I recently received a reply from you to a message that I sent through www.opencongress.org . In essence the message said that you will not respond to communications sent through third parties.
The purpose of this letter is to register my disappointment in your decision to not accept electronic e-mail correspondence through third parties such as www.opencongress.org because sites like this allow citizens to track, read, and evaluate legislation and directly, efficiently, and effectively contact their representatives about matters important to them. It also allows individual citizens to follow the progression of the bill through congress and monitor the way individual representatives voted on that piece of legislation.
Clearly, your interest is to reframe the communication between you and your constituents in a way that makes it more convenient for you rather than the citizen. That is precisely why Washington is a problem and why I will work as hard as I can to see that the voters of Virginia do not return you to your elected office at the first opportunity.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Environmental Taxation without Scientific Representation
“The Obama administration declared Friday that carbon dioxide and five other industrial emissions threaten the planet. The landmark decision lays the groundwork for federal efforts to cap carbon emissions -- at a potential cost of billions of dollars to businesses and government.” (WSJ, J. Weisman and S. Hughes, April, 18, 2009).
According to the article "Environmental Effects of Increase Carbon Dioxide" (Robinson, et al, which has been peer reviewed), the MAGNITUDES of human produced carbon dioxide per year over the past 100 years is so inconsequential relative to exchanges between the oceans, land masses, and the air that it is difficult to determine if any deleterious effects can be attributable to man. In fact, the strongest correlation between global warming and any other physical variable is to solar activity. In fact this article concludes "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like carbon dioxide do not conform to current experimental knowledge." In effect, this carbon dioxide scare is nothing more than an attempt to promote a state sponsored "religion," funded by taxpayer dollars While well intentioned, these folks are on the wrong side of science and will tax us into oblivion to fix a problem that simply does not exist.
According to the article "Environmental Effects of Increase Carbon Dioxide" (Robinson, et al, which has been peer reviewed), the MAGNITUDES of human produced carbon dioxide per year over the past 100 years is so inconsequential relative to exchanges between the oceans, land masses, and the air that it is difficult to determine if any deleterious effects can be attributable to man. In fact, the strongest correlation between global warming and any other physical variable is to solar activity. In fact this article concludes "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like carbon dioxide do not conform to current experimental knowledge." In effect, this carbon dioxide scare is nothing more than an attempt to promote a state sponsored "religion," funded by taxpayer dollars While well intentioned, these folks are on the wrong side of science and will tax us into oblivion to fix a problem that simply does not exist.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Taxing the Rich is Really Taxing All of U.S. (Part II)
In the Wall Street Journal’s “Review and Outlook” section (The 2% Illusion, February 26, 2009), the WSJ editors estimate that, based on 2006 tax data (the most recent available), that raising the tax rate to 100% on all income over $500,000 on the wealthiest 2% of all Americans would generate an estimated $1.3T in “revenue” to the government. Further, the WSJ estimates that if all the income generated by Americans earning over $75,000 were taxed at 100%, it would generate about $4T, which is what the Congress proposes to spend in fiscal 2010. While this is an interesting analysis, it is immaterial because it wrongly assumes that Americans will continue to work simply to pay money to the federal government.
In 1989, then Senator Bob Packwood requested that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate the revenues that would be generated on all Americans earning more than $200,000. The JTC estimated the “revenue” to be $440B over a three year period. This was enough to balance the budget. Sen. Packwood was shocked at this analysis: “Our models assume that people will work forever to pay all of their money to the government. Clearly anyone in their right mind will not.” Sen. Packwood had discovered the principle of the Laffer curve: there is a point beyond which an increase in tax rates causes tax payers to evade taxes, stop working, and stop investing. Reagan understood this principle. By reducing personal, corporate, dividend, and capital gains taxes, he created the longest sustained period of prosperity in the history of the United States. After Reagan reduced taxes in the 1982 – 1986 timeframe, the tax rates have remained relatively unchanged, except for hikes by George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The effect of this long term tax rate reduction, over the period 1982 to 2005, includes:
· Over Reagan’s term, the stock market more than tripled to 3,000. At the height of the George W. Bush term, the market reached 12,500.
