Record Charitable Giving by Americans in 2005

According to a report released by the "Giving USA" foundation, Americans gave more than $260.28 billion to charitable causes in 2005. This is the highest total since the economic bubble based on the internet burst in 2000.

According to Richard Jolly, the chairman of Giving USA: "When there is a very significant need, when people are clearly aware of that need, they will respond"

The benficiaries of the year's charitable generosity included the victims of Hurrican Katrina, Hurricane Rita, the tsunami in Asia, and the earthquake in Pakistan, among scores of other worthy causes.

Its important to note that no government coercion was involved. The American people did this, because it was the right thing to do.

Line Item Veto Vote

According to the Club For Growth:

The House is scheduled to vote next week on the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 2006. Sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Line-Item Veto Act is a necessary weapon in the fight against runaway spending and earmark abuse.

Under Ryan's proposal, when Congress passes a bill, the president would suggest rescissions of selected projects in the bill to Congress. There would then be a timely up-or-down vote on each of his suggestions.

This act should also quell fears that the line-item veto excessively empowers the executive branch and remains unconstitutional. Because Congress would retain the final say, both concerns are alleviated.

Please call your representative and urge them to vote for the line item veto. Enacting this legislation would prvide powerful tools for reducing wasteful federal spending.

It would also be helpful to call your Senator, as well, as this legislation will also need to be approved in the Senate.

Conservative Legislative Priorities

Recently I've posted several things that were intended to highlight the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism. I've decided that its time to refocus on what conservatives should be doing, rather than on what's wrong with liberals, especially since that's one of the things I so heartily fault the Democratic Party for.

In service of that goal, I thought I'd take a little time to jot down some legislative priorities, as I see them. These are not necessarily listed in order of importance, but I think its useful to list them as a reference point.

I consider this list a work in progress, and I'll be adding to and editing it over time.

• Secure The Borders - Guest workers, paths to citizenship, everything other than gaining control of our own borders, needs to wait. The flow of illegal immigrants over our borders must stop, now. This can be achieved chiefly by construction of a fence along the entire border with Mexico, and additional increases in the number of border patrol agents.



• Make The Tax Cuts Permanent - The tax cuts passed by Congress during Bush's first term have demonstrably improved the economy. The debate on this is over. Its time to make the tax cuts permanent and look at other ways that the tax burden can be lessened.



• Cut Federal Spending - There are literally hundreds of federal programs and agencies that do nothing more than fight for their own existence. These money drains need to be eliminated. A step in the right direction is the proposed Sunset Commission, which would identify and recommend the elimination of unneeded federal agencies, in a process similar to that used by the BRAC (or Base Realignment and Closure Commission). Federal agencies identified by the Sunset Commission as unnecessary and wasteful would have to be explicitly re-authorized by a vote of Congress to remain. In the absence of that re-authorization, they would be dissolved. This, more than anything else, would cut wasteful spending from the budget.



• Resolve The Looming Social Security/Medicare Crisis



• Pass The FAIR/Flat Tax



• Pass the Marriage Ammendment



• More to come...

Shameful History of the Democratic Party

The next time a liberal tries to tell you that the Democratic Party is the party of Civil Rights, and that Republican are bigots, direct them to this official report produced by the state of North Carolina regarding a Democratic Party-instigated white supremacy riot in Wilmington, North Carolina, at about the turn of the last century:

http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/1898-wrrc/report/report.htm

From Bruce Bartlett's recent comments on the report:

The culmination of the Democrats' racist campaign was a riot throughout Wilmington on Election Day. Many died, and all the Republican municipal officials, whose terms didn't expire until the next election, were forced to resign at gunpoint. Democrats retook control and quickly moved to cement their power by arresting prominent Republicans and driving others out of the city permanently.

It has always been conservatives and the Republicans who promote the issues and policies that will protect civil rights and promote economic and social equality, including equality of opportunity, for all.

