Crossroads GPS Ad Buy in Swing States

At first glance, Crossroads GPS sounds like it might be an alternative to Garmin for the Christmas shopping season. It is not. The present they hope for under the tree won't get here 'til next November...

The Republican-affiliated outside group Crossroads GPS has launched a major ad buy contrasting President Obama's policies with clips of President Clinton seemingly arguing against tax increases on wealthy Americans.

The large $2.6 million ad buy will run for two weeks in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, and North Carolina, according to the group.

"President Obama has launched a tax attack on American jobs that hits Main Street businesses, home mortgages, and school and road repair funds," said Crossroads GPS president Steven Law in a statement. "Former President Clinton and bipartisan majorities in Congress agree that Obama’s tax hikes won’t solve the problem. The ad aims to get Obama to stop attacking and start listening."

Granted, while I would like to see the unedited clips of Clinton speaking to get the entire context, Obama is the poster child for Tax and Spend.

H/T Memeorandum

Obama: The Grinch Who Taxed Christmas

President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

Two questions: First, where in the Constitution does it instruct the Federal Government to be in the business of promoting Christmas tree sales in any way shape or form?

Second, do only people who make more than $250,000 a year buy Christmas trees? Or is this going to be a tax on those Obama swore not to tax?

H/T Memeorandum. More at Weasel Zippers.

Eliminate Tax Loopholes for the Rich -Starting with GM

I've been thinking a lot about our fearless leader's call for higher taxes on the rich. Close those "tax loopholes" that help them to avoid paying their "fair share".



Let's start here:





Chevy Volt - Code Blue



The MSRP for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt in the U.S. starts at $40,280. Starts. That's the base model. For a car that goes (according to the EPA) 35 miles in all-electric mode. The total range is 379 miles (gas and electric).



Now, I don't know about you, but thirty five miles will not get me to work and back on any given day. Hell, some days, three hundred and seventy nine miles won't cut it either. So, who buys a car that is not reliable enough to get you to work and back on a single charge and is too small to be comfortable on a long trip?



It is ill suited, therefore to be one's primary or sole means of transportation, so, who is it that can afford a $40,000 subcompact to drive, aside from commutes or vacations? The rich. Anyone could buy a Chevy Cruze, which is a gas version of the Volt (only $23,000 cheaper), with more head room, legroom and a longer range. Who buys an expensive novelty car that's not very practical, just to prove a point, or make one feel better about themselves and the "environment"? This car has Ed Begley, Jr. written all over it!



So, if the rich, or at least, moderately well off, want to buy a Volt, let them! But, about those "loopholes"...

Quantifying just how much taxpayer money will have been wasted on the hastily developed Volt is no easy feat. Start with the $50 billion bailout (without which none of this would have been necessary), add $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

But, wait! (As they say) There's more! Let's give every rich person who buys a Chevy Volt a $7,500 tax credit (read: "loophole"), so all the poor people who can't even afford a single new car can help subsidize the rich to buy an extra one!



Now, am I really incensed that the rich are taking advantage of this "loophole", not available to poorer folks? Not really. Even with a $7,500 tax break, the Volt is still overpriced and under featured. The sales numbers of the Volt, even after a flood of government money are anemic and somewhat pathetic.



So, what's the point? It's this: One man's loophole is simply another man's deduction. The demagoguery of using the term "loophole" to generate class envy, by implying an unfair advantage (in areas where you really just want to raise taxes) while ignoring similar tax breaks in areas you want to encourage, is hypocritical to say the least.



When this administration tells you they want to "close the loopholes" so that the rich "pay their fair share", what they are talking about is raising taxes, pure and simple. It has been noted that even taxing "the rich" at 100% and confiscating everything they have, would not solve the problems created by a spendthrift Congress, so "taxing the rich" is just a bit of class envy political theater, used to distract the voters away from the real problem by demonstrating that they are at least "doing something". (And sticking it to those rich guys, doggone it!)



