. It’s going to happen. So, if the costs of having a home or hotel or some kind of resort goes down and everyone knows that if a big disaster hits the Federal government will be there ready to bail them out with our tax money, of course it will encourage more risky development! This is just common sense.

Florida lawmakers and Republican Gov. Charlie Crist are pushing hard for the federal program. Florida is currently the only state with its own reinsurance fund. That fund, created in 1992 after Hurricane Andrew, has lowered insurance costs for state residents, but would be stretched by a big hurricane this year. The federal program would assist the state’s fund while also providing political cover for state politicians, some of whom say claims from a major storm this year could trigger the largest tax increase in state history.

“I’m calling on the voters in both parties to demand that the nominee of their party publicly support a national disaster fund,” said Florida state Sen. Steven Geller, an uncommitted Democratic superdelegate. “If they won’t, vote for the other party.”

So Charlie is right out there front and center demanding that we all pay for the natural disasters, which are a foregone conclusion, that hit his state every year. Will a Federal earthquake insurance program be next for Californians?

If you buy a house in Florida, or along any coast line in the southeast, you know the risk factors of what can happen. That’s a chance you’re taking and you need to be responsible for it on your own. Expecting others to pick up the costs of your chosen lifestyle is unconscionable.

And as for these pathetically pandering politicians like Charlie Crist and this State Senator Steven Geller, maybe next time a hail stone hits your car or a tornado blows through and busts a window or two, just send your bills down to those two clowns requesting they send you a check to cover your costs.

The Club for Growth is working diligently to stave off what will be an economic disaster of gargantuan proportions should it pass the Congress and come to fruition. I am speaking of the Lieberman-Warner Climate bill which is nothing more than a claptrap of anti-Capitalist crap in the name of passing feel good legislation to placate the environmental alarmists and the masses they’ve managed to brainwash with their hype. Below is a press release from CFG. Also, The Heritage Foundation has a state by state breakdown of the economic damage that will be done to each state.

Club for Growth Unveils Ad Campaign to Combat Economy Crushing Climate Change Legislation

 

Calls Legislation another Mammoth Washington Exercise in Wealth Redistribution at the Expense of Consumers and Taxpayers

Washington - Today, the Club for Growth unveiled a four-state television and radio ad campaign, highlighting the inordinate costs imposed and dubious global benefits gained by pending cap-and-trade legislation, America’s Climate Security Act. The ad also urges Senators in those states to oppose the bill (radio ad can be heard here).Next week, the Senate is scheduled to consider legislation, sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner, mandating steep reductions in carbon emissions. Known as a “cap and trade” scheme, the legislation would cap carbon emissions at 2005 levels by 2012, and then gradually lowers the cap until it hits 70% below 2005 standards in 2050. If passed into law, companies will be granted credits permitting them to emit a fraction of the CO2 they need. In a massive redistribution of wealth, other credits will be granted to states and ancillary government programs. NGOs and other non-emitter “entities” are also positioned to receive free credits. Since most companies will need to emit more carbon than the credits they are given allow, they will have to buy additional credits supplied by the government, other companies, or third party entities at potentially huge costs.

Proponents of the cap and trade legislation argue the bill is crucial to combat global warming, but they don’t tell you that the legislation will impose tremendous costs on businesses, consumers, taxpayers, and workers, and that it will not likely impact climate temperatures in any meaningful way when viewed in a global context. While the new mandates and taxes included in the legislation would require major economic sacrifices from all Americans, rapidly developing nations such as China and India have made clear they have no plans to adopt similar measures - arguably negating the global impact of any emission decreases in the U.S.

“While the benefits of the Lieberman-Warner bill are dubious at best, the costs to our economy will be massive,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “If this legislation passes, Americans can look forward to fewer jobs, lower income levels, rising electricity prices, and higher fuel bills. Congress has a tendency to pass feel-good bills without adequately considering the tremendous costs to American businesses and families. We hope these ads will encourage people to contact their Senators and tell them the country simply can’t afford the Lieberman-Warner bill.”

