(By the way, "right-winger" Bush so turned off the Europeans that the French and the Germans voted right-wingers into leadership in the persons of Sarkozy and Merkel.)
My goodness, but this morning I attended a conservative breakfast. Easily 50 - 60 people at 7:15 in the morning. And through it, I discovered another conservative blog, The Conservative Reader. I look forward to getting to know those guys better. This evening, there's a Tea Party organization meeting. Sweet!
One fella got up this morning and spoke, saying something to the effect of: "I came here today - my first time being here - because I'm mad. I'll be at the Tea Party on April 15th. I'm going to start getting involved. A lot. And if you want to know what to do, just follow me. I'll lead."
Yep... welcome to the fight, buddy. We love this country too much to watch a bunch of statists - those who think government needs a bigger place in our lives - take over and ruin our liberty and strangle capitalism.
Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.
Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.
Riiiiiiight. If newspapers will be prohibited from political endorsements, then newspapers - in general - would have to shut down their presses anyway. The leftist bias in newspapers is constant, on every page. It's all a political endorsement.
QUESTION: Mr. President, are you -- thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?
OBAMA: No, I think it's -- I think it's the right thing to do, where we've got to make some difficult choices. Here's what we did with respect to tax policy. What we said was that, over the last decade, the average worker, the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat. Even in times where supposedly we were in the middle of an economic boom, as a practical matter, their incomes didn't go up. And so, well, we said, "Let's give them a tax cut. Let's give them some relief, some help, 95 percent of American families."
Now, for the top 5 percent, they're the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I -- I fall in that category. And what we've said is, for those folks, let's not renew the Bush tax cuts, so let's go back to the rates that existed back in -- during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were still wealthy and doing just fine, and let's look at the -- the level at which people can itemize their deductions.
And what we've said is: Let's go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan. People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you're in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you're writing off 28 percent.
Now, if it's really a charitable contribution, I'm assuming that that shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether you're giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street. And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It's just that they wouldn't be able to write off 39 percent.
In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize -- when I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some -- a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent -- he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.
So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who've benefited enormously over the last several years. It's not going to cripple them. They'll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.
QUESTION: It's not the well-to-do people. It's the charities. Given what you've just said, are you confident the charities are wrong when they contend that this would discourage giving?
OBAMA: Yes, I am. I mean, if you look at the evidence, there's very little evidence that this has a significant impact on charitable giving. I'll tell you what has a significant impact on charitable giving, is a financial crisis and an economy that's contracting. And so the most important thing that I can do for charitable giving is to fix the economy, to get banks lending again, to get businesses opening their doors again, to get people back to work again. Then I think charities will do just fine.
For Joe Biden, over 10 years time, he and his wife gave a whopping $3,690 to charities, despite nearly $2.5 million in income. Obama was similarly stingy until he became a senator. I'll get to the mortgage tax deduction reduction in a minute, but for all of those folks who work at charities who voted for Obama, still feeling the love? I'm telling you, Obama doesn't care about anyone except his own acquisition of power. There's no rationale to go after charitable contributions.
And the mortgage interest tax deduction: can you say rent? The mortgage interest tax deduction is one of the main reasons why people buy a home. As diane smartly said, "Many people will buy a house rather then rent because of the benefit of a tax reduction of the mortgage interest. That's why my kids quit renting and bought. Now the housing market, especially in my state is already in the toilet, remove any incentive to buy and things will only get worse. Now my son has talked of selling his house and going with a rent to buy option in a really chi-chi neighborhood here where the pricey homes have really been reduced in value and people are desperate to get out from under. His plan was should the housing market rebound, he'd commit to buy and end of with a really good deal. Take away the incentive for mortgage deductions, and someone like him would be a permanent renter."
As Obama says, these proposals of his won't "cripple" anyone, so he's quite comfortable getting as close to it as he can.
We all declare for liberty but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny.
This said to me by Mark Levin, who quoted a little known speech from Lincoln, given in 1864.
Does Obama know Lincoln? Not even close.
Does Obama have any claim on Lincoln's legacy? Not even remotely.
In fact, to the degree that Obama and Company believes that they have a right to pilfer your life's income and achievements is the degree to which they want to reinstate involuntary labor - work done for the enrichment of another person not of your choosing. Lincoln, I think it can be argued, didn't look kindly on involuntary labor. Obama's intentions are the antithesis of everything for which Lincoln stood.
I first wrote about this last year, but India is now selling the Tata Nano.
This is a great example of how private industry works to solve problems and improve life for the poor.
This is also a great example of why the American government would get in the way of this kind of innovation through its nannyish tendencies. The car has no airbag, no other big safety features, only goes to 43 mph.
Government is no friend of the poor. Business is.
Question: what cost would unions bring to car production like this? Doubling the cost? Tripling the price tag?
"No passion in the world is equal to the passion to alter someone else's draft." - H. G. Wells
Some people seem addicted to telling others how they ought to live. "If it were me, I'd do it this way..." They want to change the world not through influence, but through coercion.
Strength, I believe, is in allowing others to run their own affairs, make their own mistakes, find their own way to do things. There was a lot of wisdom in Star Trek's Prime Directive of "Non-interference." It originated from Westphalian Sovereignty, which was responsible for bringing peace to much of Europe in the mid-1600's.
International relations theorists have identified the Peace of Westphalia as having several key principles, which explain the Peace's significance and its impact on the world today:
The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of self-determination
The principle of (legal) equality between states
The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state
These principles are common to the way the "realist" international relations paradigm views the international system today, which explains why the system of states is referred to as "The Westphalian System".
Now substitute the word "state" in that list of principles with the word "individual."
Want peace? Leave people alone to determine for themselves the direction of their lives. Adopt a policy of non-intervention into the affairs of others. Let them be who they are as they choose. Let them earn their own way, be responsible for their own state, succeed, fail - live.
On the flip side of this wisdom that brought over 200 years of peace to Europe, there is the Gladys Kravitz theory of relations, where you think it is absolutely your business to know what's going on in the lives of others, and that you have every right to tell them how to live, and that you might even force them to do as you think is best.
That is the surest way to bring conflict - meddling in the affairs of others. If you do that or have the instinct to do that, you're a lousy neighbor.
Coming soon? 
In fact, to the degree that Obama and Company believes that they have a right to pilfer your life's income and achievements is the degree to which they want to reinstate involuntary labor - work done for the enrichment of another person not of your choosing. Lincoln, I think it can be argued, didn't look kindly on involuntary labor. Obama's intentions are the antithesis of everything for which Lincoln stood.
On the flip side of this wisdom that brought over 200 years of peace to Europe, there is the Gladys Kravitz theory of relations, where you think it is absolutely your business to know what's going on in the lives of others, and that you have every right to tell them how to live, and that you might even force them to do as you think is best.