And although Barack Obama has acknowledged that it is not a good idea to raise taxes during a recession, still, he has tried to 1) end the Bush across the board tax cuts last December, 2) eliminate "loopholes" like depreciation on private jets, and 3) calls for a quote unquote "balanced" approach that includes even more tax increases.



And speaking of "balance", if raising taxes in a recession is a bad thing, how is it "balanced" to do a bad thing with a good thing? This whole nonsense about "balancing" spending cuts with tax increases (What about five to one? Ten to one? Etc.) can be illustrated thusly: You've been buying clean ground beef and one day your butcher decides he's going to "balance" that by selling a little beef with e.coli mixed in.



Would this "balanced" approach be more palatable if the mixture is ten to one beef instead of five to one? Or would it still bad for you?



"Balance" is probably a word that "focus grouped" well, and Obama would much rather tell you he's taking a "balanced approach" than to tell you he's actually in favor of raising taxes during a recession. But don't buy it... and change your butcher!

"May You Live in Interesting Times."

Someone recently asked about the origin of "May you live in interesting times."



I said, It was originally considered a curse in China. Considering our state of our indebtedness, and to whom, perhaps it should be, "May you live in compound interesting times."



A little more background, if you will. I did a little study of Chinese history back in my college days and even wrote a paper on the history of technology in China. As I recall from my far distant and semi-misspent youth, the Chinese venerated tradition. Find the perfect order and then don't change it, no matter what!



Given the complexity and variety of technological innovations that came out of China, it was somewhat surprising that they would have been eclipsed by the West. Everyone knows the Chinese invented gunpowder, and if you think about it, modern ceramics originated in a country once known for its "china". They invented the compass and innovations in sailing technology, but the culture of tradition, making each generation match the one before was not a suitable womb for innovation.



The West, on the other hand, embraced innovation with a passion. And each innovation caused the innovators to try to improve upon the one before, And as you can imagine, brought about a lot of that dreaded "change". (No, I wasn't going to go there, but thanks for paying attention!) A whole new genre of writing was created about things never even dreamt of before. Hence, they called them "novels". (That's a novel idea!)



You should hunt an old 8 track cartridge down on Craig's List or give someone a nickel for one at a garage sale. Give it to your kids and tell them what it was. Tell them how much music it would hold. And then, tell them about the skeins of magnetic tape that could often be seen at the base of stop signs, where frustrated music lovers would throw the tangled mess out a window after the player "ate" it.



It was innovation that put an ipod jack in my new car's dash instead of an 8 track slot. Innovation that created the computer or smart phone that you are reading this on this very moment. (And now I'll go there) And innovation can continue to create wealth today, if government would loosen its stranglehold on the economy. Investors need to know the extent of the risk to which they are exposing their capital, and have a reasonable rate of return. This can be accomplished by lowering the tax rates, which typically and historically bring in more revenue to the government through increased activity.



Second, bureaucratic hurdles should be lowered or removed. (Think Chinese traditions) Unnecessary and redundant agencies place a burden on new and existing businesses. It's time to trade in a few score of paper pushers on the government payroll in favor of the businesses that will create your next job, or invent the next innovation or technology that will make our future brighter.



Thirdly, we need a common sense approach to our energy need. I doubt that wind and solar are the future fuel for American prosperity. These are boutique sources now, at best, and both require a duplication of capacity for those times the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Until such time as technology makes a quantum leap to cold fusion, greater solar cell efficiency or some unknown and as yet undiscovered technology, petroleum is the fuel of America's economy. And rising petroleum costs make American made goods less competitive, America's crops more expensive and degrades the quality of life for all Americans, save the wealthiest.