According to a recent SAIC study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), the domestic economic impact would be severe. National findings include:

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of $151 billion to $210 billion by 2020 and $631 billion to $669 billion per year by 2030
• Employment losses of 1.2 million to 1.8 million jobs by 2020 and 3 million to 4 million jobs by 2030
• Household income losses of $739 to $2,927 per year in 2020 and $4,022 to $6,752 per year in 2030
• Electricity price increases of 28% to 33% by 2020 and 101% to 129% by 2030
• Gasoline price increases (per gallon) of 20% to 69% by 2020 and 77% to 145% by 2030

“At a time when our economy is already struggling, the Lieberman-Warner would simply add a heavy drag on growth, giving our global competitors a significant competitive advantage courtesy of the U.S. Congress,” continued Toomey.

The Club for Growth’s $250,000 ad campaign will run in Tennessee, West Virginia, and North Carolina starting today, and in Montana starting next week. The ads call on Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Jon Tester (R-MT), and Max Baucus (D-MT) to oppose this harmful legislation.

This is from Wednesday night’s Democratic debate where Obama was asked a question about raising the Capital Gains Tax.

Barack Obama just admitted on camera in front of the entire country that he would raise taxes on 100 million Americans in order to get revenge on 50 people who had the nerve to make a whole lot of money last year. It doesn’t matter that raising the tax would hinder economic growth. It doesn’t matter that the a large portion of those 100 million Americans include middle class folks like you and me. It’s all about “fairness.” It’s not fair that these people were successful in their investments. Does Barack Obama think it’s fair when that when that hedge fund manager’s secretary sells some stock to put her kid through college that she’ll have to pay a 28% capital gains tax on it? His response is not the answer I expect from a Presidential candidate. This is the answer I would expect from a 12 year old kid on a playground.

Taxes are there to fund the basic functions of government. Barack Obama would use them to punish people whose fortunes and lifestyles he personally disagrees with. This is not someone that should be anywhere near the White House, let alone a U.S. Senator or have involvement in any level of government whatsoever. His attitude is anti-American and destructive. This man is no brilliant genius or some messiah of change. He is just another angry, class warfare Marxist repackaged in a pretty label, typical of the kind of candidate the far left keeps putting up to pull this country down.

PITTSBURGH — Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday called for a summer-long suspension of the federal gasoline tax and several tax cuts as the likely presidential nominee sought to stem the public’s pain from a troubled economy.

Charlotte Observer

I think McCain knows as well as we all do that this is never going to happen, but it is a smart political move.  Gas prices are one of the top issues irritating voters this year and calling for a moratorium on the added price due to Federal taxation during the most heavily traveled months of the year isn’t going to earn him any enemies.

Washington – One in three people say they will use this year’s tax refund to pay bills as that nice annual check from Uncle Sam becomes less of a luxury for many people.Thirty-five percent said they plan to use the money to pay utility, credit card, housing or other bills, an Associated Press-AOL Money & Finance poll showed Thursday. That is up from 27 percent who said so a year ago, in a fresh example of how the ailing economy is affecting many families.About a third said they are saving or investing the money, down slightly from last year. Nearly a quarter said they are using their refund to pay debt from credit cards and other loans - essentially the same as the one in five who said so last spring.

Asheville Citizen-Times

Well duh, this is what we all said was going to happen. This is what happened last time. There won’t be any economic stimulus from these rebates. My money is going straight towards the $3,000 in dental bills I have racked up so far this year (and golly gee I’m still not screaming for universal health care). Even the people that will spend the money aren’t going to pack any kind of a punch. It doesn’t do much good for them to run out to Best Buy and purchase a car stereo made in China.

A buddy of mine told me that he and some other friends of mine all back in Pittsburgh were out together one night and said that when their checks come in the mail they should all head up to Canada and spend it there just to stick to the Feds.

This was all pure electioneering on behalf of Bush and the Democrats in Congress. Vote for us! We just gave you free money! Never mind the $150 billion hole it’s adding to the over $9 trillion national debt. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. If you only had a brain.

Republicans are feeling the heat from Democrats on the Hill and their constituents back home. Caving in to the pressure Senator Isackson (R - GA) is proposing a one time tax credit for new home buyers and homes in foreclosure.

