Republicans should introduce the ‘Warren Buffett  Tax Me Regulation’ as part of the tax package being negotiated with Democrats.

Republicans want to leave tax rates as they are while progressive Democrats want to enable a tax hike on incomes progs deem ‘rich.’

The rich have been variously described at levels beginning at either $200,000 or $1,000,000 (single filers) depending on who’s doing the talking.

Conservatives in general believe tax rates should be left alone for a number of reasons. First, Heritage Backgrounder No. 928 shows when a tax increase is enabled, Congress spends more. Progs have set records in Congress for spending since taking control of Congress in 2006, and it is statistically likely the ideology will not change.

Another reason is that American wealth does not belong to the government or to progs who love the concept of taxing “richie.” The prog approach is endorsed by most government-friendly media—almost every headline about the tax issue suggests Democrats want to give the “middle class” a tax break and levy more taxes on “richie.”

Richie icon Warren Buffett has been outspoken in calling for a tax increase—apparently he has a certain amount of guilt over the wealth he has accumulated. Other fellow zillionaires have joined him in calling for tax increases that would also impact any number of small businesses. Incidentally, political fact often overrides common sense where progs are concerned.

The solution to the dilemma rests in introducing a ‘Warren Buffett’ regulation. The regulation can be named to honor one of the wealthiest tax fans in the world.

Rather than rewrite any tax code, the regulation could be designed as a stand-alone form. The form could be used for zillionaires and any other tax increase fans (regardless of income) to donate money to the federal government for any purpose Congress or the president deems aligned with progressive spending.

The contribution would not be tax deductible because according to Vice-President Joe Biden, paying taxes is patriotic (Rep. Charlie Rangel and others aside).

The simply worded stand-alone regulation could simply be filed with the taxpayer’s income tax forms and payment could be accepted by existing procedures.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid should be first in line to contribute funds—they’re big pushers in the tax increase movement and they have contributed to historically record levels of spending.

Introducing the regulation into whatever package is agreed upon is a simple way of seeing exactly which progressives are willing to put their own money where they’d like to put others’ money.

Meanwhile Mr. Buffett can man up and be first to contribute some of the wealth that apparently troubles his conscience.

 [First publication at The US Report.]

Media reported President Barack Obama’s nod to fiscal reform this week—he froze federal employee salaries for two years, projecting a savings of more than $5 billion. The president’s love of basketball came in handy as he faked to center.

Obama’s move came after his administration pushed for growth in the federal employee sector. The Washington Times said the administration grew that sector, “by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.” To accomplish that growth, the US Office of Personnel Management created the ‘End to End Hiring Initiative’ to fill positions that would be vacated by employees slated to retire.

Obama moved left (repeatedly) by stressing the federal government cannot “afford” to give a tax break to those the government considers wealthy.

As Obama spoke (repeatedly) about the tax increase he wants on the so-called wealthy, the US Dept. of State announced allocating $1 million to send 15 artists abroad to do community art. The Bronx Museum of the Arts was tapped to administer the grant.

Asked what type of artist the Museum might be looking for, the director told The New York Times about an artist she admired. That artist “created special sneakers and distributed them to people in Tijuana who were planning to cross the border into the United States. Each pair was equipped with a compass, flashlight, painkillers and insoles printed with maps of the border area.”

As Congress convened the Lame Duck session with Democrats still in control, the US sugar program was in full swing. Citizens Against Government Waste detailed the cronyism: “The wealthiest one percent of sugar farmers receives 60 percent of the subsidies.  The sugar program inflates the price of sugar to at least twice the world price of the commodity…”

CAGW said eliminating the sugar program would save taxpayers more than $800 million over a five-year period.

Obama has pulled another fake to the left by pushing for the DREAM Act. No one has costed this bill officially, so the numbers are all over the place. The bill is supported, by the way, by some vote-hungry Republicans in Congress and GOP luminaries in the private sector. The Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, projected the base cost for tuition subsidies for the DREAM Act at $6.2 billion a year.

As I write this column, I recall something a 79 year old retiree said to me a few weeks ago.

