By US Daily Review.

This Week, ROC Exposed called attention to new research showing that the IRS has failed to catch the Restaurant Opportunities Center’s (ROC) years of lobbying activities at the local, state, and federal levels, which ROC is required by federal law to report to the IRS. This report is especially relevant given IRS’ scandalous targeting of conservative groups and preferential treatment towards liberal organizations.

ROC Exposed has also sent a formal complaint to the IRS requesting that it investigate ROC’s lobbying activities and failure to report them.

ROC is a labor union front group disguised as a restaurant industry employment center and watchdog. ROC’s tactics include mob-style shakedowns, often employing intimidation and harassment in an effort to force restaurants into submission.

The information in this new report from ROC Exposed is particularly relevant in light of ROC’s receipt of federal grant money from the Department of Labor and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as an investigation by the House of Representatives of ROC for its “history of intimidation” towards opponents.

Mike Paranzino , communications director for ROC Exposed, released the following statement:

The Restaurant Opportunities Center has lobbied openly, loudly, and extensively for years, while reporting to the Internal Revenue Service that they do not lobby.  They did this without facing any scrutiny from the IRS.

Each year, ROC hosts a “Counter Lobby Day” in D.C., where ROC staffers and members fly in from around the country to meet with Congress and lobby for new mandates on job creators. ROC spokespersons have also previously lobbied the federal government on behalf of the WAGES Act, and “spearheaded” paid sick leave and minimum wage legislation at all levels of government.

By doing all of this while reporting to the IRS that they do not lobby, ROC is in violation of IRS reporting rules as a nonprofit ‘Public Charity.’ For a group that regularly lectures small business owners on compliance with federal laws, ROC’s decision to ignore federal reporting requirements is nothing short of hypocrisy.

By US Daily Review Staff.

The Mineta National Transit Research Consortium (transweb.sjsu.edu/mntrc) has released a peer-reviewed research report, What Do Americans Think about Federal Tax Options to Support Public Transit, Highways, and Local Streets and Roads? Results from Year 3 of a National Survey. The report was conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute. It summarizes the results of a national random-digit-dial public opinion poll that asked 1,519 respondents if they would support various tax options for raising federal transportation revenues. Special focus was placed on understanding what would motivate people to support increased revenues for public transit. The study authors were Asha Weinstein Agrawal, PhD, Hilary Nixon, PhD, and Vinay Murthy. The free 88-page report is available for download at transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1128.html

By US Daily Review Staff.

A new study by Ernst & Young released this week finds that the President’s plan to raise taxes on small business owners and families earning more than $250,000 will lower the wages of American workers by nearly two percent, shrink the U.S. economy and cost 710,000 jobs.

“In the Obama recovery, the weakest recovery since World War II, small businesses along Main Street are struggling and so are a lot of hardworking taxpayers. This study proves that while the President is shooting at the so-called wealthy, his tax hikes will actually hit hardest our small businesses and middle-class workers who’ll see their paychecks shrink,” said Texas Congressman Kevin Brady, a senior member of the House Ways & Means Committee and the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. “America can’t afford to lose another 700,000 jobs… And workers can’t afford to see their paychecks get even smaller because under President Obama everything from food to gas to college costs more.”

The study “The Macro-Economic Impact of Increasing Tax Rates on High-Income Taxpayers” was conducted by Dr. Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante of Ernst & Young and released by the National Federation of Independent Business. It shows that 900,000 business owners would be hit by the higher tax rates, that the U.S. economy would shrink by 1.3%, and investment in America would fall significantly – 2.4% – as a result of President Obama’s tax hikes.

Brady also announced that House Republicans will take up legislation later this month to stop the Obama $4.3 trillion tax hike, lay out principles for a fairer, simpler tax code and guarantee an up-or-down vote by Congress on tax reform next year. The measure will also prevent the Death Tax from springing back to life and stop the alternative minimum tax from capturing 31 million middle class families.

by Candace Salima, Senior Contributor, US Daily Review.

We’re in the heat of the battle for America; will we end up as Obama’s Socialist Democracy, or continue with our freedoms and liberties intact with Mitt Romney’s America, staying true to the republic we’ve always been. Fortunately, unlike nations trapped in medieval times, we don’t have to pick up weapons and start shooting our way to freedom. The Founding Fathers gave us a path, if we’ll use it, to restore reason in America, and it’s a solid path.

It’s a little thing called the U.S. Constitution. I know, I’m asking Americans to read it, and it’s just so long! But let’s just focus on Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. There’s your path, and I’m convinced there’s not a single liberal who has ever read the 4,400 words of the U.S. Constitution.

And that brings us to the Democrats; for good or bad, the Democrat Party has thrown its lot in with the far left liberals of their party, and abandoned the Democrat values of old. But let’s get back to Obama.

Barack Obama’s efforts with the economy have been dismal at best, criminal at worst. But his signature legislation, the thing he’s the most proud of, is the Affordable Patient Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare. He’s really hoping we’ll focus on that and not talk about it’s effect on the economy and our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. He’s really hoping we won’t check government statistics, reports, and legislation being passed. He most definitely, does not want us to read the entire decision SCOTUS (The Supreme Court of the United States) handed down, and he especially doesn’t want us looking at the dissenting decision.

And although one of the three branches of government specifically stated that Obamacare is a tax, Barack Obama and the Democrats, ad nauseum, are saying; “It’s a penalty, not a tax.” Penalty or tax…the end result is the same for the American people, a crushing tax burden guaranteed to cripple generations to come.

But let’s look at what Barack Obama definitely won’t talk about over the next four months.

He won’t talk about the $500 billion tax burden Obamacare hits us with; five of the 21 additional taxes in Obamacare go into effect on 1 January 2013; and the rest will hit the American taxpayer on 1 January 2014. Then the other $900 billion will hit us at one point or another, this I guarantee.

But Barack Obama won’t talk about the $16 trillion national debt; and he most definitely will never mention:

• The 8.2% unemployment number. And that’s only if you don’t drill down to minority and student unemployment numbers, where we actually hit double digits. AND, if we don’t include those who’ve fallen off the unemployment rolls, still looking or who have just given up. So we’re really looking at an average of 17% unemployment in America.
• The nearly 50 million Americans on welfare.
• The businesses of America, especially small business, who are suffering greatly under the additional burdens of Obamacare. Thousands of small business doors have closed, permanently, in Obama’s America.
• The escalating energy costs, and the corresponding escalating cost of living.
• The record number of bankruptcies.
• The attacks on our constitutional rights.
• The ever encroaching federal government, and shrinking rights of We the People.

Yeah, that’s going to be a winning strategy…for the uninformed. That’s what you get when you vote for a community organizer who’s immersed himself in a Marxist philosophy and atmosphere.

But, if you vote for Mitt Romney, you get a man who has been:

• Successful in business,
• Successful in turning the Salt Lake City Olympics around and making them profitable.
• Successful in paying down MA $2 billion debt, and leaving them with $1 billion rainy-day fund.
• Successful in keeping the promises he’s made to the people, and has a
• Strong understanding of economic matters,
• Strong understanding of national defense needs,
• Strong understanding of our energy crisis,
• Strong understanding of the Jobs situation, and a solid plan to turn that around, and
• Strong understanding of America and the great promise she holds for those willing to take up the challenge.

It is a stark difference between the two Americas.

There is Barack Obama’s America steeped in debt and despair. And then there’s Mitt Romney’s America, steeped in the American Dream, with the promise of a brighter future and prosperity.

The choice is clear: Barack Obama’s nation riddled in debt and ever dwindling freedoms; or Mitt Romney’s nation breaking free of the economic chains, and rising to be Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” once again.

 —

Candace Salima is a radio talk show host, author, columnist, and makes her home in the Rocky Mountains. Learn more about her at www.CandaceSalima.com. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

By the C.D. Howe Institute, Special for US Daily Review.

Ontario’s new “tax on the rich” will likely create more economic costs than benefits, according to a report by the C.D. Howe Institute. In “Ontario’s Tax on the Rich: Grasping at Straw Men,” Associate Director of Research Alexandre Laurin finds taxpayers’ behavioural responses will reduce revenue over the long run by more than the province can expect to collect from the tax hike.

Confronted by a tax increase, taxpayers may respond in various ways, noted Laurin. Some would likely do nothing, but others may choose to substitute more leisure for overtime work, to migrate to a lower tax jurisdiction, to engage in more aggressive tax planning, or to modify forms and timing of compensation, use of tax deductions, and tax avoidance or evasion. “Many studies have shown that, on average, tax increases have a negative effect on economic activity and incomes, especially for high-income earners who tend to be more responsive to tax changes,” said Laurin.

Laurin projects net proceeds from the tax of about $450 million in 2013, falling thereafter to about $200 million by 2016 (in constant dollars), to nearly zero in 2019, and to a loss of about $200 million by 2027.

What’s more, the rationale behind the raise, which seems to have originated from the rhetoric of the “Occupy” movement, is that the “rich,” the top 1 percent of earners, do not pay their fair share of personal income taxes. However, the 25,000 high-income earners and their families affected by the new tax already pay about one of every five income tax dollars – net of tax credits and benefits – in Ontario, notes Laurin. Overall, Ontario’s personal income tax system already redistributes more income than most other provinces. The province’s top 1 percent of earners shoulder more than one-quarter of all income taxes, while the bottom 75 percent shoulder about 12 percent.

By US Daily Review Staff.

A study released last week by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) finds that failure to continue extensions on Bush-era and other tax cuts would result in significantly reduced economic activity, heavy jobs losses, and financial disarray that could propel the economy into another recessionary tailspin.  Dr. Allen Sinai, Chief Global Economist and President of Decision Economics, Inc. conducted the study and examined the potential effects of various scenarios where the legislated tax increases on income, dividends, capital gains and social security take place.

If Congress and the Administration take no action on the tax dimension of the Fiscal Cliff, i.e., all Bush-era tax cuts expire as tax increases—income, capital gains, dividends, AMT—and social security taxes rise, the economic and financial impacts are severe:

Economy:  Significant declines in real economic growth of 2.6, 3.3, and 0.5 percentage points over 2013 to 2015 compared with a Baseline—and up to $855 billion of lost output which could well take the economy into another recession.

Jobs Losses: Large declines in the numbers of persons working, over 1 million estimated for all of 2013 and in excess of 3 million for 2014.  The unemployment rate would be 0.4 percentage points higher in 2013 and increase by a very large 1.5 percentage points compared with the Baseline in each of 2014 and 2015.

Lower Consumption Spending and Reduced Capital Formation:  Consumption spending down about $1 trillion per year, on average, over 2013-17, beginning with a relatively small decline of $343 billion in 2013 but rising to $1.2 trillion in 2015 with a substantial hit to business capital spending, down $13.4 billion in 2013, $68.5 billion in 2014 and$95.2 billion in 2015.

Financial Markets Disarray:  A stock market that very likely would sell off on the prospect, nearly 18% a year over 2013 to 2017, with corporate profits down and expected to be down.  This would represent real losses in the retirement and pension accounts of ordinary Americans, and significant declines in household wealth and the state of the household balance sheet…

For more information, click here.

By US Daily Review Staff.

Concerns over how Canada will be able to meet its mounting transportation infrastructure needs have been exacerbated by recent government belt-tightening. In a report released today by The School of Public Policy and Van Horne Institute, author Brian Flemming argues that it is infrastructure users who should be shouldering the financial burden of new projects or upgrades.

“Only some form of road pricing will fill the coming shortfalls in funding,” Flemming said today. “This means something far beyond mere traditional tolling of roads and bridges. It means creating a system whereby those who use infrastructure will — electronically — have to pay small and sophisticated fees for this use, the amount of which will depend on the time and place of use.”

In his report, Flemming acknowledges that the issue of charging Canadians for road usage is “still a third rail for incumbent politicians” and because of this there must be “a very public and transparent debate” about the matter.

The author proposes usage fees be collected by a new entity dubbed the National Roads Funds or National Infrastructure fund. He describes this fund as having network-wide responsibility, being financially self-sufficient and holding independent executive authority for deciding which projects get funded.

Projects in modes of transport other than roads would also be allowed to compete for financing from this entity. This would ensure that Canada expands its infrastructure by the most efficient and cost-effective means, Flemming contends.

As an alternative financing mechanism, Flemming proposes the creation of provincial or federal iBanks, or infrastructure banks. Such banks would not be capitalized through usage fees but through a variety of other means that the author outlines. Among the options are having the federal government use some or all of future gas taxes and raising private funds through bonds, preference shares or mortgage-backed securities.