· Between 1982 and 2000, stock values soared by 12% per year.
· The net worth of American households increased by $30T.
· The number of Americans owning stock increased from 16% to 50%, investing the average American in the ownership of American business.
· Tax revenues to the Federal government doubled from $1.2T to $2.5T.
· The percentage of tax revenues paid: (1) by the richest 5% has increased from 38% to 60% and (2) by the richest 10% from 48% to 71%.
· The percentage of tax revenues paid by the bottom 50% have dropped from 8% to 3%.
· From 1981 through 2007, the United States was a net importer of $5.2T in capital.
Liberals need to disabuse themselves of the idea that tax rate reductions result in deficits. In fact, tax rate reductions result in increased revenue to the Treasury, capital formation, and increased personal wealth of the average American. Deficits are created by SPENDING MORE THAN THE REVENUE YOU RECEIVE.
From a financial perspective, spending not tax rates is the problem. But this is not the problem the social democrats are trying to solve. They want to buy votes and that takes more money than the American taxpayer can generate.
In 1989, then Senator Bob Packwood requested that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate the revenues that would be generated on all Americans earning more than $200,000. The JTC estimated the “revenue” to be $440B over a three year period. This was enough to balance the budget. Sen. Packwood was shocked at this analysis: “Our models assume that people will work forever to pay all of their money to the government. Clearly anyone in their right mind will not.” Sen. Packwood had discovered the principle of the Laffer curve: there is a point beyond which an increase in tax rates causes tax payers to evade taxes, stop working, and stop investing. Reagan understood this principle. By reducing personal, corporate, dividend, and capital gains taxes, he created the longest sustained period of prosperity in the history of the United States. After Reagan reduced taxes in the 1982 – 1986 timeframe, the tax rates have remained relatively unchanged, except for hikes by George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The effect of this long term tax rate reduction, over the period 1982 to 2005, includes:
· Over Reagan’s term, the stock market more than tripled to 3,000. At the height of the George W. Bush term, the market reached 12,500.
· Between 1982 and 2000, stock values soared by 12% per year.
· The net worth of American households increased by $30T.
· The number of Americans owning stock increased from 16% to 50%, investing the average American in the ownership of American business.
· Tax revenues to the Federal government doubled from $1.2T to $2.5T.
· The percentage of tax revenues paid: (1) by the richest 5% has increased from 38% to 60% and (2) by the richest 10% from 48% to 71%.
· The percentage of tax revenues paid by the bottom 50% have dropped from 8% to 3%.
· From 1981 through 2007, the United States was a net importer of $5.2T in capital.
Liberals need to disabuse themselves of the idea that tax rate reductions result in deficits. In fact, tax rate reductions result in increased revenue to the Treasury, capital formation, and increased personal wealth of the average American. Deficits are created by SPENDING MORE THAN THE REVENUE YOU RECEIVE.
From a financial perspective, spending not tax rates is the problem. But this is not the problem the social democrats are trying to solve. They want to buy votes and that takes more money than the American taxpayer can generate.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The "After Math" of The Stimulus Bill
The following is a quote sent to me by my cousin, Mark George. Short, sweet, and to the point.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Dr. Adrian Rodgers
Just like physical laws, certain behaviorial and economic laws may be defied temporarily. At some point, what goes up must go down.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Dr. Adrian Rodgers
Just like physical laws, certain behaviorial and economic laws may be defied temporarily. At some point, what goes up must go down.
Monday, February 16, 2009
How Much Debt Do We Carry?
Fox News reported today that America's debt is comprised of three basic components: (1) entitlement program future obligations ($55T); (2) debt from government operations ($16T); and (3) debt associated with insurance and other guarantees ($7T). For those who are math challenged, this $78T. How much money is this? Well, it is equal to the World's annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That's right: it would take the world (6-billion people) working for one year to pay off the United States current debt.