Democratic Demagoguery and Absurdity - Again

Ridiculous, deceptive, out-right lies never seem to end from the Democratic Party. Witness the following quote from Representative Jim McDermott, in reference to the tax cut extension that recently passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate:

"The Republican Party ... is sending all the millionaires on an all-expenses-paid vacation — for $41,000 a year," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash). "The rest of America is being forced to choose between filling the gas tank or stocking the refrigerator."

This statement is nonsense on its face. Utter nonsense. The assertion that the general American public is being forced to choose between buying gas or buying food is patently ABSURD. Representative McDermott knows this, yet he makes the statement anyway, in a desperate attempt to gain some sort of political foothold for his party.

Another point that seems to be lost on the Democrats is the fact that this legislation merely extends the existing tax rates. Passage of this bill doesn't provide anyone with additional tax cuts, or put any additional money in anyone's pocket, rich or poor. It simply prevents an otherwise automatic increase in tax rates that would result from the expiration of the cuts passed in 2003.

In reality, what Representative McDermott is arguing for is a TAX INCREASE. Not passing this legislation would result in taxes going up for a large percentage of taxpayers.

Frankly, the more the Democrats argue for increasing taxes, with the attendant slowing of the economy and reduction in tax revenues, the better off the Republicans are.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

The GOP has recently called for a "Sunset Commission", which would identify and recommend the elimination of unneeded federal agencies. Similar to the BRAC (or Base Realignment and Closure Commission), which recommends the closure of unneeded military bases, the Sunset Commission would have real power.

Its recommendations would be bundled for consideration by Congress. Individual federal agencies or programs within the bundled recommendations could not be tinkered with by legislators. The package of closures as a whole would need to be voted up or down.

There are scores of government programs and agencies that waste our taxes, with no broad benefit to the American people. This is just the sort of step that Congress needs to take to reduce the runaway spending at the Federal level. Reports are that the idea is gaining momentum as the GOP's conservative base demands that something be done to follow through on the Republican's promises of limited government.

Please call/fax/email your Senators and House representative and ask them to support the Sunset Commission.

Democrats - The Party of... Well, What, Exactly?

Lately, the Democratic Party seems to be the party of anger, obstructionism, and wild-eyed Bush-hatred. Try this little thought experiment: Name five things the Democratic Party is FOR (Platitudes about world peace or relieving suffering don't count; just about everyone of every party would like those things to happen, the only differences they have are how we get there). Bet you can't.

Mark Steyn, writing in the Chicago Sun Times, said it well, I think:

. . . the high holiness of dissent for its own sake is now the core belief of the Democratic Party: It's not what you're for, it's what you're against. Their current denunciations of Big Oil have a crudely effective opportunism but say to them "OK, what's your energy policy?" and see what answers you get: More domestic oil? Ooh, no, we can't disturb the pristine ANWRbreeding ground of the world's largest mosquito herd. More nuclear power, like the French? Ooh, no, might be another Three Mile Island. Er, OK, you're the mass transit guys; how about we go back to wood-fired steam trains? Ooh, no, we're opposed to logging, in case it causes global warming, or cooling, or both.

Remember that when you go to the voting booth this November: you can either vote for a candidate from a party that's for positions (like cutting taxes, immigration control, strong national defense, freedom from government interference, etc), or you can vote for a candidate from a party that's AGAINST everything.

Should be an easy decision...

Steve and Cokie Crack Me Up

Just had to share this little tidbit I noticed in the most recent column by Steve and Cokie Roberts. Its titled "Conservatives on brink of disaster on illegals" (I would include a link, but I can't seem to find an archive of their columns anywhere on the web - I find it occasionally in my local paper).

Among general recitations of the typically socially-conservative leanings of immigrants from south of the border, they take the time to trash the recent immigration bill passed in the House last winter, that would have made it a felony to be in the country illegally. Most amusingly, however, they include the following passage:

"[the bill] makes it a crime to live here illegally..."

I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read this, most likely startling my fellow diners in a local fast food restaurant. Let me get this straight: Steve and Cokie Roberts are complaining that the House immigration bill would have made participating in an illegal activity a crime? Aren't they centuries and centuries too late to complain about this? I think its self-evident that ever since Hammurabi penned his code, its been a crime to commit illegal acts.