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review. 

By US Daily Review Staff.

Today, the Center for Public Policy Innovation (CPPI), a not-for-profit educational think tank, published a special report on the impact of public policy on strategic business planning & global investment, which identifies several important policy changes that could help strengthen American global competitiveness in the coming years.  The report follows CPPI’s March 21st Public Policy Forum, co-sponsored by the Digital Dialogue Forum (DDF), which brought together Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) from three of America’s leading technology companies – Dell, Qualcomm and NCR – to discuss how public policy impacts strategic business planning, operations, and international trade at United States-based multinational companies.

“The current policy and regulatory environment has made the job of the CFO very challenging from a strategic planning and global investment standpoint,” remarked Chris Long, CPPI’s president and CEO. “Today’s CFO must be integrally involved in every major decision impacting their company – from financial reporting to new corporate investments – to help give them a competitive advantage in today’s rapidly changing global marketplace. This report sheds new light on how public policy can make a significant impact on business decisions that enable American companies to better compete both at home and abroad.”

Key findings from CPPI’s special report include:

Comprehensive Tax Reform is Needed to Help American Companies Compete Globally. Since Japan lowered its corporate income tax rate in April of this year, the United States now holds the highest corporate tax rate in the world among developed nations, with a federal/state integrated rate of 39.2 percent. CPPI’s panelists suggested the U.S. corporate tax rate should be reduced closer to 25.4 percent, which is the average rate for developed countries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Panelists also agreed that moving to a territorial tax system will strengthen American companies’ ability to compete in the global marketplace. “CFOs, CEOs and job creators must work together to achieve a more competitive, pro-growth tax code,” remarked U.S. Congressman Pat Tiberi (R-OH), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, at CPPI’s March forum.

Incentives Attract Corporate Investment. Competitive tax rates and other incentives offered by foreign governments attract American corporate investment while in many cases U.S. policies and regulations deter investment at home. Also, research & development tax credits in countries like China and India provide extended periods of certainty for companies, allowing CFOs to better plan for the future. According to NCR’s CFO Bob Fishman, some local governments in the United States – such as the State of Georgia – have begun to aggressively court corporate investment through targeted tax credits, infrastructure improvements, and ready access to skilled labor.

The Availability of a Highly Skilled Workforce Factors into Corporate Planning. Historically, the United States’ education system attracted the best and brightest students in the world. Today, however, foreign-born students are finding it increasingly difficult to remain in the United States after graduation, due in large part to outdated immigration policies. The United States is also trailing other countries in graduating students with advanced degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The U.S. ranks 27th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving undergraduate degrees in science and engineering and 49th in the quality of math and science education. “The global demand for highly skilled workers is growing and the United States is falling behind. I think we’re at the edge, in some parts of our businesses, of maxing out when it comes to finding and accessing talent here in the U.S. and that’s forcing us to go look in other parts of the world,” noted Dell CFO Brian Gladden.

Global Expansion Boosts Corporate Growth in America. The success of American companies overseas benefits their U.S. operations by making them more profitable, growing their business, and building a more talented and diversified workforce. Another important aspect of global expansion is the formation of strategic global partnerships in emerging markets which will help diversify the risk for multinational U.S. companies. As such, free trade agreements provide a useful framework for how American and foreign businesses interact. As Qualcomm’s CFO Bill Keitel noted, “Without that framework, a company such as Qualcomm, Dell or NCR, can be whipsawed by the local authorities. That framework provides an opportunity for the United States to help American businesses when operating on foreign soil.”

By Jack Mintz and Duanjie Chen, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, Special for US Daily Review. Prepared for a Capitol Hill Briefing.

 Introduction

Even with the anti-corporate rhetoric heard in many places, most countries have either maintained existing corporate income tax rates or reduced their rates in recent years as part of a pro-growth agenda. The countries reducing their rates in 2012 include Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom. No doubt one reason for this policy stance is that rate reductions have generally not hurt corporate tax revenues in OECD countries, partly because lower rates have reduced the amount of profits shifted abroad.[1]

Several proposals have been made in the United States for corporate tax reform to lower rates and make the business tax structure more neutral among economic activities. United States has the highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the world, while also having many special tax preferences directed at specific business activities. This non-competitive and non-neutral tax structure is harmful to the United States in terms of economic growth, and it fails to achieve robust corporate tax revenues because American businesses shift their profits to lower-taxed countries.

We present new estimates of marginal effective tax rates on capital (METR) in 2012. The United States has one of the highest rates at 35.6 percent. By contrast, we estimate that the average METR in the 34 OECD countries is just 19.3 percent. The average METR for all 90 countries in our analysis is just 18.1 percent. The global trend for both statutory corporate tax rates and METRs in recent years has been downward and remains so.

Canada has been one of the leaders on corporate tax reform, and it is the largest trading partner of the United States. It has undergone a series of business tax reforms in the past decade that have resulted in a much lower corporate tax rate and a generally more neutral corporate tax system. These Canadian reforms have included the following:

• A reduction in the combined federal-provincial statutory corporate income tax rate from 43 percent in 2000 to 26 percent in 2012.
• The elimination of corporate capital taxes at the federal and provincial levels in most cases.
• The removal of sales taxes on capital goods with the harmonization of provincial sales taxes with the federal Goods and Services Tax in most provinces except for British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
• The adoption of more neutral capital cost allowances to reflect economic depreciation with some exceptions.
• Scaling back of some investment tax credits and special preferences in certain sectors.

Canada has achieved a much more competitive and neutral corporate tax system with federal and provincial corporate rate reductions. This has resulted in greater investment and economic growth in the past decade as marginal effective tax rates on capital investment (METRs) have sharply declined.

Source: OECD Tax Database and authors’ estimate for 2010 and 2011 based Statistics Canada, Cansim Tables 380-0022 and 380-0016.

Figure 1 shows that despite a 20 percent reduction in corporate tax rates on large and medium size businesses and the 2009 recession, corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP in Canada have remained almost constant. One reason is that multinational corporations are shifting more profits into Canada because of the lower tax rates[2].

Canada is much more tax competitive for capital investments compared to the United States. The United States now has one of the least competitive corporate tax systems. As we show in Table 1 below, the United States effective tax rates on capital investments is one of the highest in the world, taking into account corporate income taxes, capital-related taxes, and sales taxes on capital purchases.

The upshot is that the United States should reform corporate income taxes by reducing the rate to internationally competitive levels and broadening the tax base to achieve a more equal tax burden among businesses. The Canadian experience shows that this approach to tax reform yields significant benefits in both investment and taxes.

Some Specifics

As in our past cross-border tax comparative studies, we rank countries for their business tax competitiveness as measured by their marginal effective tax rate on capital (METR)[3] in a descending order: the higher the METR as shown in our ranking tables, the lower the associated tax competitiveness.

The estimates of marginal effective tax rates on new investment in this report are based on a methodology summarized in Duanjie Chen and Jack Mintz, “Taxing Business Investments: A New Ranking of Effective Tax Rates on Capital,” World Bank, 2008. Our model assumes a multinational company seeking to maximize value for its projects around the world, raising equity and debt financing from international markets. The company minimizes its cost of finance by choosing an optimal debt and dividend policy, taking into account tax and non-tax factors that influence financial decisions (independent of the investment decision). The cost of equity and debt is determined by international markets and is independent of the availability of a domestic savings in a small open economy. Therefore, personal income taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains do not affect the multinational’s cost of financing even though those personal taxes do effect personal savings decisions.

To calculate the effective tax rate on new investments, similar investment projects in manufacturing and service industries are assumed in each country. The same capital structure for eight industries (manufacturing, construction, utilities, communications, transport, wholesale trade, retail trade, and other services) is assumed across countries, using data for capital stock weights developed by the Canadian government agency, Finance Canada. We also use Statistics Canada’s recently estimated economic depreciation rates, and apply them across all countries. For country-specific inflation rates and industrial structures (i.e., the relative GDP share between manufacturing and services sector that includes all non-manufacturing, non-resource and non-agricultural industries), we rely on the latest statistics published on the International Financial Statistics except for Canada and the United States, for which we obtained capital share by industry from the Canadian government agency.

* Canada’s marginal effective tax rate on capital is for 2014 when the temporary fast write-off for manufacturing and processing assets will end and the reversal of sales tax harmonization in British Columbia will be completed. Without these changes, the METR is currently below 17%.

** The 10 emerging economies included in the G-20 are the following: Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey.

Notes:

1. The pre-2012 numbers differ from our previous report mainly because of the expansion of the number of OECD countries (from 30 to 34) and our total country coverage (from 80 to 90 countries). As explained in the text, updating non-tax parameters also made a difference to the calculations.
2. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
3. While Japan reduced its CIT rate on April 1, 2012, France raised its rate for large corporations through a surcharge to above the 2005 level.

(With G7 countries in bold)

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review. 

From Fox News

He was living the American Dream — and then he abandoned America.

Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who made billions off the world’s most popular social network, stands to rake in about $3.84 billion from his 4 percent share of Facebook, Bloomberg reported.

Saverin will have to pay millions in taxes on the money he makes — so he chose instead to renounce his U.S. citizenship.

The Brazilian born Internet entrepreneur’s name turned up on an April 30 list published quarterly by the Internal Revenue Service of people who have chose to expatriate. Tom Goodman, a spokesman for Saverin, told Bloomberg the move was “practical.”

“Eduardo recently found it more practical to become a resident of Singapore since he plans to live there for an indefinite period of time,” said Tom Goodman, a spokesman for Saverin, in an e-mailed statement.

America citizens pay several taxes, including taxes on salary and investments. Saverin would be hit with about $600 million in capital gains taxes whenever he sold the Facebook shares (or “realized the income,” in financial speak).

Singapore has no capital gains taxes.

Saverin was chief financial officer and business manager at Facebook, until he was forced out of the company — a dramatic tale described in the fictional 2010 film “The Social Network,” directed by David Fincher.

He settled out of court with co-founder Mark Zuckerberg for an undisclosed amount of money, but still owns shares in the company.

A Facebook spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for more information.

But even if he’s no longer…(read more)

By US Daily Review Staff.

Without swift policy changes, America faces unprecedented government spending, debt and taxation in 2013, according to the newly released graphics from The Heritage Foundation’s2012 Federal Budget in Pictures series.

While tax revenue levels have been low for the past few years as America struggled to recover from the recession, they are set to explode past 20 percent of the economy beginning next year. That’s when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts could expire and new Obamacare taxes will begin.

The tax graphic is part of a series of charts that Heritage annually updates and releases as an informative book, illustrating the nation’s government spending, tax rates, entitlement growth and rising debt.

At the same time that Americans face what The Washington Post calls “Taxmageddon,” Washington’s federal spending continues to rise above unsustainable levels. This year, the federal government will spend about $30,015 per U.S. household. That figure is projected to shoot up to $34,602 in just 10 years.

“We cannot afford high taxes and spending on top of unprecedented deficits and debt,” says Emily Goff, Heritage research associate and co-author of the Federal Budget in Pictures.

The Obama administration has failed to propose the necessary cuts to rein in spending and bring down deficits, which have far outpaced previous administrations. While past presidents have overseen deficits that historically averaged about 2 percent of the economy, President Obama has run deficits averaging at 8.3 percent of the gross domestic product.

This has driven up every American’s share of the debt to $36,267 in 2012. By 2036, this figure would be nearly the same as medical school tuition at $135,547—only without a degree to show for it.

“The major entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as Obamacare—drive so much of our runaway spending and future deficits,” says Romina Boccia, Heritage research coordinator and co-author. “Congress won’t get a handle on our twin fiscal crises until it begins work on true entitlement and budget reforms.”

The online Federal Budget in Pictures lets visitors download, post, and e-mail any of the graphics. It also provides links to relevant Heritage research and tools for bookmarking, embedding and information-sharing through Twitter, Facebook and RSS feeds.

According to a statement, “The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with more than 710,000 donors. Founded in 1973, it develops public policy solutions that advance free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional values and a strong national defense.”

Sponsored: Get a free copy of Kevin Price’s best selling book, How Many Revolt’s Required. Endorsed by Dick Armey and others, simply send email info@usdailyreview.com! State “free book” on the subject line.

By US Daily Review Staff.