Senator Isakson has introduced legislation (S. 2566) that would provide buyers of either a newly constructed house or one that is in foreclosure or default with a one-time, $15,000 refundable tax credit. The bill would apply to purchases made between February 28, 2008, and March 1, 2009. To qualify, newly constructed houses would have to have been built on or before September 30, 2007. Owner-occupied structures in default or foreclosure must have been in default prior to March 1, 2008, even though the actual sale would take place after that date, although there is no such restriction on foreclosed structures owned by a mortgage company or its agent.

Why is this a bad idea?

The proposal suffers from the following weaknesses:

* As a general principle, an explicit federal subsidy for the purchase of certain homes is both bad tax policy and bad housing policy.

* This subsidy rewards those who have been the most irresponsible. It would benefit homeowners at any income level who either irresponsibly borrowed all of their home equity or took out a loan that they could not repay but hoped to profit from by reselling the property in a rising market. However, those who have made the effort to pay their mortgages on time would not be assisted at all, regardless of their financial circumstances.

* Homebuilders who ignored signs that the market was slowing and built houses in hopes of finding a buyer would get assistance in selling houses that should not have been built in the first place.

* Responsible homeowners who must move for a new job or for family reasons would suffer because the sale of their homes would not qualify for a tax credit, while those of their less responsible neighbors would qualify for one. The potential plight of responsible homeowners could be cited as a reason to expand this credit to all home sales, thus increasing the cost to all taxpayers.

* Since the credit is refunded only after the end of the next taxable year, the money would not be available at the time of purchase. In practice, this limits its effect to those buyers who have the money to make a purchase up front; i.e., upper-income homebuyers.

* By applying the credit only to homeowners in default before March 1, 2008, the bill leaves out those homeowners whose mortgage interest rate will reset after that date. This provision may be intended to reduce incentives for default, but it is so poorly written that it essentially rewards those who were irresponsible early while excluding those who were victims of circumstance after that date.

The natural urge is do something, doesn’t matter what that something is just do something so the people back home think you are doing something. That was a lot of somethings. My point is that Republicans need to stand on their conservative principles and not pass a bill just to pass a bill. If they are going to give a tax credit they need to give it across the board and not restrict it as Senator Isakson has done.

WASHINGTON - Trustees for the government’s two biggest benefit programs warned Tuesday that Social Security and Medicare are facing “enormous challenges” with the threat to Medicare’s solvency far more severe.

The trustees, issuing a once-a-year analysis of the government’s two biggest benefit programs, said the resources in the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2041. The reserves in the Medicare trust fund that pays hospital benefits were projected to be wiped out by 2019.

Both those dates were the same as in last year’s report. But the trustees warned that financial pressures will begin much sooner when the programs begin paying out more in benefits each year than they collect in payroll taxes. For Medicare, that threshhold is projected to be reached this year and for Social Security it is projected to occur in 2017.

AP

Every year they warn us about this problem and as every year before this, the legislators will put their fingers in the ears, pretend not to hear it and hope it all goes away by magic.

The Bush proposal for creating private accounts in Social Security would have solved this problem in the long run because down the road less and less people would have needed to depend on it.  There is no end in sight for this money sucking leviathan if they don’t change the program entirely.  It is practically identical to when it was first implemented in 1935.  We have a program based on the data and demographics of 70 years ago trying in to work in today’s changed America.  It cant work and it won’t.  The Democrats won’t solve this issue because it takes away leverage at election time and the Republicans won’t because they are a bunch of spineless wimps.

As for Medicare, well, there’s your universal health care for ya.  The costs keep climbing every year just like the costs do in other nations that have all health care nationalized.  No surprise.  Medicare simply has to be scaled back and that’s the bottom line.  There is no way of making this program solvent without constantly raising taxes higher and higher on working Americans.  The best way to deal with this is to start scaling back on what the program will cover for future recipients.  You can’t do it immediately because elderly people who depend on it will have no way to supplement the out of pocket adjustment they would need to make, but if people know down the road know ahead of time that the same benefit won’t be there for them at their older age they have time to prepare.