Its also interesting to note that Steve and Cokie commit the same old leftist error (or is it an error?) of confusing opposition to illegal immigration with some sort of imagined opposition to immigrants in general. This is a red herring of the first order. While there are a small number of people in America that could accurately be described as xenophobes, the average supporter of stricter border enforcement can't. We're simply asking for the laws to be enforced, and for people wishing to make their life in the U.S. to come here legally, so we can welcome them to the melting pot.

Mustache March a Huge Success

Thanks to all of you who pledged during the Mustache March fundraiser I participated in here at the office. Together, our company raised about $2000 for CURE Childhood Cancer, and had some fun doing it.

Mustache March

I'm currently participating in a fundraising event called "Mustache March". Several of us at my company, Nucleus Medical Art, are raising money for CURE Childhood Cancer through the month of March by growing mustaches. Yes, you read that right: I'll be growing a mustache this month. At the end of the month, we'll be taking photographs and we'll be judged for "Best In Show", "Most Disturbing", "Most Fitting", and "Dirt Lip" awards. I've never once tried to actually grow a mustache, so I'm pretty concerned about how this is going to turn out.

During the month, we're collecting pledges from our friends and family to go directly to CURE Childhood Cancer. If you'd like to see me with a mustache (I'm not sure I want to see me with a mustache), and you would like to help us raise money for this very worthy charity, would you consider making a pledge? Pledge amounts can vary from as little as $5 to as much as you'd like to give. Checks are made directly to "CURE Childhood Cancer". All I get out of it is the possible humiliation of winning the "Dirt Lip" award at the end of the month. You can get the check to me at any time during the month of March.

My daughter, Katie, complains bitterly when I miss just one day of shaving, much less 30. As many of you know, she can be very persuasive when she wants to be, so I'll need as much support as I can get. If you think you would like to help out, please email me and let me know what amount you would like to pledge. I plan to post a few pictures of the progress during the month, so check back often.

Great Tax Analogy Story

I am not the author of the following, but it's so appropriate and true on its face that I can't resist reproducing it here. It claims to be the work of a Dr. David Kamerschen, Ph.D. Here's to you, Dr. K...

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.

They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D

That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what everyone needs to keep in mind when the liberals start to scream about "tax cuts for the rich".

Confusion Regarding Roe v. Wade

While I don't generally agree with Cokie and Steve Roberts' opinions as outlined in their regular column, I have in the past found their commentary to be interesting, and occasionally insightful. That makes their recent column (link will come when I can find it online) all the more incredible to me. In the title and in the final paragraphs of their column, the Roberts' seem to be making a breathtakingly uninformed assertion: that overturning the Roe vs. Wade decision that prevented state and local governments from making abortion illegal could be accurately described as "legislating from the bench".

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would not, in and of itself, make abortion illegal. The effect of that 1973 decision was to prevent the Federal and state legislatures from passing laws that outlawed or restricted abortions. Overturning it would simply return to the state legislatures (and the people they represent) the authority to determine the legality of abortions in their jurisdiction. It would not be even remotely equivalent to the Supreme Court decreeing that abortion must be illegal (which WOULD be "legislating from the bench"). I find it hard to believe that the Roberts' are actually unaware of this fact, but multiple re-readings of their column seem to leave no other interpretation.

The Roberts' admit in their column that "flawed legal reasoning" was used to create the right to legal abortions. How correcting that admitted mistake made by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago and returning to the legislatures a power that the Constitution always intended them to have could be considered "legislating from the bench", I truly have no idea. The Roberts' also imply that today's America does not support making abortion illegal. If that's really the case, then they would have nothing to fear from a reversal, as no state legislature would vote to restrict abortion over the objections of its constituency.