In March 2011, Illinois House Bill 3659 became law, aiming to require online retailers located outside of Illinois to collect use (sales) tax on transactions made by Illinois consumers. Under the law, online retailers who did not have physical storefronts or employees in Illinois would be forced to meet these burdensome tax collection obligations so long as they maintained relationships with Illinois website affiliates. Most online retailers terminated these relationships rather than be subject to the new law.

As a result, many thriving online affiliate marketing websites, including CouponCabin, were forced to relocate to nearby states to maintain business operations. This is one of the latent results of such public policy. This law was designed to help the state of Illinois to raise additional revenue, instead it led to businesses being chased to other states.

The Performance Marketing Association (PMA) subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law, Illinois Circuit Court Case No. 2011 CH 26333. In a ruling issued last week, the court has declared the law invalid and unconstitutional.

In response to the law being invalidated, CouponCabin.com Founder and CEO Scott Kluth issued the below statement:

“CouponCabin is thrilled to hear the news about the affiliate tax being declared invalid in Illinois. We are relieved that the 9,000 affiliates that were based in Illinois may now have the opportunity to operate in Illinois without jeopardizing their business relationships with online retailers. This ruling places the responsibility for a solution back where it belongs: in Congress. CouponCabin continues to strongly support a federal solution to the taxation of all online transactions. For now, CouponCabin is heads down on helping people save money.”

According to a company statement, “CouponCabin.com is a leading online destination for coupons including online coupon codes, printables, grocery coupons and more. Shoppers have saved nearly $350 million since 2003 and with the largest selection of coupons guaranteed to work, CouponCabin is the best place to start searching for savings. The average user saves $19 in just 80 seconds on the site. With customized email newsletters, browser savings alerts, new coupon alerts and more, shoppers will never miss out on a great deal with CouponCabin.

By US Daily Review Staff.

Michigan has been known for years for having one of the most anti-business environments in the country and is now working to overcome that reputation. In recent years it has tacked some challenging fiscal issues and a tax environment that is very hostile to business. Although its labor practices remain one of the most hostile to business in the country and that continues to be a sacred cow, policy makers continue to make efforts towards reform.

The Michigan Business & Professional Association released a statement that “applauds the state legislature for taking the next logical step to boost capital investment in Michigan and ensure long-term growth – by starting Senate Finance Committee hearings on eliminating the Michigan Personal Property Tax on businesses.”

This tax, which is assessed on non-permanent business property such as machinery, furniture, and computers, costsMichigan businesses approximately $1.2 billion per year in direct collections. However, what is often not considered are the extra costs associated with paperwork and inventory to comply with the tax rules. This is extra money which could otherwise be devoted to truly productive investments, like added employees, increased wages, or further capital improvements.

“Many of our neighboring states, including Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin, have eliminated this outdated tax, having realized the burden it places on businesses both small and large, and without a significant decrease in overall revenues,” said MBPA President Jennifer Kluge.

Currently, local governmental units and school districts receive about 80 percent of personal property tax revenue. However, in many cases, the communities themselves have over the years given up much of this revenue by granting personal property tax abatements requested by companies wishing to update or expand their facilities.

“In short, the tax is antiquated, cumbersome, and does not provide the desired ‘bang for the buck’ in providing local tax revenue,” said Kluge. “Our association understands that a solution must include a way to help local communities and school districts make up for any lost revenue, which remains a major barrier to seeing the end of this tax. There are a number of alternative solutions which may satisfy all parties.”

Kluge noted that the bills introduced by Michigan senators on April 17, 2012, would put in place a small business personal property tax exemption beginning December 31, 2012 in which all industrial and commercial personal property with a taxable value of less than $40,000 becomes exempt. The $40,000 exemption is applied in each local jurisdiction in which a business taxpayer owns property, so a single firm with multiple small locations, such as a chain restaurant, could receive multiple exemptions. Above $40,000 in taxable value, there is no exemption. This will eliminate 75% to 80% of the personal property tax returns filed annually and save significant time and money for both small businesses and local governments.

“The discussion on this tax is crucial to hear everyone’s voice and to construct mutually agreed-to tax policies to help businesses, and make Michigan the ‘go-to’ state for investment and jobs,” concluded Kluge.

According to a statement, the group is “based in Warren, Mich., the MBPA is the largest business organization of small to medium-sized businesses in Michigan, representing more than 20,000 members who employ over 160,0000 persons. Members include attorneys, physicians, architects, accountants, construction companies, banks, retail, wholesalers, manufacturers and the like.  Member businesses receive numerous benefits including free legal and financial consultations; discounted technology, automotive and office products; employee training and recruitment assistance; and competitive group insurance rates. The MBPA is a sister association to the Michigan Food & Beverage Association (MFBA).”

Sponsored: Get a free copy of Kevin Price’s best selling book, How Many Revolt’s Required. Endorsed by Dick Armey and others, simply send email info@usdailyreview.com! State “free book” on the subject line.

By US Daily Review Staff.

Generation Opportunity’s national and state grassroots field teams began their first major sweep through North Carolina last week, meeting with and listening to young adults at a wide variety of college and community venues including the Charlotte, Chapel Hill, Jamestown, Greensboro, and Raleigh areas.

The grassroots team visited the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, Central Piedmont Community College, Guilford Technical Community College, UNC Greensboro, Wake Technical Community College, UNC Charlotte, and NC State University. Last fall, Generation Opportunity grassroots organizers also met with and trained students from High Point University, Campbell University, Gardner-Webb University, and Craven Community College at the 2011 American Student Government Association (ASGA) Conference. In addition to the campus visits, the team focused on outreach to young professionals at a farmers market and “Earth Day Extravaganza” in downtown Raleigh, at the Women’s Small Business Expo in Charlotte, and also at the Cuegrass Festival in Raleigh.

“We ask ourselves each day whether we can foot the gas bill to get to work or visit home, whether we will be able to find a sustainable career when we graduate, and for how long the weight of this economic downturn will sit on our shoulders. Young people demand and deserve answers from our elected leaders, answers that demonstrate they recognize and understand our concerns. We need action, not platitudes,” said UNC Chapel Hill freshman Trevor Brownlow, 18, of Emerald Isle, North Carolina.

The Generation Opportunity field organizers traveled to the state to hear firsthand the personal stories of young adults seeking greater economic opportunity and access to meaningful, full-time jobs in their chosen career paths. Generation Opportunity has been meeting with young adults attending community colleges and universities, those who work in the trades and professions, young entrepreneurs, construction workers, veterans, and young parents who are concerned about the poor economy and the lack of jobs.

“Based on comments directly from hundreds of young people we are meeting with and listening to, the top issues of concern, directly impacting young people’s daily lives and forcing them to delay dreams and plans for the future, are high gas prices, the ongoing poor economy, and the lack of jobs. Limited job opportunities and delayed dreams for our generation are just not fair. Young people want results – they want access to jobs and the ability to plan for their futures. They are experiencing firsthand a very different reality,” said Evan Flores, Director of Field Operations for Generation Opportunity.

Flores continued, “Similar to those we have met with and signed up in Michigan, Virginia, New Hampshire, Missouri, and other states, young people in North Carolina are tired of the status quo and elected leaders who lack empathy and understanding for what young people deal with every day. The response to our message of greater opportunity and more jobs has been overwhelming, and our efforts to organize young adults across the state – both online and at the grassroots level – have been rapidly expanding.”

At each event, young North Carolinians shared their personal stories, expressing their struggles finding meaningful jobs in their chosen career path due to the poor economy and explaining how high gas prices have negatively impacted their limited budgets. They also expressed an eagerness for solutions from Washington leaders in both parties and are frustrated with the lack of results.

Generation Opportunity commissioned a poll with the polling company, inc./WomanTrend (April 16 – 22, 2011, +/- 4% margin of error) and highlighted results for all young Americans ages 18-29 appears below:

Young Americans – American Energy Dependency is Top National and Economic Security Issue:

• Greatest threats to national security: National Debt (62%), Energy Dependency (61%), and Indebtedness to Foreign Powers (50%).
• 70% would increase production of domestic energy sources like oil, natural gas, and coal.

Young Americans – Delayed Dreams from a Poor Economy and the Lack of Opportunity:

• 77% of young people ages 18-29 either have or will delay a major life change or purchase due to economic factors:
  • 44% delay buying a home;
  • 28% delay saving for retirement;
  • 27% delay paying off student loans or other debt;
  • 27% delay going back to school/getting more education or training;
  • 26% delay changing jobs/cities;
  • 23% delay starting a family;
  • 18% delay getting married.

Young Americans – Majority Disapprove of President Obama’s Management of Youth Unemployment, Washington Out-of-Touch:

• Just 31% of 18 – 29 year-olds approve of President Obama’s handling of youth unemployment.
• 69% say the current leadership in Washington fails to reflect the interests of the younger generation.
• 59% of overall Millennials agree the economy grows best when individuals are allowed to create businesses without government interference.

Sponsor: Prefer your news “fair and balanced”? Fox News.

By US Daily Review Staff.

House Republican leaders continue to take an approach to economic recovery predicated on the idea of stimulating activity where jobs are created.  While the Democrats have focused on social spending to try to buffer the pain of poverty, GOP members in the House believe that their needs to be more incentives for businesses to create jobs.

Kevin Brady (R-TX) is the top Republican in the Joint Economic Committee. Yesterday, Brady and several of his colleagues introduced a bill designed to dramatically cut taxes on small business.  Below is that press conference.

The participants were: Kevin Brady (R-TX), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL), Pete Olson (R-TX), Erik Paulsen (R-MN) Bobby Schilling (R-IL)

By the National Small Business Association, Special for US Daily Review.

The National Small Business Association (NSBA) today released the 2012 Small Business Taxation Survey which provides detailed insight on how America’s small-business community is being impacted by federal taxes. In short: complexity and inconsistency within the tax code pose a significant and increasing problem. The ever-growing patchwork of credits, deductions, tax hikes and sunset dates is a roller coaster ride without the slightest indication of what’s around the next corner. This is unsustainable and unacceptable.

“Nearly half of all small-business owners spend 80 hours every year dealing with federal taxes, and two-thirds spend more than one full week,” stated NSBA Chair Chris Holman, CEO of Michigan Business Network.com and President of The Greater Lansing Business Monthly. “This is an unnecessary and massively unfair drain on an already-struggling small-business community.”

Underscoring the complexity of the federal tax code is the fact that 85 percent of small-business owners must pay an external tax practitioner or accountant to handle their taxes. Furthermore, when asked to rate the most significant challenge posed by the federal tax code to their business, the majority (56 percent) picked administrative burdens while 44 percent said financial burdens.

In terms of specific small-business taxes, respondents were asked to rate them both in terms of financial and administrative burden, and payroll taxes, state and local taxes, property taxes, sales tax and income taxes rounded out the top five.

Small businesses expressed moderate to significant concern over the following expired, or soon to expire tax provisions: a pending increase in the marginal income tax rates (74 percent); increases in the estate tax (58 percent); prohibiting self-employed from fully deducting the cost of their health insurance (53 percent); and expiration of the expanded Section 179 expensing and bonus depreciation (52 percent.)

“The overwhelming majority of small-business owners support broad reform of the federal tax code—not tinkering with certain taxes here and there,” stated NSBA President Todd McCracken. “Lawmakers must work toward broad reform, and they must do it now.”

Please click here to view the survey.

Sponsor great articles like this at an incredibly competitive price!

By Malcolm Out Loud, Contributor, US Daily Review.

I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is that you have an extra day to pay up as the 15th falls on a Sunday this year.
The bad news – you’ve worked for the first 107 days of 2012 just to earn enough to pay your federal, state, and local taxes. And by the way – the date is four days later than in 2011, meaning that taxes across the board have gone up this year, this is according to the Tax Foundation, which computes Tax Freedom Day each year. This year Tax Freedom Day arrives on Tuesday, April 17, seven days later than in 2009, the year President Obama took office. I have more bad news for you: President Obama’s class warfare is alive and well!

Unemployment is up, consumer confidence is down, every one of the 50 U.S. States is in a budget crisis and… President Obama wants to raise taxes on those that contribute the most to the U.S. economy… does this make sense to you? If you have not heard of the Buffet Rule before, enjoy this: according to the White House website: “Under the current U.S. tax system, a number of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a significant proportion of middle class families. Warren Buffett, for example, pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, and that’s not fair. [...] Anyone who does well for themselves should do their fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead—not just a few. ” Sounds good in theory, right? however, once you start to dig in a little deeper, it all falls apart.