I hope Obama's stimulus plan works. But, I doubt it. He simply is doing what he has criticized the average American citizen of doing and what he claims got us into this mess: spending money we do not have, putting it on the credit card, and not saving. The difference between his plan and the average American's plan is that he can print money.
I hope Obama's stimulus plan works. But, I doubt it. He simply is doing what he has criticized the average American citizen of doing and what he claims got us into this mess: spending money we do not have, putting it on the credit card, and not saving. The difference between his plan and the average American's plan is that he can print money.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Stimulus Package – An Open Letter to Congress
I am extremely disappointed in the stimulus package that the congress has chosen to enact.
While our country’s future success does require "investment," the investment should be in business not government and in capital not social spending programs. In capitalist (not socialist) America, this typically means investment in a business’s human capital (equipping people to contribute to the success of the business), financial capacity, technology, and infrastructure that will increase FUTURE competitiveness and performance, not simply placate the “crowd.” Because placating the crowd is a politician's raison d'etre, a politician's objectivity in business decision making is highly suspect to begin with. Based upon congress’s historical performance on welfare, social security, energy, health, government’s actual track record isn't great either.
The country would be better off if government did nothing (I think the Congressional Budget Office agrees with me on this one). However, if you really have to do something, cut corporate taxes, provide ALL American workers with a payroll tax holiday, eliminate the mark to market rule, and if you are going to put us into debt, FOCUS spending money on building PROVEN energy supplies including off shore drilling, investment in refineries, building nuclear plants, and completing the Alaska natural gas pipeline.
I think that 300 million American’s are better able to direct the resources of this country than 535 elected representatives, 9 supreme court justices, and 1 president. Case in point: Where is the $78 billion dollars Congress overpaid in the first round of TARP? This is equivalent to $260 per person, or over $1,000 for a family of four. I suspect they would know where they had lost their money.
While our country’s future success does require "investment," the investment should be in business not government and in capital not social spending programs. In capitalist (not socialist) America, this typically means investment in a business’s human capital (equipping people to contribute to the success of the business), financial capacity, technology, and infrastructure that will increase FUTURE competitiveness and performance, not simply placate the “crowd.” Because placating the crowd is a politician's raison d'etre, a politician's objectivity in business decision making is highly suspect to begin with. Based upon congress’s historical performance on welfare, social security, energy, health, government’s actual track record isn't great either.
The country would be better off if government did nothing (I think the Congressional Budget Office agrees with me on this one). However, if you really have to do something, cut corporate taxes, provide ALL American workers with a payroll tax holiday, eliminate the mark to market rule, and if you are going to put us into debt, FOCUS spending money on building PROVEN energy supplies including off shore drilling, investment in refineries, building nuclear plants, and completing the Alaska natural gas pipeline.
I think that 300 million American’s are better able to direct the resources of this country than 535 elected representatives, 9 supreme court justices, and 1 president. Case in point: Where is the $78 billion dollars Congress overpaid in the first round of TARP? This is equivalent to $260 per person, or over $1,000 for a family of four. I suspect they would know where they had lost their money.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The American’s Creed
As a child, my wife was a member of the Children of the American Revolution. Each month, when they met, they participated in a Flag ceremony, in which they recited the American’s Creed, written by William Tyler Page (Clerk of the House of Representatives). The Creed was originally adopted by the House of Representatives in 1918, and reads as follows:
“I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union and one and inseparable, established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
“I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its Flag; and to defend it against all enemies.” William Tyler Page
I wonder if the House of Representatives has recited this creed recently? If they have, they either do not understand it or choose not to follow many of these principles.
“I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union and one and inseparable, established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
“I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its Flag; and to defend it against all enemies.” William Tyler Page
I wonder if the House of Representatives has recited this creed recently? If they have, they either do not understand it or choose not to follow many of these principles.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)