We have been getting lame excuses since at least the Clinton administration as to why drilling in the most God forsaken corner of ANWR wouldn't produce any noticeable results "for ten years". So, in doing nothing but obstruct the oil industry to please the environmentalist wacko wing of your base, these oil fields would be producing wealth for the oil companies, Alaska and the US, though taxes, and contributing to the world supply of oil to reduce the demand starting around 2003? Literally, thanks for nothing! /sarcasm



"Interesting times" can be very unsettling, hence the curse aspect. And, if the times were "interesting" it would have to be because they didn't conform to the old and better ways of our traditions. Change is not always for the best. Things changed in New Orleans with a hurricane and in Japan with an earthquake and a tsunami. Some of you long for the good old days of 2008, when you had a job and a decent, if not spectacular 401k. And change happened in 2008 when the nation elected the most incompetent or destructive President since Jimmy Carter.



But, change happens. Right now, we need a double dose of it in Washington. We need a president and a Congress that will make real and not phony spending cuts. The recent downgrade of America's credit rating is a demonstration that world markets will not tolerate the Washington Kabuki dance of fiscal pretense. America has got to get serious about its spending problem. Congress needs to be told that they must find some projects worthy of cuts or termination beyond defense and care for the elderly.



Can you tell me today of a single program, outside of the military (and I'm sure if we looked, we could find some waste and inefficiency there too!), that anyone of either party has suggested that we eliminate, either because it is redundant or no longer serves a useful purpose? And could we not also finds tons of spending for things that might have been a good idea in times of plenty that we can no longer afford? This is also true of state and local governments. You'll see a two story modern art "sculpture" in a public park, and junkets to exotic lands for Very Important Conferences, but we either need to raise your taxes or cut back on police, fire, schools and libraries.



The time for lip service and political gamesmanship has passed. This next election cycle, we need to replace anyone who gets in the way of real financial and debt reform.



This nation was built upon freedom and innovation. It's time once again that we freed ourselves from the tyranny of bureaucrats and big spending politicians, and rallied to the ballot boxes in 2012 to return sanity and self control to government.



When you think about it, that'd be quite an innovation!



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Prescriptions for Recovery and Disaster

There is a myth constantly going around about the sorry state of manufacturing in this country. Since I work for an American manufacturer, whose products sell worldwide, this has been of some interest to me. I recently engaged in a dialogue with a fellow over at Big Government who believes, from what I can gather, that a return to protectionist trade policies and tariffs is America's only hope. Please, don't take my word for it, his arguments in full are here.

I will post portions of the exchange, leaving out, perhaps a little more of the "colorful" language, and opting for brevity over a verbatim transcript, since I have not gathered anyone's permission but my own for the quotes. Forgive me if the following lacks the structure of a formal essay. I believe the material speaks for itself, without a large scale edit and re-writing and makes some valid points in the aftermath of the US's recent credit downgrade.

I merely mentioned the fact that Obama's hand picked adviser for job growth is busy exporting jobs as we speak. Obama also talks about "closing loopholes" where big companies avoid paying taxes, while Jeffrey Immelt is essentially making GE X-ray a Chinese subsidiary of GE, and whoops! not subject to US taxes. That enough hypocrisy for you?

We cannot "demand" that other countries raise their standards. Ever hear of the concept of "sovereign nations"? If you want to take a stand against other countries using cheaper labor and/or less than ideal working conditions, please feel free to boycott all products not made in the US. Hope you're not awfully fond of television. We haven't made any sets in the US since before the age of digital TV.

Your fantasies about tariffs are duly noted.

This was followed by the point that what had made the US "the greatest economic power in the world", was "fair trade policies".

My rejoinder:

"Do you believe it is fair to trade with a country that artificially pegs its currency?" Are you suggesting an embargo? Adopt the Cuban model? That would be one way to stop the US from "trying to compete" with these countries.

Tariffs start trade wars. The best one can hope for with tariffs, is for certain favored industries to benefit. Prices to consumers will go up (great time to raise prices, during a recession, right?) and the countries who are the targets of the tariffs will undoubtedly respond with tariffs of their own, making our goods less profitable to sell abroad.

Unless we can find some poor country who has nothing we want to buy. Then we can make their goods less profitable and our country can grow richer at their expense? Is that your idea of "fair"?