First off, how do you define rich? According to the Federal Reserve, the top 5% of Americans have a net worth of $1.4 million and up. Why 5%? why not 10% or 1%? Once you poll American themselves on what they consider being “rich”, the answers are quite diverse:  A new survey by Chicago-based Spectrem Group on the Millionaire Corner  asked affluent households (as defined by those with assets of $500,000 or more) how much it takes to be rich.
22% said $1 million is enough to be rich.
45% said $5 million or more.
25% said $25 million or more.
8% said $100 million.
So who’s rich and who’s not? Do you know?

Furthermore, not all folks making the same income make it through the same means.. some receive mostly a salary, others own businesses, and others receive income from investments. Each group of “rich” people receive a very different set of credits, exclusions or deductions.. You start to get the picture: a so-called simple rule is no more than a political soundbite.. The real problem is that we are again engaged in class warfare. It is very troubling that in a country that was founded on  the power of aspirations, hard work and ambition, the administration’s political rhetoric is to demonize those that embody those values.
Remember, Americans on average will pay almost 30 percent of their total income in taxes this year, more than on groceries, clothing, and shelter combined. Maybe we would all sleep better tonight if we knew that Washington had a grip on our budget or had some accountability on where our precious hard earned dollars went!

Time to Get Involved, Get Loud & Think on the Brink

About Malcolm Out Loud:
 Social and political news commentator Malcolm Out Loud is also the host of WebTV show Malcolm Out Loud TV, an acclaimed motivational speaker, founder of Brink Thinking and the author of the book Smash The Competition. More about him at www.MalcolmOutLoud.TV

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review. 

By the Price of Business, Radio Partners of US Daily Review.

By Doug and Polly White, Contributors, US Daily Review.

There has been tremendous hoopla regarding Mitt Romney’s income tax rate. His tax returns show that he paid something just less than 15-percent―the capital gains tax rate. That makes sense. Most of his income was derived from dividends and capital gains. Further, Mitt gave a lot of money to charity, so he had deductions. Still, this seems a small percentage compared to the income taxes paid by many working class Americans. Warren Buffett has famously proclaimed that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. Something must be wrong!

Both of these examples are used to support higher taxes favored by the political left. They are also over simplifications that obscure the truth. The reason is that while ordinary income is taxed only once, at the personal level; capital gains are taxed twice, both at the personal level and at the corporate level.

Consider an individual, who owns a share of stock of a particular company. We’ll call this person Mitt. This means that Mitt owns a part of that company. In effect, he owns a share of the profit of the company. Let’s also say that this company has an employee. We’ll call him Barack. He represents the working class.

After all expenses but tax, the company has earned some amount of money. Let’s say that Mitt’s share of the pretax earnings is $1 (based on the fact that he owns one share of stock). There are two scenarios. First, the company could use the dollar to pay Barack additional compensation, the way that most working class Americans derive their income. Alternatively, Mitt could receive the money as a dividend distribution. Let’s look at how taxes play out under each scenario.

If Barack receives the one dollar as compensation, the company won’t have to pay taxes on the dollar. Paying employees is a pretax expense for businesses. However, Barack will have to pay ordinary income taxes on this money. Let’s say that his marginal tax rate is 35% (that’s probably a high estimate, but we’ll err on the side of conservatism). That means that Barack will pay $0.35 in income tax and he will get to keep $0.65.

Now, let’s consider the scenario where the company decided to pay a dividend with this pretax dollar. In this case, the company would have to pay taxes on the dollar. Let’s say that the company’s marginal tax rate is 35%. The company will pay $0.35 in corporate taxes and Mitt will receive $0.65 in dividends. However, Mitt will still have to pay a 15% tax on the dividend. Therefore, he will have to pay almost $0.10 of additional tax and will be left with only about $0.55.

In summary, if the company paid Barack one dollar of compensation, he would get to keep $0.65 after tax. If the company used the same pretax dollar to pay Mitt a dividend, he gets only $0.55 after tax, because the money is taxed both at the corporate level and at the individual level. Although Mitt’s tax rate looks to be 15%, the government actually nets almost 30% more money ($0.45 instead of $0.35)! So, if the taxes that the company paid on Mitt’s share of the earnings are added to the 15% that Mitt paid personally, the effective tax rate was actually 45% compared to Barack’s effective tax rate of 35%!

When people, including President Obama, say that those paying capital gains tax are paying less than those paying ordinary income tax, they are ignoring the fact that the capital gains have already been taxed at the corporate level. They are not mentioning that the fifteen percent tax at the personal level is a second bite at the apple. They are telling a half-truth that supports their call for higher taxes, but distorts reality. Yes, those paying capital gains taxes should pay their fair share, and they already are.

These are the facts. We realize that this will upset some people because the facts don’t support their economic or political agenda. We fully expect to get angry responses. Still, that doesn’t change reality.

Doug and Polly White are Principals at Whitestone Partners; a management-consulting firm that helps small businesses build the infrastructure they need to grow profitably. They are also coauthors of the groundbreaking new book, Let Go to GROW; why some businesses thrive and others fail to reach their potential (Palari Publishing 2011) which was named a Best Business Book of 2011 by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). The book explains how entrepreneurs can avoid the most common pitfalls as their businesses grow and is available atwww.WhitestonePartnersInc.com   

By Greg Crabtree, CPA, Special for US Daily Review.

Every business owner knows the drill; we made a profit this year so we need to spend our cash to save on taxes.  I want to challenge you to think differently this year to “save cash” not “save taxes.”

The inherent flaw in spending your cash is that you have to spend a dollar to save 40 cents in tax.  Last time I checked, that just seems like a bad idea.  Every year, you come up with every excuse to go ahead and spend money that you think you would have spent anyway.  You buy new computers, you buy some extra supplies that you always use, buy a new vehicle because you heard you can “write off.”

My argument is that if you did without all of those costs up to December, maybe you did not need to spend it after all!  My most successful entrepreneurs spend a dollar at the last possible moment it is needed.

Build Wealth or Save Taxes?

You can only build wealth from “after tax” income, so every attempt to lower your taxes lowers your ability to create wealth.  The number one key performance indicator of wealth creation is “how big of a check did your write to the IRS.”  If you did not write a big check, you either cheated or you did not make any money, both are bad.  Do not pay more taxes than you should, but you should be focused on building wealth above savings taxes.

By Sarah Nelson, EdD, Contributor, US Daily Review.

This year we get to decide whether or not President Obama deserves another term in office. Having promised to fundamentally transform America in 2008, our credit rating has been downgraded, our debt has been increased by 30%, house hold income has declined by 10%, 14 million additional Americans are on food stamps and 15 million Americans are either unemployed or under employed.  This is the state of the Union as voters decide between a system that empowers citizens to invest their money with limited government interference or a system that empowers government to dictate how and where citizens invest their money.

So far, Governor Romney has been the candidate whose business experience has come under attack as he continues to defend an ideology that supports economic freedom.  SuperPAC’S supporting Gingrich and Obama have spent ample time describing to Americans what they call ‘unacceptable capitalism’ or what most people call venture capitalism. Attacking venture capitalism as Gingrich, Obama, and Michael Moore have done begs the question: Do Americans want government to dictate to citizens how and where to invest their private capital by defining what is ‘acceptable’ in the free market of ideas and talents?  The way we respond to this question will have a large impact on our economic freedom and future.

I learned the importance of economic freedom as a teenager when our family in Kenya hired a worker from Tanzania.  Kenya and Tanzania gained independence in 1961, but by the mid 1980’s, Mary needed to find work in Kenya because she couldn’t get work in Tanzania. I learned from her stories the devastating impact of living in a country that promotes the alternative to capitalism. The President of the Republic of Tanzania, Dr. Julius Nyerere, forged a close relationship with Mao to address poverty in Tanzania. This joint vision was described in the Arusha Declaration of 1967 as follows:  “The objective of socialism in the United Republic of Tanzania is to build a society in which all members have equal rights and equal opportunities; in which all can live in peace with their neighbours without suffering or imposing injustice, being exploited, or exploiting; and in which all have a gradually increasing basic level of material welfare before any individual lives in luxury.” (Nyerere 1968: 340). This system of government is what led Mary to leave her 3 year old son with her mother in Tanzania to look for work in Kenya. There is no good alternative to capitalism and we must defend it to protect our Economic Freedom in 2012.

Having witnessed the alternative to capitalism in Tanzania, I was genuinely alarmed to hear Obama first, then Newt Gingrich, lobbying for a limited type of ‘capitalism’ whereby government or politicians define to ‘acceptable forms of capitalism’. Capitalism is the only system that has produced social mobility and equal opportunity for citizens by allowing citizens to invest their money with limited government interference. Someone invested in the talent or ideas of Tiger Woods, Steve Jobs, Will Smith, Michael Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, Oprah Winfrey, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney in forming successful joint ventures that benefited Americans. Economic freedom creates opportunities for everyone to get rewarded for their talent and ideas. If Americans support Newt’s ideology that all capitalism isn’t equal and venture capitalism should be demonized then we should ask ourselves which segment of capitalism should government or politicians attempt to demonize or eliminate next?

While you may not be a venture capitalist, your industry may be next in a system where government or politicians define what is acceptable. For example: writing a book or producing a movie may be at risk of being limited in a system where government dictates what is ‘acceptable’ to its citizens.  Ambassador Terry Miller explains “In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state.”  Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal explained Romney’s work as a venture capitalist was beneficial because “he put his talent for calm, careful analysis to work helping American businesses adapt to the onrushing challenges of globalization and technological change…What does this have to do with the presidency? Perhaps not much, but one thing he didn’t learn at Bain Capital was to twiddle his thumbs because taking action might make somebody mad at him. That’s not the worst qualification to bring to the Oval Office right now.”  In 2012, vote to defend and promote economic freedom from sea to shining sea because the alternative is what should be termed as unacceptable in the free market of talent and ideas.

In freedom lies the risk of failure. But in statism lies the certainty of stagnation.

By Jeb Bush

This column appeared in the Wall Street Journal December 19, 2011

Congressman Paul Ryan recently coined a smart phrase to describe the core concept of economic freedom: “The right to rise.”

Think about it. We talk about the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly. The right to rise doesn’t seem like something we should have to protect.

But we do. We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

That is what economic freedom looks like. Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or nothing. People understand this. Freedom of speech, for example, means that we put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.

But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles of growth and loss, of trial and error, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand “Do something . . . anything.”

As Florida’s governor for eight years, I was asked to “do something” almost every day. Many times I resisted through vetoes but many times I succumbed. And I wasn’t alone. Mayors, county chairs, governors and presidents never think their laws will harm the free market. But cumulatively, they do, and we have now imperiled the right to rise.

Woe to the elected leader who fails to deliver a multipoint plan for economic success, driven by specific government action. “Trust in the dynamism of the market” is not a phrase in today’s political lexicon.

Have we lost faith in the free-market system of entrepreneurial capitalism? Are we no longer willing to place our trust in the creative chaos unleashed by millions of people pursuing their own best economic interests?

The right to rise does not require a libertarian utopia to exist. Rather, it requires fewer, simpler and more outcome-oriented rules. Rules for which an honest cost-benefit analysis is done before their imposition. Rules that sunset so they can be eliminated or adjusted as conditions change. Rules that have disputes resolved faster and less expensively through arbitration than litigation.

In Washington, D.C., rules are going in the opposite direction. They are exploding in reach and complexity. They are created under a cloud of uncertainty, and years after their passage nobody really knows how they will work.

We either can go down the road we are on, a road where the individual is allowed to succeed only so much before being punished with ruinous taxation, where commerce ignores government action at its own peril, and where the state decides how a massive share of the economy’s resources should be spent.

Or we can return to the road we once knew and which has served us well: a road where individuals acting freely and with little restraint are able to pursue fortune and prosperity as they see fit, a road where the government’s role is not to shape the marketplace but to help prepare its citizens to prosper from it.

In short, we must choose between the straight line promised by the statists and the jagged line of economic freedom. The straight line of gradual and controlled growth is what the statists promise but can never deliver. The jagged line offers no guarantees but has a powerful record of delivering the most prosperity and the most opportunity to the most people. We cannot possibly know in advance what freedom promises for 312 million individuals. But unless we are willing to explore the jagged line of freedom, we will be stuck with the straight line. And the straight line, it turns out, is a flat line.