Don’t expect anything I say to actually happen, however.  I imagine the “fix” to Social Security will be to raise the cap on contributions into the system, especially if a Democrat wins the White House this year, so everyone making over $89,000 can expect a fat payroll tax increase shortly down the road.  As for Medicare, God only knows.

PLEASANT HILL — California must swiftly enact budget reforms or suffer a neverending fiscal roller coaster ride, a relaxed but insistent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told East Bay business and elected leaders Wednesday. “I can’t reform the budget by myself,” he said. “I need the Legislature. And if the people could be behind me and put pressure on the legislators, let them know that it is extremely important not to just think about the budget for the coming year but think about how to never let this happen again.”It was the third in a series of town hall-style budget meetings, one of the governor’s trademark strategies to influence public opinion.

He is pushing his plan to cap state spending at the annual rate of revenue growth and create a reserve to cushion bad fiscal times. The reforms would eliminate the boom-and-bust budget cycles that terrorize California’s schools and public services, Schwarzenegger said.

Contra Costa Times

It’s nice to see Arnold back on our side again. This is a good plan. A spending cap would keep the General Assembly from spending beyond their means, a serious problem in California, and keep their fiscal house in order.

Of course, nothing is ever that simple. Enter the status quo:

But it was not his call for a rainy day fund that prompted about 40 protesters to gather outside Pleasant Hill City Hall, waving posters and chanting, “Save Our Schools!”

To close the remaining $8 billion estimated budget gap, the governor has proposed 10 percent across-the-board cuts next year in state-funded programs, including education.

“I have three children in the Pleasant Hill schools, and I’m very concerned,” said protester and Pleasant Hill Education Commissioner Mary Gray. “The schools have already been cut to the bone.”

I have a really hard time believing that.

Democrats oppose a cuts-only option. They say it is time to raise taxes, such as the restoration of the vehicle license fee the governor axed when he was elected in 2005.

Naturally, because what better way to solve the problem than to tax more people straight out of California.

The proposed cuts suggest that Schwarzenegger is out of touch with average Californians, Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, said following the event.

“By virtue of his celebrity, he lives in a bubble,” DeSaulnier said. “It’s not his fault, but he doesn’t understand how his proposals would hit people’s lives. To cap budget growth and say it won’t impact the lives of Californians is disingenuous. We still have needs. Our education system is failing our kids. Our health care system has problems.”

DeSaulnier is just giving me way too much fodder with this one. Schwarzenegger is the one out of touch? [Sarcasm]Yes, I’m sure if today we went and commissioned a poll all over the state the people of California would overwhelmingly ask for the car tax to be reimplemented adding to their already heavy tax burden which is one of the worst in the country. [/Sarcasm]

I imagine the education system is failing the kids. That’s what happens when you have a government monopoly. I imagine health care system is having problems as well. That’s what happens when you are forced to treat thousands of illegal aliens who don’t pay for the services they are receiving. And this guy has the nerve to say that it’s Schwarzenegger who is living in a bubble?

The bottom line, though, is that the voters are at fault for all of this. The Governator ran on a reform platform after Davis was ousted and in his first year he stayed true to it, but the people of California voted down all of his necessary reforms at the ballot box and continued to reelect the status quo politicians that are standing in his way.

For his part, Schwarzenegger downplayed the idea that he views his draft budget as the final word.

He also conceded that he proposed 10 percent across-the-board cuts chiefly as a starting point for budget talks.

“In the end, (my budget) is only a proposal,” he said. “I say, ‘Here are my ideas. Now, you come and present your ideas.’”

He insisted that he is willing to listen to suggestions regardless of party affiliation and repeated what he has been saying for weeks: Everything is on the table, even new taxes or the elimination of tax loopholes.

No, he has to be stronger than that. I say stand with the 10% cut and don’t budge. Go all over the state and make it very clear to people that this has to happen and those that stand in the way aren’t interested in fixing the problem. In fact, go to their home districts and mention those legislators by name.

California has created its own mess and you couldn’t pay me to live there. That state is absent of any common sense and is one big black hole of waste and despair. Just keep it on your side of the continent, folks.  Don’t bring it over here.