This woman picked cotton and other crops as a child, worked as a waitress when she was in high school and then became one of the first women to take a job in the weave room at a cotton mill. The job was brutal but it paid more than jobs women traditionally took. She often worked overtime because her family needed the extra money.

Her husband died unexpectedly, and when she was in her 40s, she returned to school, got her high school diploma and went on to earn a nursing degree. She had saved enough money to pay her tuition. She won her hospital’s humanitarian award several years after starting her new career.

She paid off her modest home in a small Southern town by living frugally and by working hard all her life. Waste not, want not was her motto.  She remembers the Great Depression well because she and her numerous brothers and sisters sometimes went hungry, even as a Democrat president had crops plowed under and livestock slaughtered so that food prices would increase.  That president’s policies are detailed in the classic book ‘Great Myths of the Great Depression’ by Lawrence W. Reed. The book is a counter to the revisionist history taught in many schools.

With the help of the US healthcare complex, the woman whose personal story reads like a novel also triumphed over cancer.

Despite her modest income, that senior has helped many needy people. She raised her children to give to the less fortunate and even more importantly, to help the less fortunate directly. She is a woman of great faith.

She supported Obama for president and, like many in my family, she has often struggled to understand why I will not vote for Democrats.

I stood in her kitchen on that early fall afternoon as she opened her mail. She frowned.

“What’s wrong?” I asked.

“My medicine is going up again,” she said. “And I don’t know what I’m going to do about my Medicare Advantage. Everything’s going up.”

Then she gazed at me sadly. “I thought Mr. Obama was going to help us,” she said.

I gave her a hug and told her not to worry because my brother and I would see to it she gets what she needs. I refrained from reminding her our president faked to center when he was running.

That woman is my mom.

She is in the same demographic former Republican senator Alan Simpson, who is on Obama’s debt commission, categorized as “selfish.”

Simpson faked right and left, by the way, with the same skill and frequency as our president. Faking comes in handy in basketball. And politics.

Lawsuits have long been the weapon of choice for leftwingers. One powerful ruling came in the case of Massachusetts et al. v. EPA et al.

The Pew Center for Global Climate Change explained the suit: “On April 2, 2007 the Supreme Court released its ruling in the case of the state of Massachusetts vs. the Environmental Protection Agency. Massachusetts and eleven other states, along with several local governments and non-governmental organizations (petitioners), sued the EPA for not regulating the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO₂), from the transportation sector. The petitioners claimed that human-influenced global climate change was causing adverse effects, such as sea-level rise, to the state of Massachusetts.”

SCOTUS bought into science by consensus, dismissing any assertions contradicting manmade global warming, and ruled 5-4 in favor of Massachusetts. Some might say SCOTUS also dismissed common sense.

But the suit suggests a legal door swung open a bit wider and there may be possibilities that don’t just apply to the environment or to leftwingers.

Numerous federal agencies involved in immigration refuse to uphold the law when it comes to undocumented aliens. One example is the housekeeper who, allegedly with union support and a celebrity lawyer, damaged Meg Whitman’s reputation and thereby damaged her gubernatorial campaign. The housekeeper confessed to fraudulent acts publicly.

She’s reportedly still in the country.

A similar situation happened in Jacksonville, Florida, when local deputies answered a call at an apartment. The tenants were fighting among themselves and they volunteered to police they were in the country illegally. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told a local TV news station they would not investigate the case. The aliens worked for a popular local restaurant chain.

There are countless public cases of the federal government doing nothing even when a person’s status does not comply with federal law.

As for damages related to lapses in immigration enforcement, that’s fairly easy to prove in a general way. Even Mexico acknowledged it by filing a suit against the U.S. on behalf of 51 death row inmates who were in the U.S. yet claimed retention of their Mexican citizenship. Some of those inmates had received an education in the U.S. and lived here for years. How many American citizens’ families were harmed by those 51 convicted criminals? Imagine the extent of the damages, not just monetary but emotional.

Even the American Federation of Government Employees, National Council 118, expressed concern about federal enforcement lapses. Members cast a vote of ‘no confidence’ on behalf of more than 7,000 ICE employees in ICE director John Morton and his assistant director in June.