Mr. Bush, a Republican, was governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007.

This column can be found on the Wall Street Journal website.

By Kevin Price, Publisher and Editor in Chief, US Daily Review.

By Dave Smith

There is an upshot to the abundance of candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the Presidency and the multitude of debates being staged:  an intense competition for supporters and media attention.  Led by Herman Cain’s aggressive “9-9-9” proposal (profiled here), the other major candidates have been rolling out fairly detailed plans to simplify what nearly everyone — left, right, and  center — acknowledges is a bloated, inefficient, and overly complex tax system.  It is a definite positive that the question isn’t whether or not we need to reform our tax code, but how.

The two latest additions to the tax reform parade are flat tax proposals by Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.  Like 9-9-9, both seek to streamline and simplify the tax code and do so in a way that would promote capital investment and economic growth.  Unfortunately, both plans are possessive of several flaws.

The Perry and Gingrich proposals have much in common.  Both are voluntary; that is, neither would do away with the current byzantine code.  Rather, individuals, families, and businesses could choose whether to file under one code or the other.  The means, however, that the current code would stay in place, and rather than reducing the time and energy required to file a tax return, it would increase as each filer would check both systems to see which provided the lower tax rate.  All those loopholes, deductions, and government-directed benefits would remain in place for those fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of them.  Big businesses that can afford an array of tax accountants and lawyers would have an even bigger advantage over resource-strapped small businesses.  While this would be a sort of “stimulus” plan for tax preparers, dueling tax codes would not be beneficial overall.

Both flat tax proposals retain the deductions for home ownership and charitable contributions (although Perry would phase out these deductions for high-income earners).  The downside to this is that the government would continue to incentivize home purchases over renting.  Particularly when viewed with the hindsight perspective of the economic problems of the past few years, does it make sense to continue to have the government direct people towards home ownership?  And while maintaining the charitable deduction fits with the conservative idea that private charity is superior to government programs, removing that deduction could facilitate a lower rate.  Both plans greatly increase the standard deduction for individuals – $12,500 for Perry, $12,000 for Gingrich – and both would eliminate the tax on inheritances.

The dueling plans do part ways in some areas.  Perry sets the flat rate at 20%, applicable to individuals and corporations; Gingrich cuts it even further:  15% for individuals and 12.5% for corporations.  Perry’s plan allows for deductibility of state and local taxes, meaning that earners in low-tax locales subsidize the government spending of those in high-tax locales, lessening the incentive for downward pressure on those high-tax regimes; Gingrich proposes to eliminate this deduction.  The Perry proposal eliminates the capital gains tax on long-term investments, while Gingrich makes no distinction and eliminates the tax altogether.  Perry’s tax ends the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child tax credit; Gingrich would retain them.

In dealing with businesses, under Gingrich’s plan a company could expense new equipment purchases in one year, rather than having to deal with depreciation schedules, but tax credits for research and development are eliminated.  His plan doesn’t appear to address the issue of repatriated corporate business income, i.e., profits earned by businesses outside US borders that could be invested domestically if not subjected to one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  Perry does retain the R&D tax credits, but provides a temporary low rate on repatriated past profits of 5.6%, moving towards a “territorial” tax system whereby such profits are not taxed at all unless earned domestically.

Both plans are preferable to the current US tax code in spite of their faults, and, in contrast to the Cain 9-9-9 plan, neither creates a new layer of taxation.  None of the proposed plans, however, recognizes the political reality that a 0% rate on capital gains is unfeasible due to the “Buffet Rule”-type demagoguery that it would engender.  By being “optional”, the Perry and Gingrich proposals would, at least initially, further complicate the tax code rather than simplify it.  And, there is a question as to the “revenue neutral” status of the plans – while claiming to catalyze economic growth, with record deficits and seemingly ever-increasing national debt, a tax plan that doesn’t at least provide the same revenues in the short run as the current code is going to have a hard time generating support in Congress.

By putting out serious, detailed plans, however, Cain, Perry, and now Gingrich have created an intellectually-competitive atmosphere.  Other Republican candidates — and ultimately President Obama in the general election – are now on the defensive:  either propose your own alternative tax plan, or somehow try to explain support for the current unpopular, complex, inefficient system.  That’s a welcome debate.

Born in the same county as Davy Crockett in East Tennessee, Dave Smith has been living in Texas for over 10 years and involved in politics in for over 15 years.  He has been blogging for nearly 10 years, has contributed to Town Hall Magazine and other publications, and has been on ABC and Fox discussing election issues.  He is a graduate of Tennessee Tech University with a degree in chemical engineering.

By Steve Parkhurst, Senior Editor for US Daily Review.

The House Republicans Thursday released a pretty interesting graphic depicting a few reasons why Congress should support a Balanced Budget Amendment.

As can be seen in the image below, even if the Balanced Budget Amendment does not become law, there are still enormous problems within the federal government that need to be fundamentally transformed.  One of the most appalling figures to me is that 40 cents of every 1 dollar this country spends in borrowed money.  How does a county dig out from that kind of debt? How would an individual do it?

You don’t have to be a partisan, one way or the other, to see that we have major problems at the federal level. This starts at the local level though. The people of every community must start taking back their country. This isn’t done the way the parasites of Occupy Wall Street have done it. It is done by getting down to your city hall, your county government offices and even the school boards. Start forcing all governments to justify their spending.  Run for office yourself if you have to. The federal government is doing too many things that can be handled at the local level, and when the federal government gets involved, costs go up while efficiency and effectiveness go down.

Seriously. 40 cents for every one dollar. When does it stop? Will we eventually be borrowing $1.25 for every $1.00?

Steve Parkhurst is a political consultant, a writer at his blog as well as a Senior Editor here at US Daily Review, where he maintains the Across The Pond feature. Follow Steve on Twitter @SteveParkhurst

By US Daily Review staff.

Leaders of Republican conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a jobs plan this week that, according to the House Republican Study Committee, “focuses on lowering taxes, cutting burdensome business regulations and getting American energy companies back to work in the United States.”

The Jobs Through Growth plan is being proposed by the Republican Study Committee which includes over 170 conservatives and Tea Party freshmen lawmakers. In contrast to President Obama’s jobs plan which relies on a second round of stimulus spending, the conservatives’ plan focuses on “getting government out of the way of job creators in America.”  The House Republican Study Committee is an organization that members of Congress join and share the costs of the group. Unlike the Republican caucus itself, this group is made up of individuals who want to be recognized as supporters of limited government.

“This is about keeping America open for business by cutting red tape, making the tax code simpler, tearing down barriers to more American-made energy and growing the economy – not the government,” said Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, a long-time member of the House conservatives.  Two of Brady’s tax proposals are highlighted in the new plan: abolishing the Death Tax and tax relief to bring profits back from overseas to be invested in the American economy.  Although the “Death Tax” elimination has had mixed reviews, there has been considerable interest in providing tax incentives to businesses to give them a reason to move back to the United States.

Brady, a senior member of the tax-writing Ways & Means Committee, is leading the charge in Congress to permanently abolish the estate tax – often called the Death Tax – once and for all.  Brady’s bill has bi-partisan support with 72 sponsors in the House.

“The Death Tax remains the number one reason family businesses and farms aren’t passed down to the next generation in America. It’s long past time for this terrible tax to be repealed forever,” he said.

Brady is also promoting the leading free-market alternative to the President’s stimulus spending. His Freedom to Invest Act temporarily lowers the tax gate to allow an estimated $1.2 trillion in U.S. profits stranded overseas to flow back into America within the year to “create jobs, increase research and development, expand facilities and strengthen the U.S. economy.”

A recent study estimates his measure – often termed repatriation – would create up to three million new jobs and increase the U.S. economy by 1 to 4 percent.

“Rather than borrowing money America doesn’t have to create jobs we never see, which is what the President proposes in his second stimulus, why not bring back a trillion dollars of American profits from overseas and invest it now in American jobs and expansion?” asked Brady.

By Jennifer Williams, Contributor, US Daily Review.

Today, I have been grading discussion boards on the Great Depression. As I go through the textbook again, I am always surprised and alarmed at the positive light place on the Roosevelt administration’s machinations to subvert private enterprise and create government monopolies (see the Tennessee Valley Authority for just one egregious example). But I am not surprised that my students believe government intervention in the economy was a good thing – the textbook creates little doubt about the veracity of the federal programs. At least Roosevelt understood and abandoned some of his most controversial and unworkable pieces of legislation but his administration’s legacy is seen in today’s society – we always look to government to solve our problems without TRULY understanding what the ramifications are.

I will not have a Social Security check when I retire – I am positive of it. We need to dismantle the behemoth without fear and trepidation. It will create a temporary drag on the future economy as the beneficiaries outnumber the contributors but eventually it will be phased out by attrition. Those who draw from it will simply die off. But put a date on it – after January 1, 2020, all current workers will receive ANY contributions placed into the system in a lump sum for investment. If you do not invest, too darn bad. No rescue by the government. But those drawing from the system will continue to receive their checks. Oh – and remove the double income earner penalty. The antiquated system was planned for only one household income earner. Both income earners who paid into the system should receive a lump sum payment check to invest. Until January 1, 2020, I should have the option to take my lump sum investment and roll it into my current investment portfolio or not and without penalty. If I have an immediate need to pay off a bill, I may do that and invest the balance. This would be a one-time payment, NOT subject to any tax since it was taken forcibly from me as a tax in the first place. Yes, it would create a temporary drag as these payments were sent out to every current contributor. But it could be done on a rolling basis according to age. Those of us closest to retirement will need to invest immediately. But we can also have the option FOR the lump sum amount OR Social Security if we are eligible for retirement through January 1, 2020. Make it work, guys. I know you can do it with enough motivation and encouragement. The system is already broken – take it apart and throw it away.

Explain the issue in clear details – use bullet points since our attention span is so short these days. Better yet, TWEET it or post a status. Get the word out – Social Security is being pulled down and you NOW have more money in your pocket to invest or spend. We will continue to pay out contributions for current Social Security recipients who are retired or on disability through a very date. If you are not receiving Social Security and not disabled, you will need to look at disability insurance that will pay dividends in the future should you find yourself in that situation. On top of it, make the legislation iron clad so that it cannot be revised or changed when the administration changes.  The government is getting out of the retirement system. This includes you, Baby Man, who embodies the true meaning of entitlement baby. Cut him off NOW. Work for it, bub. Sell your adult-sized baby furniture to the fetish crowd and EARN a living like the rest of us. Yes, it will force you to grow up but it’s a good thing. It’s time we stop expecting the government to take care of us and take care of ourselves.

Jennifer Williams is adjunct faculty in American History at Ashland (OH) University and the American Public University System. She is also the teaching chef for the New Day Family Resource Center in Sandusky, Ohio. Her interests are photography and curling. She lives with her family in Norwalk, Ohio.

By Greg Crabtree, Special for US Daily Review.

The problem with cash flow is that it lags behind profit for most businesses. Unless your customers pay you and you pay your vendors at exactly the same moment, there will always be a time lag. If you understand the correct order of priority for cash flow, you will avoid the disconnect.

If you are profitable, you must understand that there are 4 Forces that demand satisfaction out of your cash flow – and I can also assume they are in opposite order to what you would prefer:

1. Taxes – You must either set aside money or pay chunks of taxes as you go to avoid the April surprise (or October surprise if you extend how long you stick your head in the sand)
2. Debt – Lines of credit are crack cocaine for entrepreneurs: get off the drug as soon as you can
3. Core Capital – retain after-tax profits until you reach your core capital target, which is generally defined as 2 months of operating costs in cash with nothing drawn on the line of credit and your anticipated taxes set aside
4. Distributions – Reap your reward and finally take after tax profits to diversify your wealth outside of the business

Taxes:

If you did not pay any taxes, you either didn’t make any money or you cheated: both are bad.  The biggest hindrance to paying taxes is the complexity of the tax code; the second is not planning to set aside cash for paying the taxes.  That is why you should monitor your profitability each quarter and determine how much to set aside or pay in, depending on the rules. 

Try to pay only what is required at the last possible moment to not incur a penalty, but that also means you have to know to set taxes aside as profit is earned.  Get your tax advisor to do this for you each quarter – it will be worth it.

Debt:

Poor management of debt has killed many good businesses.  It is like a drug in that it allows you to postpone the hard decisions too long before you are forced to make them when you run out of credit. I do not recommend funding losses with line of credit financing.  It is OK to use lines of credit to fund profitable growth, but the moment you use a line to cover a monthly loss, you have started down a slope that too often ends badly.  Make the hard decisions sooner! 