First there was the alcohol sales on Sunday debate, in which a bill to allow local communities to vote on the matter was gaining traction in the GA General Assembly only to be put to death by Gov. Perdue’s (a supposed Republican) announcement that he’d veto the bill if it reached him.

Now, the Guv decided to show us again his love of big government by opposing tax cuts for Georgians:

“I think the people of Georgia get the joke,” said Gov. Sonny Perdue, ridiculing a proposed constitutional amendment that passed the Georgia House of Representatives 166-5 last week to virtually eliminate the property tax on personal cars, trucks and motorcycles.

The joke? What joke? An aside, my source on this is Jim Wooten, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s token conservative writer, and he’s right on the money (pun intended, ha):

While there’s a legitimate debate to be had about how much of our money government “needs,” it’s clear that, like the Democrats before them, Republicans will find a worthy need for every dollar available. They don’t have the courage to accept for themselves the cap on spending that many legislators would impose as spending discipline on local governments. The only real option then is to fund essential needs — and then return the excess collections.

The line of money-seekers is endless when there’s money on the table. To force priorities, limit collections. The House of Representatives, with only five dissenting votes, did that this week. No joke.

Right on, Mr. Wooten.

Liberals like Talleytowngal like to blame President Bush and Republicans for corporate welfare and high CEO salaries. I think it is time for a history lesson on the tax code concerning executive compensation of publicly held companies.

In the early 1990s, the investing community expressed mounting frustration over its belief that public companies were making excessive executive compensation payments without the approval or even knowledge of their shareholders. In response, in 1993 Congress enacted Internal Revenue Code section 162(m), which caps a public company’s corporate income tax deduction at $1 million per year for amounts paid to each of its top five executives. However, the provision included an important exception for performance-based pay plans, provided the plans are preapproved (sic) by the company’s shareholders and compensation committee.

Although many may have expected section 162(m)’s $1 million compensation limit to become a significant revenue raiser for the
government, the provision has rarely resulted in nondeductible compensation for the well-prepared company. That is because section 162(m) is very narrow in its denial of executive compensation deductions, for three principal reasons. First, the provision applies only to public companies. Second, the $1 million cap applies only to a company’s chief executive officer and each of the next four highest-paid executive officers (referred to as “covered employees”). Finally, and most important, the $1 million cap does not apply to performance-based pay (that is, bonuses).

So just who happened to be in charge in 1993? By limiting the deduction corporations can take on a CEO’s salary to just $1 million while creating performance based incentives, the Democratic controlled Congress created the massive disparity between CEO’s and the average worker we have today. From 30-40% in the early ’90’s to nearly 400% in some cases today. Now I am not arguing that the disparity is wrong. Publicly held corporations have to answer to their shareholders and they should decide their own compensation packages. I am pointing out that when Democrats try to punish corporations for perceived misdeeds they often get the opposite of what they intended in the first place. In this case instead of limiting CEO compensation they created a vehicle to help it explode.

In order to pay CEO’s a higher salary corporations began tying compensation to the company’s stock price in the form of stock options or bonuses. These stock options are the performance based exemptions set forth in section 162. When you tie compensation to stock prices executives begin making corporate decisions based on stock price because it affects their salaries. These decisions are not necessarily for the betterment of the company. Now this is a loose generality and should not be considered an indictment of any particular CEO nor should it be an indictment of every CEO. But take a look at some of the things that have happened since section 162 was enacted back in 1993. The .COM bubble burst in in 2000-2001, Enron and hundreds of other companies artificially inflated their stock prices creating massive fraud, many companies and their top executives got caught illegally back dating their options, and last executive turnover is reaching all time highs.

All of this contributes to the liberal perception of corporate greed, welfare, malfeasance, etc. When ironically it was Democrats who changed the law and caused this to happen.

While Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama fight over who has the better health plan for the uninsured, they say little about a more immediate challenge that will confront the next administration: how to tame the soaring costs of Medicare and Medicaid.The programs, for older Americans and low-income people, cost $627 billion last year — 23 percent of all federal spending. With no change in existing law, the Congressional Budget Office says, that cost will double in 10 years and the programs will account for more than 30 percent of the budget.