Did the Massachusetts et al case open the door wider for lawsuits that seek redress of grievances when certain federal employees don’t uphold the law and damages can be proved? It appears the standard for proving those damages is not very stringent, based on the case against the EPA.

At the least, possibilities might be explored in situations where refusal to regulate exists. What works for the left may conceivably work for the right.

Advocacy groups are pushing for passage of the DREAM Act in the Lame Duck session of Congress, and Republicans I view as left of center are part of that effort. Some Republicans appear to believe that GOP support will make the population painted broadly as “Hispanic” run to the precincts in 2012 and pull a lever for whoever opposes President Barack Obama.

On Facebook more than 54,000 people belong to the DREAM Act 2010 group. At the top of the page, a message seeks to assure, “The DREAM Act is NOT Amnesty.”

Advocates rightly point out the plight of children brought to the U.S. by parents who found it too bothersome to complete the paperwork that every country around the globe expects legal immigrants to complete.

Advocates claim the bill will  result in a net gain for the U.S. economically, although at least one version (S 729) promised DREAM Act students they could obtain student loans, work study positions and “Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.” That last may be deliberately obscure because it actually opened the door to Pell grants and other federal assistance.

On Nov. 18, one of the newer DREAM versions S 3963 was placed on the Senate calendar.  Although proponents claim there are rigorous standards, a cursory read of the bill reflects an exception for almost every standard set.

One provision in S 3963 is a requirement that the applicant be “of good moral character.” How exactly is that determined and conclusively validated?

Another provision addresses breaks in the applicant’s presence. The bill states, “An alien shall be considered to have failed to maintain continuous physical presence in the United States under subsection (a) if the alien has departed from the United States for any period in excess of 90 days or for any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.” Predictably, the very next provision permits exceptions for that requirement if there are “exceptional circumstances.”

Although the states will certainly shoulder the economic burden of a number of unintended consequences of this bill, the secretary of Homeland Security has “exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility for relief under this Act.”

Meanwhile there is no stable infrastructure to support the implementation of this bill. If there was, our president and various congressmen would not describe immigration as a “broken system.”

Besides all that, there is a worrisome development that escaped Congress and perhaps President Barack Obama.

When the U.S. filed a Human Rights Report with the United Nations, Obama pledged compliance with the Avena decision. That decision was relevant to the case of Medillin vs. Texas in 2008. Jose Ernesto Medillin belonged to a gang that brutally raped, sodomized and murdered two teen girls as they hurried home to beat their curfew in Houston. The crime was so brutal I can’t bring myself to describe it in detail.

Medillin was sentenced to death. Mexico sued the U.S. on behalf of Medillin and 50 other death row inmates in an attempt to have their cases reopened. Medillin was technically a Mexican citizen even though he had lived in the U.S. and received a free education here. Incidentally, he wrote a handwritten confession.

Mexico took the position Medillin was deprived of his rights because he wasn’t informed of his right to speak with Mexican consular officials.  Even the Republican administration attempted to yield to Mexico on this point.

Texas governor Rick Perry executed Medillin anyway—a small victory for the families of the girls who had waited for years to see justice delivered.

Will Avena impact the DREAM Act during the wait period for students who apply? No version of the DREAM Act addresses this issue wherein our president yielded American sovereignty to international court jurisdiction. It appears the idea escaped Congress.

The DREAM Act specifies a period of 7 years for the General Accounting Office to come up with statistics on the impact.

It is impossible for anyone to accurately gauge the cost of this act simply because the population is so undefined. Most proponents see it as a pathway for Hispanics because of Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) political debt. In fact, the DREAM Act will apply to students of any nationality. All the versions of the Act are listed at Thomas.gov—you can follow links from the pages for S 3963.

A reader, in response to a column I wrote recently, sent me an email message. That reader, an individual with experience within an immigration agency, wrote, “Tens of thousands already come in, invited to do so, through processes of 1)diversity visas (50 thousand every year); I-130 petitions of alien relatives (to include fiancee visas); I-140 petitions for residence based on work and the perverted political asylum process. ..There are more than 900 immigration laws in the United States.” This individual has asked me to source this and other information to ‘anonymous.’