The other key about debt is knowing that you can only repay debt with after-tax profits, with very few exceptions.  This is a big hit to most entrepreneurs who have a great year and think they can use 100% of all their pre-tax income to pay off debt.

As for term debt, only use this debt when you are purchasing a necessary asset and the payments truly reflect the cost of using that asset over its useful life.

Core Capital:

Somewhere along the way, it is important to find out the simple calculation that lets you know what a healthy business is.  Your business may be profitable, but if you are pulling all of your cash out of the business for the wrong reasons, you will find your cash cow is out of milk when a downturn happens.  The deepest downstroke in operating cash flows for most businesses is equal to two months of operating expenses.  

In turn, I recommend setting the “core capital target” at two months of operating expenses in cash, in addition to owing nothing on the line of credit and setting aside any tax amount currently due.  You may want to set the target higher, but you would never set it lower.

Distributions:

Once you have taken care of the first three cash flow forces, you get to enjoy the fruit of your labor.  You can now use those after tax profits that the business does not need to diversify your wealth.  Notice I said diversify, not consume!  Unless you have multiple sources of income beyond your needs, the moment you are looking to the profits of your business to meet your consumption needs, you have headed down a dangerous path.  This is why it is important to pay yourself a market-based wage for the “job” you do in your business and live off your salary.  When your business has profits to distribute, you should first use it to eliminate personal debt and then to build assets outside of the business.

In summary, once you are profitable, it is taxes, debt, core capital and then you can have a distribution.  It is a great formula for building lasting wealth from your entrepreneurial efforts, and keeping your cash cow healthy for years to come.

Greg Crabtree has worked in the financial industry for more than thirty years and founded Crabtree, Rowe & Berger, PC, a CPA firm dedicated to helping entrepreneurs build the economic engine of their business. In addition to serving as the firm’s CEO, Crabtree leads the business consulting team—helping clients align their financial goals with their profit model and their core business values. He is the author of Simple Numbers, Straight Talk, Big Profits! For more information, please visit: http://www.seeingbeyondnumbers.com/.  

Editor’s Note: The definition of news is often vague, but a breaking story to some news sites is presidential candidate Herman Cain’s admission that some will pay more taxes under his plan than they are now.  Currently, roughly half of the population is not being taxed directly (although they are certainly paying indirectly through the products and services they buy from companies that do pay taxes). Under Cain’s plan, people who believe they are currently not paying taxes will face a rude awakening. Here is the Daily Caller’s perspective on this:

By Dave Smith, USDR Contributor

In his aggressive campaign to promote his plan to increase taxes on the “millionaires and billionaires” in the US economy, President Barack Obama has been touring the country to make his case that high-wage earners in the United States aren’t paying what he considers to be “their fair share”.  The centerpiece of his economic plan is a series of spending measures that he claims will create jobs and stimulate economic growth; the tax increases, while a stated goal of Obama since the 2008 campaign, would be enacted to pay for the spending proposals.

What the President and other supporters of raising taxes on the “rich” seem not to realize, however, is that such increases in the top marginal tax rates would not just fall on wealthy wage earners, but would also fall on businesses large and small – those same businesses that the President wants to be creating those jobs the economy needs.

It seems like common sense, but apparently needs to be stated:  every dollar that a business sends to the government in the form of taxes is a dollar that it doesn’t have to invest in new infrastructure, hire new workers, improve salary or benefits for employees, acquire new assets, invest in research & development, or even pay dividends to shareholders.

During the economic slowdown, businesses have been making intense efforts to cut costs; one obvious method of doing so is reducing payroll expenses by laying off workers.  Taxes are another line-item cost, so it would seem illogical to expect businesses to hire new workers while increasing the expense pressure on their tax bills.

Taxes aren’t just another business expense, however – they are worse.  Businesses are always worried about increasing expenses from inputs like raw materials, labor, energy, transportation, real estate, etc.  But with most expenses, there are ways to get around additional costs, or at least minimize their impacts.  For example, if a supplier seeks to raise the cost of a raw material, a business owner might seek to find another supplier, minimize the use of that material through innovation (e.g. recycling), negotiate longer payment terms, or perhaps sign longer-term contract in return for lower prices.  An investment in land or an expansion could be postponed.  Such options don’t exist when dealing with the government and the tax bill:  there is no long-term contract with the government – tax rates can be raised at any time at the whimsy of Congress – and “innovations” that result in lower tax bills are often met with unfriendly skepticism by the enforcement arm of the IRS.

Thus, to reduce its tax burden, a business must conform to government incentives.  This is accomplished either by making less profit or by engaging in activities favored by government subsidies or so-called “targeted” tax incentives.  Neither option is optimal:  profit is, obviously, the ultimate purpose of any business, and if a particular investment or activity were considered by the business’ leadership to be the most efficient use of company funds, it wouldn’t require special incentives.

Jumping through the hoops required to achieve special tax benefits can be especially difficult for smaller businesses.  The large corporations can afford to employ multitudes of tax attorneys and accountants who scour the tax code for ways to take advantage of its complexity; they can also afford armies of lobbyists to encourage the passage more such complexities that skew towards their own benefit.

The small business, however, is less well-equipped to exploit tax code loopholes or to effectively lobby for special benefits.  The tax bill represents an expense not easily minimized.  This would explain why, according to a survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 18% of small business owners consider “Taxes” to be the “single most important problem” they face.  Only “Poor Sales” (25%) and “Government Regulations and Red Tape” (19%) polled higher.

The business tax debate can be summed up in a simple question:  how are workers better off if their employer is paying more money to the government?  Especially now, when US business taxes are among the highest in the world and other countries are looking to lower, not raise, their own taxes, the answer is simple:  they aren’t.  Raising taxes on businesses is the wrong approach to improving the economy and lowering the unemployment rate.

Born in the same county as Davy Crockett in East Tennessee, Dave Smith has been living in Texas for over 10 years and involved in politics in for over 15 years.  He has been blogging for nearly 10 years, has contributed to Town Hall Magazine and other publications, and has been on ABC and Fox discussing election issues.  He is a graduate of Tennessee Tech University with a degree in chemical engineering.

By Keith D. Rodebush, Contributor to US Daily Review.

Researching an article about government regulations is akin to complying by them I suppose as it is eternally frustrating and mind boggling. Aside from the general notions that there are too many regulations, is the even more nuanced problem of determining the cost/benefit ratio of said regulations. When you start by simply asking questions such as:

• Why is the government regulating this business
• What are the dangers to Americans if these regulations are not enforced
• What is the impact on business and jobs of these regulations
• In the case of the EPA, what is the overall effect of business in this context as opposed to natural environmental causation

…you find yourself in a maze of information put out by alternative sources, some with an agenda; and yes, the government has an agenda as well. What you also find is that sometimes those who appear to be helping us citizens turn out to be the very ones hurting us citizens. Case in point: a letter sent to President Obama bemoaning the economic impact of regulations on businesses, signed by Lamar Smith and Fred Upton. That would be 26 year career politician Lamar Smith (my former Rep.) who has voted for a plethora of EPA business stifling regulations when ‘Green’ was in vogue; and Congressman Fred Upton of ‘you can’t buy an incandescent light bulb, you have to use the twirly bulb’ fame. Our politicians are masters of disguise and are constantly on guard to see which way the political wind blows so they can climb on board and squawk like a Minor bird in their next campaign their fealty to the cause du jour. Oh to just have a legislator with a spine and a set of convictions.

Let us start with the basics: How many regulations do companies have to conform to in modern America? Well it turns out that it is almost impossible to find out. What you get are estimates with caveats about how the little government munchkins are busy writing away as we speak to keep up with the 2,000 page bills recently passed by our glorious leaders. For the purpose of this article we will settle only on those that carry serious criminal penalties for non-compliance. A recent study by The Heritage Foundation finds approx. 4,500 such rules as of 2007 with a historical growth of 500 per year. That would put the current load at around 6,500 if we assumed that the “Affordable Health Care” act and the “Dodd-Frank” banking act don’t over regulate; which of course is akin to saying that Obama doesn’t over speechify. That would indeed be assuming too much as in fact, the administrations own Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Activities (2010) lists 4,255 new actions under development by federal agencies. In other words, regulation is set to almost double under one administration. And they can’t figure out where all of the jobs went. This type of lunacy is reserved only for government wonks of the greatest order.

So imagine that you are a small business person out there hitting the pavement and trying to grow a business and your lawyer and accountant warn you to be sure to comply with government regulations that number in the thousands and carry stiff penalties and even jail time if you fail. And by the way, there are thousands more just around the corner. We’ll get back to you. What is the cost of complying with all of these regulations? The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy recently released a report that shows the cost of regulations to the American economy is an astounding $1.75 Trillion dollars a year. That is approximately 14% of our nations income. How many jobs is that? And keep in mind that these studies are always a few years old. The cost of Obama voters is entirely unknown at this point.

What do we get for all of this government intervention into business? The primary result is lobbyist flooding Washington D.C. throwing dollars at politicians in hopes of having some of these regulations re-written, many times in an attempt to hurt their competitors. The unholy alliance between business and government is the anchor on our economy that is never truly comprehended. But I digress… Let us give them the benefit of the doubt shall we? After all, they only want to help you. Let’s take the case of mercury deposits released into the air by cement plants. Let’s first acknowledge that cement is a fundamental material for building the world over. As a strong building industry goes, so goes the overall economy. The benefit of concrete is indescribable. But we all want clean air and we wouldn’t want to hurt our fellow citizens unnecessarily. Let not your heart be troubled, the government is here to save you. Recent regulations have stiffened the EPA’s resolve to diminish the mercury levels released by cement plants by 90% by 2013. First of all, that is a huge leap. 90% in just a few years. Wow, this must be a horrible problem requiring quick and decisive governmental response. It is estimated by Portland Cement that these new guidelines will result in the closing of 18 of 97 cement plants nationwide at a cost of 4,000 jobs. What is the impact of those lost jobs? Are there families that will now do without health insurance? Perhaps put off going to the doctor at all? What is the health impact of that one symptom of these regulations?

Good grief, this is horrible! Just how much mercury do American cement plants put out a year? Well, depending on who you ask it is between 12,000 pounds (EPA) and 23,000 pounds (various environmental groups). So between 6 and 12 tons per year. Well, that does sound bad. How does that compare to say, Mother Nature? As it turns out a recent scientific study found that just one vent on one volcanoe puts out about 7 tons of mercury into the air in a year. Just one vent on one volcanoe. So how many active volcanoes are there in the world? Approx. 1,500 worldwide. In 1 to 2 years one vent on one volcanoe puts out more mercury into the air than all of America’s cement plants do. I ask you, is this worth 100′s of regulations, closing 18 cement plants, losing 4,000 jobs and risking corruption of government officials at a cost of 100′s of millions of dollars a year? There are stacks of other examples in every industry in every city in every state of the union.

The British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico recently was curtailed in months (many claim the gov’t impeded the process and prolonged the spill), but the governmental intervention has just put it’s boots on. The moratorium on drilling coupled with new regulatory boards and rules have been dripping out slowly as the oil industry bleeds jobs and rigs are taken down and sent to foreign countries from whom we will buy the oil at a higher price. In the meantime the Gulf shrimp industry is rolling along quite well, I know I purchase Gulf shrimp often. Never tasted a bit of petroleum on mine. They were fat and delicious! But never fear, the federal government is busy in the back rooms of Washington writing new rules to shackle the oil industry for your protection.

Whether it’s Sarbanes-Oaxley, or Dodd-Frank (they love putting their names on things) or just the Durbin amendment that caused the recent $5 surcharge on ATM cards, the government is busy ‘helping’ us at every turn. The truth is that none of these regulatory actions ever stop the intended problem, and in fact cause more problems such as financial meltdown (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) and financial paralysis (Dodd-Frank: Yes, the two legislators most responsible for the financial meltdown). But fear not, for they have another piece of legislation or regulation in mind to fix that too. The entire system grows and grows until it has become a cruel if not humorous joke. The American people aren’t laughing; they’re struggling and losing ground. Alas they are only the grist for the big wheels of big government which grinds along crushing the entrepreneurs and inventive people of our nation. We all pay dearly for it. Remember when you could sell lemonade without a license?

