Calling John Galt

BoomerJeff pulls together a pile of steaming data on individual and corporate tax receipts to paint a very grim picture of the impact of Obamanomics on the US economy.

ObamaNomics is built on the assumption that politicians are better stewards of economic resources than the millions of individuals and business enterprises who created those resources.  The Democrats’ plan is to dramatically increase taxation to fund programs through which government can exert greater control over our lives.

But these data show that the private sector’s ability and willingness to generate wealth for government to seize through taxation is rapidly diminishing.  These data show that Obama’s own actions are are literally killing the goose that lays the golden eggs he needs to fund his agenda.

It’s really not all that surprising; take more money from the productive part of society and it has less capital left over to pay employees, invest for the future, and, yes, pay taxes.

Read the whole thing…

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might not want to make enemies with his local newspaper.

Reid told the advertising manager of the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he was rooting for the paper to die. (Actually, the direct quote was “I hope you go out of business.”)

They might start digging around into his past, like this doozy about taxes being voluntary.

Maybe Harry just has problems with any entity that asks questions he doesn’t like.

A government that promises free lollipops will fulfill that pledge by stealing candy from babies.

From Forbes:

According to a study released Monday by experts at the Urban Institute and the University of Virginia, a 10% excise or sales tax on fattening foods could raise $522 billion over the next 10 years. A 20% tax could raise $937 billion. Among its other uses (like paying down the deficit), that money could be used to defray the costs of health care reform or to curb the rise in obesity.

Makes me wonder, though…

Wouldn’t it be better to create a lipids market? Let people who are slightly underweight sell their credits to those who are overweight. It would be a boon to the healthy. It would ease the transition, in the same manner that we see in the proposed carbon markets.

“But wait, you’re being silly! That would encourage people to engage in anorexia, bulemia and other destructive behavior!”

Limiting one’s consumption to an artificially-mandated level also carries risks to our general health and well-being. So if markets are good for carbon, turn them loose on fat. It’s the same set of choices, but with more easily-recognized outcomes.

If it waddles like a duck,
and quacks like a duck,
and swims like a duck,
and sits on little duck eggs to hatch ducklings…

…it must be a Fee.

On the average, Monday, April 13th will be Tax Freedom Day in the United States, according to the Tax Foundation. That’s the day when the average resident has made enough money within the calendar year to satisfy that year’s local-state-federal combined tax burden.

Those of you in Alaska have been free since March 23. Those of you in Connecticut have until April 30th.

(pardon me while I gather up enough breath to whisper “freedom,” Braveheart-style.)

The Stimulus money being offered to the states is little more than a Cat’s Cradle: so many tangled strings it becomes a woven prison.

If there were no strings, states could simply accept the federal dollars, cut their own taxes the same amount, and enjoy the benefits of a stronger state economy.

However, states are now being lampooned for turning down “free money,” that comes with provisions that entail permanent and onerous conditions.

This Cat’s Cradle is so strangling that even the rats are staying away.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Tom.

Can we add this to the reasons why term limits make sense?

(and Nathan… can we get embeds to work here?)

Our government is founded on the revenue model that unborn children do not have rights, so let’s tax them.

It’s a good thing Bob Herbert isn’t a doctor. He might prescribe sugar for diabetics.

Proposing a tax on financial transactions is not a smart idea when the issue is frozen credit. Money that doesn’t move freely moves inefficiently.