Regardless of the version you decide to review, the DREAM Act is in fact amnesty. Many of us are old enough to remember the Amnesty of 1986 when Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), then congressman Leon Panetta (D-Calif.) and Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) led Americans to believe the border would be secured and we would never face immigration chaos again.

They lied and just as troubling, they failed. An excellent backgrounder on the 1986 Amnesty is provided at the Center for Immigration Studies.

The GAO has 7 years to determine whether the Act was a good idea or a nightmare.

I believe, based on hundreds of hours of research on our immigration system and policy, it will likely be a fiscal nightmare.

Until the federal infrastructure is reformed, it is not in the best interest of the country to pass an entitlement act or to enable amnesty through a side door.

In less than 48 hours, the Facebook Group Stop HR 1388 drew more than 2,100 members hoping to block passage of HR 1388, known in the House as the GIVE bill. GIVE is an appropriate title, because that’s exactly what this bloated bill will require of American taxpayers. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wants this bill pushed on to the Senate, asking that a cloture vote occur on Monday, March 23 at 6 p.m.; and  if cloture is invoked, then postcloture time will count as if cloture had been invoked at 3 p.m. that day. Further, Reid asked that the mandatory quorum be waived. Here’s the rub: the bill is being called the National Service Reauthorization Act. Problem is the “reauthorization” contains amendments that vastly increase spending and that also trample on states’ and individual rights.

Section 1201, School-based Allotments, has been amended to expand programs for elementary and secondary school students. “Purpose-based school learning programs” basically will require students to “meet community needs with demonstrable results.” Like all government results, those in this amendment will be subjective. Included are costs for “providing professional development for teachers, supervisors, personnel from community-based agencies (particularly with regard to the recruitment, utilization, and management of participants), and trainers, to be conducted by qualified individuals or organizations that have experience with service-learning…” Maybe they can include a spelling champ in the mix. The bill as written misspells the word ‘development.’

Section 112 covers allotments: “Minimum Amount- For any fiscal year for which amounts appropriated for this subtitle exceed $50,000,000, the minimum allotment to each State (as defined in subsection (b)(2)) under this section shall be $75,000.”

Amendment 38 includes a new activity under the Opportunity Corps focused on a musician and artists corps program that helps meet educational needs in low income communities. Public libraries are full of art for the asking.

Campuses of Service will be designated. Amendment 41 (numbered 4 printed in House Report 110-39) authorizes a new grant program, the Volunteer Generation Fund, to be administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service. When you hear the word ‘grant’ in a federal document, the taxpayer cash register goes bing, bing, bing at high velocity.

Amendment 48 (numbered 10 printed in House Report 111-39) creates a National Service Reserve Corps and requires an annual service requirement of at least 10 hours and/or annual training.

The alleged projected cost for this expanded “volunteerism” program is $3 per American in 2010. If you are a taxpayer as opposed to a tax recipient, be aware you will pick up the tab for those who do not pay. If you read the entire bill and the amendments, it is questionable whether $3 is even slightly realistic as some program costs are pegged to inflation.

As our country teeters on financial collapse, that the Congress is considering a funds-laden bill with a benign title like the National Service Reauthorization Act is astounding. That this act calls for mandatory service by young children is even more troublesome.

Media outlets are apparently (and predictably) unaware this bill is proceeding unchallenged. Taxpayers will be aware when we get the bill for yet another massive social program that delivers far less than desired results if it delivers any at all. Facebook Group Stop HR 1388 is asking everyone to contact their senators and ask them to vote ‘no’ on this bill.

Read further analysis at theusreport.com.

Most of us will say abundant gratitudes on Thursday for family, friends and a roof over our heads, but our elected officials in Washington have some rather unique blessings to offer thanks for. Take Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) Rangel will probably say something like, ‘I’m grateful I’m not going to jail like Wesley Snipes for screwing up my own taxes. Or for helping a major donor get a major tax break. Rangel is one of a number who made serious errors in ethics that did little in the way of political harm.