References:

http://judiciary.house.gov/news/pdfs/03102011RegulatoryReform.pdf

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/06/revisiting-the-explosive-growth-of-federal-crimes

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080629081932.htm

Keith D. Rodebush is a Christian businessman, a writer and an armchair scholar. He has a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the University of Arkansas. Keith is currently working on a novel and periodically writes at his blog, “Ignarus Semino Dominatus”

By Keith D. Rodebush, Contributor to US Daily Review.

Isn’t it amazing how long irrefutably false information can permeate a society? How long has class warfare been going on? Since the Dark Ages? Since the Roman Empire? Since the Greek republic? Class warfare is used by those who want to control the people and yet to some extent it works every time. Let’s look at one aspect of that tactic in a rudimentary and easily understood way. We’ll call it the Crib Notes for Taxes.

First of all let’s look at the different types of taxes:

• Income: tax levied on personal income
• Capital Gains: tax levied on earnings other than personal income such as investment profits, etc.
• Sales: tax levied at point of sale
• Value Added Tax: (lovely) sales tax levied at multiple points along the distribution chain
• Corporate: tax levied on corporations
• Business: tax levied on non-corporate businesses
• Excise: tax levied on products such as gas, oil, alcohol and tobacco etc. or services such as wireless phone, utilities, cable etc.
• Import/Export: tax levied on imports and exports
• Property: tax levied on real estate
• Personal Property: tax levied on non-real property

There are a few more but this covers the major taxes. Now, quick quiz! Which of the above taxes do YOU personally pay?

Answer: ALL OF THEM!

Taxes are an expense. All businesses and corporations fold taxes into their expenses and charge accordingly for their services and/or products. Even capital gains taxes eventually get paid by consumers through the complicated mechanism of job creation. Higher taxes on capital discourage investment and thereby lessen job creation. Therefore every worker pays through unemployment or higher taxes in other areas to make up the loss, or through funding government benefits needed due to high unemployment.

YOU pay ALL taxes!

I repeat: YOU PAY ALL TAXES!

Every time you come out in favor of a tax increase, you pay for it. Even people who don’t pay income tax pay taxes every day, every hour, every minute, every second. Electricity, utilities, gasoline, food, clothing, the very air you breathe. All is taxed at multiple levels by a voracious government that only spends more and more. Government spends most of it’s time figuring out new and inventive ways to get more money to spend. It is their very existence. If you believe that anyone should pay more taxes you are hopelessly naive. 75% (min.) of federal government is unconstitutional and unnecessary. We do not have a revenue problem in Washington D. C. We have a character problem.

Finally; the VAST majority of corruption in politics comes from businesses lobbying politicians to change the tax code to benefit themselves and hurt their competition. The trend for many years has been for very large corporations to lobby for regulations which they can absorb but smaller companies cannot. Thus the small businesses suffer and large corporations become even larger and therefore ‘Too big to fail’. It is economic suicide, brought to you by…you. Every time you allow class warfare and scream for higher taxes on the ‘Rich’. Every time you elect a politician who votes for one tax increase, one regulation bill, one tax loophole, one tax credit, one tax exemption etc. etc. etc. YOU vote to pay more, work harder, earn less and lose Liberty.

Please stop! You’re killing me.

Keith D. Rodebush is a Christian, a businessman, a writer and an armchair scholar. He has a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the University of Arkansas. Keith is currently working on a novel and periodically writes at his blog “Ignarus Semino Dominatus”

By Amy Steele, Special for US Daily Review

This week, OUR TIME – a national non-profit organization standing up for Americans under 30, polled its members on their support of President Obama’s proposed tax increases on wealthy Americans in a Facebook survey, resulting in overwhelming support. Over 80 percent of OUR TIME fans claim to support the “Buffett Rule” strongly, which, if passed, would let the Bush tax cuts for upper-income Americans expire and close corporate tax loopholes, raising an estimated $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue over the next decade.

The Facebook poll, open to over 5,000 OUR TIME “fans,” stated to potential respondents, “President Obama proposed a “Buffett Rule” yesterday which would raise taxes on the mega rich (those making over $1 million a year). Some reporters have called us and want to know what you think.”  The OUR TIME Facebook survey then asked respondents to choose one of the following five categories: 

1.      I Support this strongly

2.      I’m not sure

3.      I oppose this

4.      15% flat tax on all businesses and people with no loopholes

5.      Buffett’s worth is all in unrealized gain, so his averages are BS

OUR TIME’s survey shows that less than 9 percent of members oppose the proposed tax hikes, and just over 7 percent favor a strict 15 percent flat tax on all businesses and individuals, getting rid of any existing loopholes.

OUR TIME president and co-founder Matthew Segal believes that the only way this country can reconcile its debt is by fairly taxing those who can afford it.

“We have to put more into the system to minimize our deficit,” he says. “There are enormously wealthy people in this country who can afford a higher tax rate, and the feedback we received from our members certainly supports that. Our membership is a group of Americans who have grown up watching the expanding divide between the mega rich and those struggling to pay their bills.” 

On the heels of a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll showing 66 percent of Americans support increasing income taxes for wealthy individuals, the OUR TIME survey is a clear indicator that millennials see the proposed “Buffett Rule” as a good idea. 

In response to the survey, OUR TIME member Jessica Fahey wrote, “Our generation has to get ‘mad as hell’ about how our country is being run and realize that it is us who are going to need to do something about it.”

OUR TIME is a national organization founded and run by young Americans, leveraging pop culture, business partnerships, and online organizing to drive civic engagement through economic empowerment. To follow OUR TIME on Facebook go to: http://www.facebook.com/OurTimeOrg. Or to follow OurTime on Twitter, go to:  www.Twitter.com/OurTimeOrg.

By Corie Whalen, US Daily Review Senior Editor

My Twitter friend @keder posted something last week that struck me:

“Washington is not suffering from a ‘revenue problem.’ This year, Washington will collect $400 billion more than it spent in the year 2000.”

I replied and thanked him for tweeting that figure, because it reminded me of how utterly contradictory liberals can be when it comes to taxation and spending. Many on the left were apoplectic when President Obama decided to extend the Bush tax cuts last December. The liberal blogosphere was rife with claims that the tax cuts of the 2000′s were responsible for the “Great Recession” – completely ignoring, of course, other more realistic factors like a problematic monetary policy that encourages economic bubbles and dangerous levels of deficit spending. Oh, and they also conveniently forgot about the fact that during 2005, the period right after the Bush tax cuts, federal revenues were at record highs.

Nonetheless, a typical line used to denounce tax cuts and President Bush (who, for the record, I think was a terrible President, despite my Republican affiliation), is that under Clinton, things were so great! Even ignoring the fact that we were on the expansion side of both a dot com and real estate bubble, if we’re to accept the premise that the Bush tax cuts hurt the economy and that Clinton was the second coming of Jesus, to return to the promised land of the 90′s, we’d have to make a radical change at this juncture: Reinstate Clinton era federal spending. The left loves to fear monger about what would happen if we returned to pre-2008 spending (as suggested by conservatives like Paul Ryan), as if prior to 2008 we lived in the dark ages. Yet at the same time, the Clinton era was perfect? Try to make sense of that, because I can’t.

Ultimately, given the extent of our national debt today, with or without an extension of the Bush tax cuts, we’d still be in an unsustainable situation. It’s been proven mathematically time and again that even if we taxed every millionaire and billionaire 100%, it wouldn’t even make a dent in the problem.

The Wall Street Journal does the math for us:

“Imagine that instead of proposing to raise the top income tax rate well north of 40%, the President decided to go all the way to 100%. Let’s stipulate that this is a thought experiment, because Democrats don’t need any more ideas. But it’s still a useful experiment because it exposes the fiscal futility of raising rates on the top 2%, or even the top 5% or 10%, of taxpayers to close the deficit. The mathematical reality is that in the absence of entitlement reform on the Paul Ryan model, Washington will need to soak the middle class—because that’s where the big money is ….. 

….. Assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record ….

….. Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95% …..

….. Let’s perform the same exercise in 2005, a boom year and among the best ever for federal revenue. (Ahem, 2005 comes after the Bush tax cuts that Mr. Obama holds responsible for all the world’s problems) …..

….. In 2005 the top 5% earned over $145,000. If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. The rich, in short, aren’t nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama’s entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in.”

Given these figures, it’s beyond obvious that screaming about the evils of the Bush tax cuts and “the rich” are strawmen the left use to engage in class warfare demagoguery; facts and figures be damned.

Personally, in my libertarian leaning fantasy world, I’d love to slash over half of all federal spending – but my realistic side is quite content with the notion of rolling back our commitments to the glory days of the 90′s that liberals hypocrtically tout. Here’s a compromise for you: Want to return to 1998 tax rates? Fine with me; if we go back to 1998 spending. In 1998, the federal budget was 1.7 trillion. Today, we spend 3.8 trillion – and borrow 43 cents of every dollar with no plan to pay it back. Given the circumstances, most conservatives I know would be thrilled to make a concession like the one mentioned above; especially if we’re able to get some tax code and entitlement reform in there; but that’s a discussion for another day.

We all know that the left would flat our reject such a compromise. Just imagine their reaction to the proposition of actually cutting 2.1 trillion in real (not projected) expenditures – that figure being the difference between 2011 and 1998 spending levels. We’ve heard fear mongering about dead grandmothers and starving poor people for much, much less. Given their head-in-the-sand approach to the mere mention of spending cuts, liberals really need to do a better job of addressing the disconnect between their worship of Clinton and a misguided, demagogic distaste for the Bush tax cuts – a measure that, as I stated before, actually led to higher federal revenues.

You can’t logically make an argument about the supposed danger of tax cuts without considering related revenue and spending levels. However liberals, always looking for ways to stir up class warfare sentiments during campaign season, manage to do just that – consistently. Then again, these are the same brilliant minds in charge of trying to ‘fix’ our current economic woes – and this whole 9.1% unemployment with a $14,696,963,569,782.73 national debt debacle isn’t doing much to showcase liberal ‘logic’ either.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Corie Whalen, a US Daily Review senior editor, is 24 years old and writes from Houston, Texas. She graduated from Simmons College in Boston with a double major in political science and history. Heavily involved in libertarian and conservative politics since college, Corie has organized several tea parties and other events protesting government overspending. Presently, she’s the Political Director for the Alliance for Self-Governance, South Central Regional Director for Young Americans for Liberty, serves as Secretary for the Republican Liberty Caucus, and consults for various candidates. Follow Corie on Twitter: @CorieWhalen.

By Kevin Price, Publisher and Editor in Chief, US Daily Review

Without people who remember the Great Depression, we all feel like we are now living it.

Recently I had coffee with a friend of mine and we discussed the economy.  This particular associate has some years on me and we both agreed this is the worse economy that either of us have ever seen.  However, as we concurred, we were also both surprised by this reality, because we had witnessed terrible economies.  I remember as a high school student when Jimmy Carter was president standing in a line that went completely around a building to apply for only two cashier jobs that were available.  I also remember gas rationing and all the other policies that made the 70s a very challenging decade in US economic history.

However, I also remember that there were many in the work force at the time that actually lived through and remembered the Great Depression.  My dad told me that, when he was a boy, he use to carry his shoes to school so they would not get worn out too quickly. “Even in the winter” I would ask (he grew up in Illinois)? “Yep, even in the winter, and boy could I run fast,” he would say.  I heard tons of these stories.  Conservation efforts of reusing paper that only had partially been used and turning it into office scrap sheets for notes.  I cannot believe how many I met that had gardens and who actually raised many of the vegetables that they raised.  My dad’s home even had chickens running around in the backyard.  My dad told me they made the terrible mistake of naming a few of them, then it became very difficult to see them on the dinner table.  I was told many stories about families that moved in together in order to save rent.  Some of these barely knew each other.  This was very common during this era (although we are beginning to hear stories such as this today).

The renting population was huge during the Great Depression and many of these families would actually rent month to month, move from their home in the summers and camp during these months.  They would then save up and be ready to pay again for a place when the cold winter months would come.

Business owners were very aware of the chronic double digit unemployment that plagued the era and did what they could to help employees.  I heard many stories of employers who would reduce their employees hours instead of letting any of them go.  Back then 6 day work weeks were common and necessary, many saw their weeks reduced to four days overnight to avoid layoffs

.