There are things that can be done to improve the business climate here in our favor. Eliminate unnecessary regulations, which raise the costs of doing business, (please note my use of the word "unnecessary" and spare me additional straw men.) lower the tax rates and make them permanent. Too many businesses are paralyzed into inactivity because of the uncertainty of tax laws, health care requirements and regulations.

Fair trade is when I trade what I have for what you have and both parties are satisfied. If business is to grow and unemployment is to recede, the government has got to get out of the way. Primarily in reducing the tax burden that feeds a bloated government filled with endless redundant departments, all of which combine to put the brakes on our economy.

Personally, I try not to buy goods made in China, for a number of reasons. I wouldn't have given them most favored nation status. But slapping any tariffs on them to protect any domestic industry is doomed to failure. It would only hurt the consumer and raise unemployment among low skilled workers and teenagers.

What made the US the greatest economic power in the world, was freedom. To the extent that government takes freedom away, it cripples economic recovery.

After a bit of back and forth, in typical liberal fashion, (whether he is one or not), he seems to take delight in dealing with what I haven't said, rather than what I did. A sort of Mind Read Fail. He advocated the return to the policies of Alexander Hamilton, and an 11 point plan... from the eighteenth century. (1791 for the math impaired)

My reply:

"Only through manufacturing, when $5 worth of iron ore is converted into a $2000 car door, or $1 worth of raw wool is converted into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit, is real wealth created" Sorry! I reject your premise. And if you thought about it for a minute, so would you. What makes a " $1 worth of raw wool... into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit"? The obvious answer is "Calvin Klein". That's what makes it different from a $100 Steve Garvey suit or from a $2 ball of yarn your granny uses to knit you a scarf.

Intellectual property creates "real wealth". You can manufacture $.25 CD-ROMs and Blu-rays all day long, but if you want to sell it for $10 or $25 or $200, you'd better put some music or a movie or some software on it that I want to buy. **

And there is "real wealth" in our resources as well. You scoff about $5 worth of iron ore, but no one mines just five dollars worth. There is real wealth created when it is mined and again when it is smelted and again when it is manufactured into something useful. And, if you do it right, once again when it is recycled.

And despite many myths and old wives tales, there is still a lot of manufacturing going on in this country. There are just not as many manufacturing jobs. By automating processes in their plants (and moving to right to work states), many manufacturers have been able to remain competitive with foreign labor. New Balance shoes, for example. http://www.newbalance.com/usa/

Energy creates wealth. Without energy, the $5 ore never gets mined or smelted or the wool stitched into an Armani suit. Without energy, the worker cannot get to the factory which cannot keep its doors open without it. Real wealth can be found in drilling and refining our own oil. Reducing energy costs would make every industry in the country more profitable, from the food on your table, to the shoes on your feet to the car that you drive.

This administration has chosen to hobble the energy industry at every turn, choosing instead to subsidize mythical* green energy and penalize every other existing source of energy. There is real wealth in the ground and more to be had in refining, manufacturing gasoline, if you will, if this administration and all the green weenies on the left would just get out of the way.

Reduce the pointless and counterproductive regulatory morass, lower corporate taxes, which are merely a hidden tax on the consumer, allow our nation's energy companies to drill and mine the resources we have and you will see a big turnaround in this country.

*In the sense of providing enough power to drive our current economy, much less the future.

** With high speed downloading, even the "manufactured" CD-ROM is virtually obsolete. (See: high button shoes/buggy whips)

FYI: "Since 1975, (US) manufacturing output has more than doubled"

In looking to document one of my points to "hockeynation" I ran across this (and the chart above):

Since 1975, manufacturing output has more than doubled, while employment in the sector has decreased by 31%. While these American job losses are indeed sobering, they are not an indication of declining U.S. competitiveness. In fact, these statistics reveal that the average American manufacturer is over three times more productive today than they were in 1975 – a sure sign of economic progress.

The true cause of dwindling American competitiveness is a tax code that puts domestic firms at a clear disadvantage – not a lack of skill or innovation on the part of the American worker.

- Veronique de Rugy

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.