Read More →

Dear RNC,

RNC donor here—McCain campaign donor too.

I’ve followed news reports about money spent on Gov. Sarah Palin’s large family—clothing, baby goods, what have yous. Gov. Palin is in the news 24/7 it seems; Democratic media just cannot get enough of our vice-presidential candidate. And now we’re talking line items on financial disclosures.

Now I saw Sen. John McCain tonight on the news. He said the items purchased for Gov. Palin and her family will be donated to charity once the campaign ends. But I am a little confused. I mean, money is money, right?

Read More →

(Pearl Harbor)–Al Jazeera, the Middle Eastern news agency, scooped a story about a military meeting between the U.S. and China that hasn’t appeared in a newspaper in either country. The headline said, ‘Military Giants Meet in Hawaii,’ and the story dated Oct. 20, 2008 revealed, “Major-General Zhong Zhiming [Chinese People’s Liberation Army] was leading a delegation of Chinese military officers on one of the first of many planned high-level exchanges, part of a new effort to break down barriers between these two military giants.” The meeting is being held at Pearl Harbor.

Read More →

It was a comical moment many may have missed in the final presidential debate, and for Sen. John McCain it was a slip of the tongue. But it made a telling point because it spoke to Sen. Barack Obama’s core belief—that government is the solution to everything. If you filter through the rhetoric from both candidates, you emerge with a sharp contrast. McCain wants to reduce spending and Obama wants to increase it. Simple as that. And what about the hatchet vs. scalpel back and forth?

Read More →

Sen. John McCain’s campaign protested removal of videos by YouTube because of takedown notices even though the videos did not infringe on copyrights. Via a letter dated Oct. 13 to YouTube, the campaign said the videos contained less than 10 seconds of video with CBS content. CBS refused comment to TV Week. Comments at news websites often complain about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act that allows copyright holders to submit takedown notices.

Really, you’d have to have a hole in your head (the size of the Grand Canyon) to think this has anything to do with copyright.

Read More →

Once again, racism rears its politically profitable head, with Georgia Democrat Rep. John Lewis accusing Sen. John McCain of ‘sowing seeds of hatred.’ Lewis was referring to anger expressed by some who spoke up at recent rallies.

Memo to David Axelrod: these people, like your own constituents, are angry at Washington. And let me assure you it has nothing to do with race. Let me add I also realize race is a valuable card for Democratic Party supporters. And let me make a case for who the real race-baiters are.

Read More →

What’s amazing to me is the amount of information readily available about the presidential candidates’ plans and the complete lack of attention to that information by mainstream media and taxpayers. There’s a must-read article at The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that’s been praised by both major political parties for more than 70 years. Mark Robyn’s article ‘Obama’s income tax cliff for senior citizens’ is a perfect example of branding trumping reality. Obama fans see an engaging speaker who easily could have carved out a career in show business. Realists see a politician reminiscent of Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson whose ambitious plans edged the country ever closer to socialism.

Read More →

By circumstance, we ran into our favorite tipster whose official cloak is ‘Deep Tote’ and our informant has delivered some amazing news—Sen. Barack Obama has already won the Oct. 15 Presidential Debate to be held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. Considering we learned this immediately after the 2nd Presidential Debate in Nashville, well before the final debate occurs, and in light of conservative accusations of media bias, we coerced Deep Tote into answering a few questions. Promising to ply our source with almond biscotti and authentic Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee, we got together at a tony coffee shop in Miami. I promised to reveal nothing about Deep Tote’s age, race, sex, gender or alternative religious beliefs and I also agreed to withhold the name of the coffee shop. Just in case we were seen.

Read More →

Sen. Barack Obama delivered his customary rousing speech in Abington, Pennsylvania on Friday, pitching talking points directly to the constituency he calls the “middle class.” The Ambler Gazette reported, “Obama said he wants to end the economic crisis by creating jobs through investing in renewable sources of energy, discouraging companies from *outsourcing jobs to foreign countries *…” Considering the fundraisers his supporters hosted overseas, the senator may want to read up on what the term ‘outsourcing’ means. He probably should take a look at how economists define the term ‘middle class’ as well.