These stories, which often bored those who never lived through such, reminded us that things were not really that bad after all.  Comparatively speaking, the 1970s, which were horrible, were relatively mild compared to the Great Depression.  The Depression began to end 70 years ago as the United States entered World War II.  There are few alive and in the workforce that actually remember those days.  That finds us comparing it with the 1970s and our plight today is actually becoming worse than that era in terms of length of economic decline and depth in terms of the numbers unemployed.  In fact, the Department of Labor has indicated that our period of near ten percent unemployment is the longest since the 1930s.  Those voices that made many say “yeah, right” in the good old days would come in handy today as we try to navigate through the most challenging economy anyone who is still working can remember.

By Heather Stone, US Daily Review Contributor

The American Jobs Act: Major tax cuts for small businesses, veteran employment incentives, 280k teachers jobs saved, and government funded building jobs created by “modernizing” America projects.  Sounds good doesn’t it?  I agree.  However, I ask you, where is the money for this $447 billion jobs plan going to come from?  This is especially important to consider when we are already almost $15 trillion in debt.  Washington D.C. is not magic land.  They don’t have the money, and they won’t be winning it in a game of poker.  I am no financial wizard, but government budgeting and balancing has to go by the same basic mathematical principles as budgeting in every household.  With my own finances, I pay my bills every month, trying to pay down my debt, leaving enough money in my account for groceries and gas so that I won’t have to charge it.  Doing this diligently over the past couple of years, my debt has decreased and it won’t be long before I have none at all.

The government seems to be doing the opposite.  One should not spend beyond their means, in other words, if you don’t have it, you shouldn’t try to spend it.  The government is too large, and too fat. Salaries of elected officials are astounding given our circumstances. The Senate leadership makes almost $200k per year; the Speaker of the House makes $220k per year; the President makes $400k per year with a $50k expense allowance.  I understand the job is stressful and they’re putting their lives at risk, but that’s a lot of money coming out of our empty pockets.

Here is a figure that will blow your mind: according to Census.gov, the Federal Government civilian employment, to include everyone except the President, payroll for March 2009 was $15,105,511,892.  That’s only for one month of paying the salaries of government employees, and it’s in the billions.  No wonder the national debt increases by $3 million per minute.

We need to cut all spending that is not critical, freeze taxes, cut some government funded departments, stop writing and passing 1,000+ page bills, and stop trying to control the economy.  All the spending from stimulus packages to bailouts, to printing more money and raising the debt ceiling – none of this has helped our economy.  I think we need to let it be, and things will smooth out naturally in time. More intervention has clearly not helped.

In addition, Obama’s health care plan has scared many employers into a hiring freeze because they’re not sure they’ll be able to afford the mandatory health care for their employers, so they don’t want to hire any more.  The idea of every person in America having health insurance is nice, but it’s unrealistic.  Health care is not a guarantee.  People who work for a living should get it, by paying for it.  It should not be free. Furthermore, when there is a welfare system in place, some people will get lazy, take advantage and not work.  Money isn’t free, you have to work for it – this is why taking care of your own health (for example, not smoking or allowing yourself to become obese) and maintaining family values should be important to us.  This matters, because one day when you old and sick, your family will help take care of you where government simply cannot.

We need to get back to basics.  We simply cannot afford another large, expensive bill.  The President is looking for a win with his American Jobs Act, as election season nears, but recent history alone demonstrates that this isn’t going to work.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Heather Stone and her two-year-old daughter live in northern Italy, where her husband, who is active duty Air Force, is stationed. Heather currently works as an auto mechanic, and served in the United States Air Force from 2001 to 2007. After leaving the service, she worked for Boeing as a supply handler until her husband proposed marriage and they received orders that moved them to Italy.

Heather has an AA in Business Administration and plans to earn her BS in Environmental Science. Heather’s hobbies and interests for me consist of running when she gets the chance, writing, politics, and enjoying her family.

By Sheryl Devereaux, Contributor to US Daily Review.

The fanfare of Healthcare Act supporters claiming that the Supreme Court Ruling validates the Act’s constitutionality is quite overrated. It is as overrated as the mornful wails of Healthcare opponents who expected sweeping statements of its unconstitutionality is a grave loss of American liberties. in fact, nothing of these two parallel positions is accurate.

The ruling by SCOTUS did not ignore the Constitution but affirmed it.

One problem is the tendency of liberals to assume any lack of a dogmatic “no,” is a “yes.” Another problem is that many conservatives wanted the SCOTUS to affirm their conservative POLICY just as dogmatically, which would have undermined the Constitution. Perhaps they expected SCOTUS to wipe the slate clean of Obamacare altogether. This is not the scope of SCOTUS–they determine the constitutionality of law. In this case, it was a law so all-encompassing—and legally invasive, entangled in all forms of governance and consuming—that the only responsible way for SCOTUS to address the many issues was to thoroughly parse them out one by one. That they have.

WHAT PEOPLE ARE MISSING ON BOTH SIDES IS WHAT SCOTUS ACTUALLY SAID:

The Justices did not say Obamacare was constitutional.

Instead, what they did was discuss the most dominant themes. Thus, instead of a one-fell-swoop-decision, SCOTUS pointed out to America—read: reminded America—of the many checks and balances afforded in that great document. Among the many major points SCOTUS re-affirmed are these Constitutional paradigms:

1.) That Congress has the authority to tax.

There is nothing new here. (See Art. I, Sec. 8.) The Justices did not say Obamacare was constitutional. In fact, having read the document (only 60 pages), I can attest that what is being reported (by those who have neither read it, nor understand it or the principles the Justices discussed), is factually misrepresenting the Ruling. What the justices said was constitutional was that Congress has authority to collect taxes. This is merely a reiteration of Art. I, Sec 8, of the Constitution. Additionally, they clarified that the so-called penalties, along with all other collection of monies are, contrary to what supporters of the Healthcare Act have told the public, a tax. That makes Pelosi, Obama, et al. deceivers of Americans.

2.) The “regulating” referred to in Art I Sec 8 does NOT mean “create.” Therefore, Congress cannot regulate a non-activity.

Congress cannot create new authority–only make regular those authorities already granted in the Constitution. (This goes to the Mischief Rule.)

The Court was quite vocal about the inappropriateness of Congress’ attempt to create a power they have never had in legislating (read: forcing) citizens into action. This was clearly stated in the Ruling. (567 U.S. __2012, 21-27) Specifically, Roberts writes,

…the Government’s logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem…People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them…Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.

That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. (567 U.S.__2012. 22,23)

Clearly: To this end many hoped the Supreme Court would, in simple terms, throw the entire Act out, or at least disable it sufficiently to render it null and void. Sadly, many are so enraged by poor information that they don’t realize that SCOTUS actually did, in large measure, do that very thing, as cited above. But in the process, the Court also reminded Americans of their responsibility to act on their own authority.

3.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED that the power to control legislation by Congress lies with the PEOPLE–not SCOTUS.

Furthermore, the Justices specifically explained WHY they did not throw the whole Act out, saying that the sanctity of the people’s authority to choose their legislation via the representatives (of both houses of Congress, in particular, but not to exclude the President) must be preserved; and it is therefore up to the people–not SCOTUS–to remedy the law. That is what was said. (ibid. 6,7) Apparently some are celebrating the assumption that the people will not exercise their authority and right to have what 80% of them demanded not be enacted in the first place. (You might remember that the preponderance of Representatives was fired. I suspect, after this nod from SCOTUS, more is to come with some mighty powerful hiring to follow. That is, if people actually understand what SCOTUS said.) is being reported (by those who have neither read it, nor understand it or the principles the Justices discussed), is factually misrepresenting the ruling. What the justices said WAS constitutional was that Congress has authority to collect taxes. Duh, reiteration of Art. I Sec 8. Additionally, they clarified that the so-called penalties, along with all other collection of monies ARE a tax. That makes Pelosi, Omaba et al decievers of Americans.

That point aside: The Ruling specifically states that the Constitution grants individual immunity from participation AND state immunity from it as well. To the point, neither Congress, nor the President can compel anyone or a state to enjoin Obamacare. SCOTUS actually reinforced state and individual sovereigny and liberty. They were quite voca about the inappropriatenss of Congress’ attempt to create a power they have never had in legislating (read:forcing) ciizens into action. This was clearly stated in the Ruling.

Furthermore, the Justices specifically explained WHY they did not throw the whole thing out, saying that the sanctity of the people’s authority to chose their legislation via the representatives (of both houses of Congress, in particular, but not to exclude the President) must be preserved; and it is therefore up to the people–not SCOTUS–to remedy the law. THAT IS WHAT WAS SAID: Apparently somebody, somehow, believes the people will not excercise their authority and right to have what 80% of them demanded not be enacted in the first place. (You might remember that a preponderance of Represenatives were fired. I suspect, after a nod from SCOTUS, more is to come with some mighty powerful hiring to follow.)

The Ruling specifically states that the Constitution grants individual immunity from participation AND state immunity from it as well. To the point, neither Congress, nor the President can compel any one or a state to enjoin Obamacare. SCOTUS has actually reinforced state and individual sovereignty and liberty, not slighted it.

The idea that Congress has created taxes against the will of the people is only partially true, at best. The verity is that Congress is elected by the people, thus what Congress does, technically and by Constitutional authority, has been sanctioned by the people. The people then, having the ultimate authority can “fire” the Representative or Senator who neither respects their wishes, ignoring their duty to representation, nor obliges the sovereign will of their respective states. This is true for any legislation irrespective of its relationship to taxes. (However, it is difficult to imagine any legislation by Congress as being unrelated to taxes.) Quoting one of the most arduous defenders of the Constitution, John Marshall, Justice Roberts emphasizes the difference between the constitutionality of passing an act and enforcing one. He writes

“Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated…[policy judgments] are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. (567 U.S.___2012, 6. Emphasis added.

The people are responsible for finding those who adequately and accurately reflect their wishes. SCOTUS simply reminded—and more effectively hinted—to the people of their solemn Constitutional duty—that is not the Court’s. In other words, SCOTUS was not obliging to the people passing the buck to them.

4.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of the individual.

Justice Roberts writes that the argument held by the Government that they have the right to require our “participation” under the Necessary and Proper Clause is unfounded. While quoting from precedence, (McCulloch, supra, at 413, 418), Justice Roberts re-affirms, through the Mischief Rule, a fundamental doctrine of the Constitution, saying

‘…we have…carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution. [They] are not consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, and are not proper…Rather, they are…merely acts of usurpation.’ (ibid. 28)

Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained. (ibid. 29)

…The commerce power…does not authorize the mandate. (ibid. 30)

Roberts further expounds on the constitutional principles behind the Necessary and Proper Clause, explaining its misuse by the Government in defense of “Obamacare.” (ibid.29)

5.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of States to determine whether a federal program is pertinent and applicable to their individual state.[i][i]

The Court made a clear distinction between mandating a state to comply if they opt in to Obamacare and penalizing a state for refusing to participate. Roberts says that they are not curtailing Congress’s power to require States interested in accepting Affordable Healthcare Act funds, to comply with their stipulations. But they cannot compel a state unwilling to participate in the Act either by requirements or penalizing them by reducing their existing Medicaid funds. This is of paramount importance in a time where the Federal Government has increasingly used forms of coercion on states through a financial choking. (ibid. 55)[ii][ii]

The only main concern, which is clearly constitutional, if unfortunate in this case, (given Congress has the authority to tax), is the reaffirmation of taxing for Obamacare independent of the acceptance of health insurance. It is not the authority to tax that is at odds with Americans. It is, as this Court has suggested, that it is unwise to do so.

Conservatives, moderates, and even liberals who dislike Obamacare, should stop listening to cool aide drinking media who don’t know how to read, let alone read the Constitution, historical perspectives, or rulings by SCOTUS.

Just because SCOTUS didn’t come right out and remove the Affordable Healthcare Act, aka “Obamacare,” does not in the slightest give victory to supporters of the unconstitutionality of key parts of the Act. Quite the contrary is true.

It would behoove Americans to learn, first, to read the actual texts for themselves; and secondly, to know and understand constitutional tools such as Rules of Construction, historical imperatives, the many discussions and debates of the Framers, and so forth before believing anything by main-stream media. Some people would love it if Americans were not aware of what this ruling actually says. It is up to each individual American to circumvent this attempt, by being well equipped to counter nothing other than nonsense.
(I discussed some of the ins and outs of this ruling on a special of Foundation of a Nation the night of the ruling, June 28, 2012). You can listen or watch that broadcast at the network location: www.alfiredupmedia.com )