Economists and health policy experts say the programs are unsustainable in their current form, because they are growing much faster than the economy or the revenues used to finance them. Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund is expected to run out of money in 11 years.

The News & Observer

23% of Federal spending.  Can you believe that?  We could eliminate these programs and cut Federal taxes by 1/4.  That would save me a few thousand well needed dollars a year and I don’t even get any benefit from either of these socialist handouts.

This is your Universal Health Care on a microeconomic scale and this is what the socialists want to do to our entire health care system.  How long will that take to reach the same unsustainable level, as is already happening in Europe?

The accord came as the White House said Thursday an agreement was imminent.

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

Breitbart

I am certainly not going to complain about getting $300 of my hard earned money back from the Capitol Hill thieves, but let’s not kid ourselves here.  This move is nothing more than political cover.  Neither party wants to go into November squabbling back and forth over who is responsible for the slower economic gains and the sub-prime mortgage crisis we are experiencing.  These rebates are simply a feel good measure to try and quell the growing public concern towards the situation at hand.  It will resolve nothing in the long term.

First of all, by definition we are not in a recession, not yet anyway.  Could we be headed towards one?  Perhaps, but the economic minds have been making prediction after prediction of a recession over the past few years and it has yet to occur.  The sub-prime mortgage crisis alone is not an indicator of rough economic times ahead.  Lenders, through pressure of the Federal government and radical left wing groups like ACORN, lowered their standards and handed out mortgages to people who were simply not financially responsible, be it through bad credit histories or over extending themselves in the type of property they purchased.  When the interest rates went back up and the fixed term of these ARM loans expired why was anyone surprised that many of these people could not continue making the payments?  Amusingly the politicians expressed their hypocritical outrage at the lenders for “scamming” people into these loans despite the fact that it was they who were responsible for it to begin with.

Bailing out these lenders with corporate welfare and those who have defaulted on these loans will do nothing more than establish the government as a security blanket for corporate America and the public to turn to when they screw up.  It will not correct the behavior, but only encourage it further by abdicating responsibility on one’s self.  Both the lenders and the homeowners need to sink on their decisions and allow the market to correct itself and recover naturally.  Throwing a few hundred dollars out there at middle class and lower income wage earners is not going to resolve any looming economic crises and will only create a budget deficit of well over $100 billion, when we already experienced a similar deficit for 2007.  Furthermore, the problem with Pelosi’s insistence that the lowest wage earners get tax “rebates” on income taxes they never paid to begin with is another government forced shift of wealth from contributers to our economy to receivers.  These lowest wage earners don’t contribute to our economy, they suckle from it.

Don’t be fooled by these gestures of “good will” by the White House and Congress.  They are irresponsibly avoiding the problem and engaging in a smoke and mirrors magic show to cover their asses in an election year.

After writing a comment listing my beef with Sen. McCain and Gov. Huckabee here, I found an article by Mark Levin at National Review Online reminding conservatives how much Sen. McCain has ticked off conservatives, lest we forget:

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

….
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

Levin also takes on Sen. McCain’s “saving grace,” his defense strength, and points out significant flaws in his approach in this realm as well.

Conservatives beware. If nothing else, just remember how ticked off you were in 2007 about the Senate and President’s attempt to circumvent the clear wishes of the American people and pass a reckless “comprehensive” immigration bill, with McCain leading the charge.

The Census Bureau has released its population estimates change for the year between July 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007. The 10 fastest growing states are those that have typically voted for Republican presidential candidates in the last 20 to 30 years and tend to have more fiscally conservative state governments. Most of the liberal northeast take up the anchor positions. Michigan and Rhode Island were the only two states to actually lose population, and for the second year in a row.

The top ten states for highest growth rate are:

1. Nevada
2. Arizona
3. Utah
4. Idaho
5. Georgia
6. North Carolina
7. Texas
8. Colorado
9. Wyoming
10. South Carolina

The full list with all figures can be found here.

I think this goes to show you that states that harbor economic freedom and lower taxes will thrive and those that stifle such freedom with over regulation, high taxes, and higher labor costs will remain stagnant or decline.