Read More →

Sarah Palin hooked me the first time I saw her speak. Until that moment, I was dedicated to my party’s nominee, but there was little passion. I hadn’t anticipated Sen. John McCain winning the GOP nomination for president. I had foreseen Sen. Barack Obama winning his party’s nomination because I know Democratic Party strategy—a brand based on rhetoric and physical appearance coupled with policy that veers so sharply left it is guaranteed to end up in the Pacific. Al Gore and John Kerry are exhibits A and B in support of my claims.

Shortly after McCain’s announcement about Palin, I went to get a haircut and ended up stumping for her, though not intentionally. A customer overheard me telling my stylist about Palin, and the next thing I knew, the 25 or so other customers and employees—all females—were all ears. The excitement was palpable. The GOP had placed, for the first time ever, a woman on the presidential ticket. And what happened next was entirely predictable for those of us who know media.

Read More →

Courtesy of Drudge, covers for two different issues of US Weekly illustrate the great divide between the RNC brand and the DNC brand when it comes to mainstream media. One cover shows a glowing Sen. Barack Obama and his wife Michelle—“Why Barack Loves Her.” The other shows Gov. Sarah Palin holding her newborn—“Babies, Lies and Scandal.” Fellow women who aren’t enamored of the DNC brand, it’s time for a boycott. I suspect women are the primary purchasers of magazines like US Weekly. It’s one thing to debate politics of each party’s nominees. It’s low down and dirty to assail someone’s character.

I haven’t read Rolling Stone in years, a magazine that has fallen into a state of confusion in my opinion. But let’s add it to our don’t-buy list as well. Also Men’s Journal. Talk to our teens—probably the age group that might buy that magazine. According to The New York Times (8-11-08), “The magazine [Rolling Stone] had 486 ad pages in the first half of 2008, according to the Publishers Information Bureau, down 33 percent from the same period in 2005.”

Read More →

Top prize for today’s media hysteria race goes to The Philadelphia Daily News where one columnist wrote: “If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness – and hopelessness!” That column comprises a complete fiction—for instance, poverty is up. It’s not. It’s actually about the same, according to the latest US Census Report. Well, it is and it isn’t. Had newspapers and wire services read the fine print (and had the Philly writer done the same), they’d have noticed some questions were phrased differently by the Census Bureau this time and the answers shed a little light on “poverty.”

Read More →

On the Bill O’Reilly Show tonight, there was a segment on Rep. Robert Wexler (D-[allegedly] 19). Wexler’s Republican opponent Edward Lynch did some research and discovered the Democrat is fulfilling his residency requirement by residing at his mother-in-law’s home, one in what The Palm Beach Post describes as a “55-and-older-community.” His wife and children live in Rockville, MD. where the kids attend a Jewish Day School.

Read More →

Evision this: 20,000 college kids set up a camp—‘Tent State’—in a city park for four nights, strategizing on war protests and educational matters while the Democratic National Convention crowns the party’s presidential monarch in the city of Denver. Envision this: bathrooms, food wrappers and a big fat environmental question mark. The Rocky Mountain News says about 50 neighbors from the community near the park where the Tent Staters want to camp attended a Q&A meeting last week, some with understandable concerns. Many of the newspaper’s readers posted concerns at the discussion forum where the Tent City story was posted. One resident told the paper, “I think people in the neighborhood are freaked about this being Woodstock, but this is the anti-Woodstock.” Another woman complained, “I just think it’s overwhelming.” To say the least, this convention promises more twists and turns than a Harry Potter novel.

Read More →

The headline at The Drudge Report website,”Group Repping 50,000 Physicists Opens Global Warming Debate…” [linked to dailytech.com] says it all. That headline stems from an article posted in the July, 2008, newsletter of the American Physical Society unit known as Physics and Society. Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley wrote the explosive article, ‘Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered,’and the abstract alone is guaranteed to make Al Gore’s blood boil.

Read More →