I believe it bears repeating that overturning Roe vs. Wade today would NOT make abortion illegal. It would simply make the Supreme Court mute on the legality of abortion, as they are Constitutionally required to be. No thoughtful person could characterize that as "legislating from the bench". Inaccurate information like that promulgated in the Roberts' column does the country a great disservice, by confusing the situation and preventing a clear debate on the subject.

Global Warming, Schmobal Warming

In case you're one of the few who haven't figured it out yet, global warming (and all the terrible things that are alleged to happen along with it) is a giant hoax. The average global temperature is not rising any faster than it has in the past. The current warming trend extends back nearly 6,000 years, and is a result of the earth's exit from a "mini ice-age" that ended then. More importantly, try as they might, the eco-terrorists have completely failed to show any correlation between human activity and changes in temperature. None.

These people's lives, purpose, and most importantly, funding, are all wrapped up in there being a crisis. No crisis, no funding. No crisis, and they have to start over on what they will do with their lives. No wonder they cling so tenaciously to such an obviously invalid theory.

If you haven't read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", you should definitely do so. Its a novel, but it was written as the result of over 3 years of research that the author meticulously documents in footnotes and a complete bibliography. It clearly shows the global warming "crisis" to be exactly what it is: a fundraiser for radical eco-terrorist organizations.

The Hits Just Keep on Coming!

Wow. What a great start to a second term. President Bush and the conservatives have really racked up a number of big victories over the last weeks and months. Consider:

1) Super successful elections in Iraq. No one predicted that they would go as well as they did. The Iraqis are showing the world that they really want to take control of their country.

2) Federal legislation to control outrageous class action lawsuits easily passed the Senate yesterday. The House will pass it easily as well, and Bush will sign it. The legislation is intended to put an end to the regular "shake-down" of large businesses perpetrated often by venue-shopping trial attorneys who almost always come away from the suit with a lot more money in their pocket than the supposed "plaintiffs" receive.

3) The House of Representatives has passed immigration legislation that was left out of the intelligence reform bill passed recently that will provide uniform standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and will allow the federal government to build a fence along the border with Mexico. The first priority for Homeland Defense has to be getting control of our borders and illegal immigration.

4) And in my own home state of Georgia, both the state Senate and the state House have passed tort reform legislation to limit the amount of non-economic damages awarded in medical liability lawsuits. The bills will be reconciled and sent to the governor for a signature, which he'll provide.

Next up, saving Social Security. Its a great time to be an American...

2018 Is the Date To Watch

In 2018, the money being paid in to the Social Security program by workers is projected to fall below the amount of money being paid out of the Social Security program to retirees. "No problem.", some say, "We'll just draw on the current Social Security surplus to make up the difference."

Well, its true that there's currently a surplus in the Social Security program on paper, but that's all it is: paper. The "surplus" is entirely in the form of IOUs from the U.S. government. There is NO stack of money sitting somewhere labeled "Social Security Surplus". That money has been spent. When 2018 rolls around, and we try to draw from the "surplus", those IOUs will have to be paid off to do so. How will we pay off the IOUs? Raising taxes or cutting benefits. There's no other way.

The 2042 date is meaningless, because that's the date the money represented by those IOUs would run out. It ignores how we'll get the money to pay off those IOUs.

This is a crisis of epic proportions. We need to get this fixed, and we need to fix it NOW.

State of the Union Commercials

Very interesting commercials aired just following the State of the Union address on Fox News. They both turn out to be by the same organization. The first directs viewers to http://consumerfreedom.com/ to get information on stopping ridiculous lawsuits coming down the pike against food retailers and producers. The second ad identified PETA as the domestic terror cell that it is, and invited viewers to visit http://petapetition.com/ to sign a petition to revoke PETA's tax exempt status. Both are projects of the consumerfreedom.com people, and both deserve a thorough viewing.

Fantastic State of the Union Address

Incredible! What a wonderful address given by a very confident president. 150 federal agencies and programs cut or eliminated. Nirvana. The energy bill. The massive success in Iraq this past weekend. And the looming domestic fight, Social Security reform. This was a great speech.

Our Trip to Hawaii

Pictures from our trip to Hawaii. And even more pictures.