I want to keep more of what I earn. It's that simple. That is why I am for the Republicans' $800 billion tax cut proposal. I don't trust the Democrats with my money, because the taxes I pay go to the 40% ofAmericans who pay none, and I trust only myself in planning for retirement rather than depending on Social Security.
Think about it. What could you do if you saved even 1% of your salary due to a tax cut? If you make $25,000 a year, that's $250. Not much, really. Maybe a new kitchen table or a week's worth of groceries, but that's not the point. It's still your hard-earned money and you can do more with that $250 than the government can do with $3000.
So why are the Democrats so vehemently against the plan, one Veep Gore even labels a "risky scheme" as if this were some pyramid scheme that has no benefits for the citizen?
They now claim that the $800 billion is needed to pay off the national debt. Hogwash. Clinton a few months ago came up with a plan that would have boosted spending over $1 trillion, still leaving $2 trillion of the phantom surplus. Clinton's plan is actually the more viable option for those hoping to increase the national debt. That's how Reagan messed up, he succeeded in passing a sizeable tax cut but Congress never cut spending; thus the debt.
Clinton's $300 billion tax cut proposal also was only as real as the GOP congress thinking the president would ever sign their tax cut bill. Both were posturing for next year's elections: Clinton pretending he would support some "targeted" (i.e. to those whose vote Gore needs) tax cuts, and Republicans safely returning to sacred ground of letting Americans keep their money.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has testified twice in the past week that he'd like to see Congress hold off on cuts, just to make sure the surpluses continue. But he also said if Congress must choose between new spending and tax cuts, he'd take tax cuts. He singled out the president's health-care plans as especially ill conceived.
Unfortunately there will be only countless grandiose speeches by both sides, neither of which will help when the government inevitably will shut down this fall. And who will take the blame? The media is already pointing blame at Republicans, so expect it to be a repeat of 1994.
Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey sums it up boldly: "To me," he says of the GOP tax cut, "this is a no-brainer. It increases Americans' income by $800 billion.
"The president's always saying he wants to increase people's income. Well, here's his chance. He's not interested in this. He wants to spend it."
I don't know if this actually happened, but I wouldn't be surprised considering how many goofs Gore has made. I received this email twice in three days from two unrelated people: my brother Scott and Keli, a friend from college:
Al Gore gave a big speech this week about how his faith is so "important" to him. In this attempt to convince the American people that we should consider him for president, he announced that his favorite Bible verse is John 16:3. Of course the speech writer meant John 3:16 but nobody in the Gore camp was familiar enough with Scripture to catch the error.Now for the really interesting part. Do you know what John 16:3 says? I'll save you from looking it up. "They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me." John 16:3 NIV
The guy who sent this to Keli added: "I don't know if this was the Holy Spirit intervening or not.... but I do know a fraud when I see one... AL Gore is one...."
I just want to take the time to thank Hillary Clinton for providing me with so much pleasure every week as she continues to make inane comments one after another. This time? It turns out she's got a Jewish branch on her family tree!
Hillary, who last year angered Israelis when she declared she supported the formation of a Palestinian state, "has very fond childhood memories" of the second husband of her grandmother, Max Rosenberg, a Russian-born Jew, said Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the first lady's Senate exploratory committee.
As the New York Post's headline put it :"The First Shiksa Wants to Be a Yenta? Oy!"
Why is she now courting the Jewish vote? In the last general election, Jews accounted for one of every eight votes in New York. This is pure "Clintonesque" campaigning: saying whatever needs to be said in order to appease every group of citizens. Who says she doesn't still love her husband? They seem to work together great to dupe Americans, and she loves his tactics.
Hillary also recently told Jewish leaders she considers Jerusalem "the eternal and indivisible capital" of Israel. She has also said she favors moving the U.S. Embassy for Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
After the murder spree by Mark Barton left 12 dead in Atlanta, including his wife and two children, more calls of gun control went up from the media and the left (redundant?).
I'm okay with some of the controls they want, but using the latest shooting sprees as examples won't work, because the killings would have happened even if all the new measures were passed. The guns were acquired legally or illegally given to the murderers who have no respect for the law or life itself. Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, even admitted as much:
"It's true that tighter laws may not have kept guns out of the hands of one particular lunatic--Barton. The guns he used to shoot up two Buckhead stock-brokerage houses were apparently acquired legally. "Again I say that what those like Tucker believe is that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed altogether. Period. They don't want anyone to be able to own a gun (except criminals of course).
Sorry Cynthia, but our criminals are much better armed than the law-abiding citizens. If the large amount of non-law-abiding citizens know for a fact that none of the law-abiding citizens are armed, what is there to stop them from feeling free of restraint and committing crimes with impunity? Lots of cops with guns. But there will never be enough of those.
I don't argue that it would be a better world if nobody owned guns, but that's an unrealistic utopia. So we have to be prepared to defeat those who have no respect for the lives of others.
Are lawyers that ignorant? No, really, I have got to know. That way I would understand why the American Bar Association invited Pres. Clinton to appear as principal speaker of their annual convention here in Atlanta.
To do so is to honor a lawyer who has so dishonored the profession and the judicial system that many on the left and in the media admire him for lying so well and being able to get away with it.
Clinton should have been disbarred following his impeachment. As long as those in his own profession continue to allow such blatant disregard for the American judicial process then late night talk show hosts can continue to correctly characterize lawyers as low-life scum.
Ever wonder why Republicans don't regularly speak at conferences that promote separate agendas? Wonder no longer.
Texas governor and presidential front-runner George W. Bush spoke Sunday night at the National Urban League's annual conference, and received what could be best described as a lukewarm reception.
Bush talked in part of his ending "social promotion" in Texas schools. This means that students will be held back if they can't read at a certain grade level or don't have the grades to support promotion to the next grade.
Just moments after the governor's speech National Urban League President Hugh Price slammed Bush's policy. "The big push to end social promotion is a day late and a dollar short," he said. "Study after study shows that the youngsters who are held back seldom catch up and end up dropping out more often."
Then Price had the gall to say that states must invest in good education "instead of imposing flashy quick fixes that often do more harm than good," Price said.
I wasn't aware that making sure children know how to read is a "quick" fix.
Democrats don't speak at conferences for largely Republican organizations, but that is most likely because they aren't asked. I now believe that largely Democratic organizations ask conservatives to speak because they know the Republican will refuse, thus allowing Democrats and the media (redundant?) to freely criticize such "partisans" and "hatemongers." Maybe Republican groups, such as women's and the Christian Coalition, need to start requesting Gore and Clinton to speak at their next conferences.
Georgia Rep. Charlie Norwood, appearing on C-SPAN to talk about health care last Tuesday, had the opportunity to rip into a caller who suggested he was a "paid shill" for the National Rifle Association.
"All right, stop right there," he began. "I'm not paid by anybody. I am a member of the NRA. They're some of the finest Americans that I know. I am sick and tired of people talking about patriotic Americans who, I can assure you, if this country ever has to go to war, that is the very people that are in the trenches first to preserve the Constitution and this great country we have."
Norwood said that he was "fed up" with people attacking the NRA.
"Now, just because you don't agree with them in terms of having gun control doesn't mean they are bad people," Norwood continued. "So I'm not a paid shill for anybody. What I am is somebody who strongly believes in the Constitution."