His broad proposal calls for a repeal to the alternative minimum tax, known as the AMT, which was passed in 1969 to prevent a small amount of high-income earners from deducting their entire tax liability.Since the AMT was never attached to inflation, its burden is expected to creep up to affect 23 million taxpayers in the middle class when it was never intended to, McCain said.

An immediate repeal, as McCain directed, would save middle class families with children that are taxed by the AMT an average of $2,700.

“I worry about obviously any reduction in revenues but to have basically two tax codes in America is not an acceptable situation,” he said.

The AMT repeal is a centerpiece for work McCain called for to simplify the tax code that’s grown bigger and more complicated with each congressional bill.

“You paid $14 billion last year to pay someone to do your taxes and you had no idea - American families had no idea whether it was valid or legitimate in anyway,” McCain said.

To direct the tax code revisions, McCain said he’d appoint a commission headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to make recommendations for a reform for Congress to support.

“Have them report out and then Congress would vote up or down,” McCain said.

Saving Social Security and Medicare are also priorities, McCain said. Supporting personal accounts to supplement the social security crisis, McCain said he’d reach across the aisle to Democrats to make sure promised benefits are honored.

“Now are we going to fix it the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O’neil did back in 1983 or are we going to hand it off to an unluckier generation of Americans?” McCain asked.

Other incentives in the tax policy called for a permanent tax ban on the Internet and cellular phone communications while rewarding savings and investment with lower taxes on dividends and capital gains.

The Union Leader

I like this plan. Taxes on savings and investment should be kept low to continue to spur future investment and economic growth. Private accounts in Social Security are an absolute must. You can’t use a system created for 1930s America in 2007. We’re not the same country as we were then. AMT repeal is another must. It punishes people for success even more so than the general income tax structure. More tax cuts for the middle class are also needed. Ideally, while I’d love to see the income tax go the way of the dodo completely, in the very least I think it should be completely wiped away for middle class folks and below. Say, you don’t pay any tax on income until you hit like $80,000 or something, just as an example. Excellent idea to put Alan Greenspan on the panel!

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee’s rise to the top of Iowa polls has drawn attention to his embrace of a national retail sales tax. Backers of the concept call the former Arkansas governor a visionary; detractors call it unworkable.

Huckabee supports the FairTax, a national retail sales tax that his campaign Web site says would abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and federal income and payroll taxes.

“And I do mean all — personal, federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gain, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment,” Huckabee said on the site. “All our hours filling out forms, all our payments for help with those forms, all our shopping bags filled with disorganized receipts, all our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish.”

Charlotte Observer

Huckabee has really brought this bill a lot of exposure by getting behind it.  I have very little expectation that this will ever see the light of day, but there’s nothing wrong with being a dreamer now and then.

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson proposed an income tax plan Sunday that would allow Americans to choose a simplified system with only two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.

Thompson’s proposal, announced on “Fox News Sunday,” would allow filers to remain under the current, complex tax code or use the flat tax rates.

Asked whether the plan would cut too deeply into federal revenues, the former Tennessee senator and actor said experts “always overestimate the losses to the government” when taxes are cut.

“We’ve known for years any time we have lowered taxes and any time we’ve lowered tax rates, we’ve seen growth in the economy,” Thompson said.

Thompson added that money would be saved by his Social Security reform plan. He proposed that workers younger than 58 receive smaller monthly Social Security checks than they are now promised. Individuals could contribute 2 percent of their paycheck to a personal retirement account, an amount that would be matched by the Social Security trust fund.

The retirement plan “faces up to the fact that Social Security is going bankrupt and we’re going to have to do something about it,” he said.

Thompson proposed permanently extending tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, reductions that would end after Dec. 31, 2010 unless Congress acts.

Charlotte Observer

This is a pretty good idea and I think Thompson is approaching these issues the right way. The tax cuts he proposes are enough to give another boost to our economy and help middle and lower income families, but not so outrageous that the Democrats will have to be resuscitated with a defibrillator. He also puts up a nice plan to ease into private accounts for Social Security where it might be more palpable for those who opposed the Bush plan. Something has to be done on S.S. and the Democrats and a handful of RINOs simply aren’t up to it. Maybe Thompson could reach a middle ground by introducing these proposals as president.