MATTERS OF OPINION

I wrote a my final paper for my Congress and Presidency class on the Reagan tax cuts, and thought it would make a nice post. Here it is, the instructor gave me an A, I’d like to hear your grade.

“The line has been used “We’ve never had it so good.” But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury–we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.” (Ronald Reagan, “A Time for Choosing Speech”)

The excerpt from the speech above is part of the reason that Ronald Reagan became such a person of interest for those in the Republican party, and was part of the reason that Reagan became Governor of California at all. Ronald Reagan gave the “A Time for Choosing Speech” during Barry Goldwater’s Presidential nomination in 1964, and it helped to launch “Ronnie” into the lime light even more than his film career had done.

After giving that speech, Reagan (a former liberal Democrat) ran and won two terms as Governor of California from 1967 to 1975, based primarily on his national momentum gained from the 1964 election. Reagan ran for President several times, each year coming in just short of winning: whether it was Nixon or Rockefeller or Ford, it seemed that Reagan would continue to run but never get anywhere. Some pundits of the day depicted Reagan as “running in place”.

Ronald Reagan ran his campaign in 1980 under a very simple, pragmatic banner. He wanted tax cuts, he wanted to bring back the ailing economy, and he wanted Americans to feel safe again. The 1980 campaign was to be the campaign that broke Reagan out of his “running in place” and allowed for him to win not only the Republican primary but also to best Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter and make Carter a one term President whose time in office will always be marred with economic disaster, gas shortages, and Iranian hostages.

1980 was a good year for Republicans across the board, but even though the Republican party won over the Senate and gained 34 seats in the House, Congress was still a Democratic majority. This caused potential problems for Reagan, since Democrats were less likely to adhere to Reagan’s ideas regarding tax cuts and “supply side economics”. “Supply side economics”, also characterized as “Reaganomics” throughout Reagan’s presidency and through today even, was a new idea that many leading economists of the day were lauding, and luckily for Reagan he had those economists on his side.

Reagan met with a group of the nations leading economists during his presidency for weekly lunches, where they explained to him the inner workings of the theory and gave Reagan a crash course in Economics. The group was composed of Arther Laffer (who actually coined the Laffer Curve, which demonstrates how lower taxes will actually generate more governmental revenue), Milton Friedman (who is a legendary economist of the day and is still lauded as one of, if not the, most influential 20th century economist) and Stephen Moore (who writes for the Wall Street Journal and is seen on a weekly, if not nightly, basis on several talk shows and political forums), among several others. ( The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy–If We Let It Happen by Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Peter Tanous). This helped Reagan in his battle for substantive tax reform before he was getting the knowledge straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. While politicians will often claim that they know the field of economics or will repeat economic theory (often times while misrepresenting the economists views), Reagan was able to sit down with these men and, detail by detail, have a well laid foundation for a tax reform package that would be not only sell-able to the Democratic controlled House (which holds the country’s purse strings) but would have the best chance of actually working.

Reagan approached Congress with his tax reform package shortly after a failed assassination attempt, and during his first State of the Union Address used the catastrophe as a starting block for his plan.

“The last decade has seen a series of recessions. There was a recession in 1970, in 1974, and again in the spring of 1980. Each time, unemployment increased and inflation soon turned up again. We coined the word “stagflation” to describe this. Government’s response to these recessions was to pump up the money supply and increase spending. In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a staggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed. Late in 1981, we sank into the present recession largely because continued high interest rates hurt the auto industry and construction. And there was a drop in productivity and the already high unemployment increased. This time, however, things are different. We have an economic program in place completely different from the artificial quick-fixes of the past. It calls for a reduction of the rate of increase in Government spending, and already that rate has been cut n early in half. But reduced spending alone isn’t enough. We’ve just implemented the first and smallest phase of a three-year tax-rate reduction designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Already interest rates are down to 15 3/4 percent, but they must still go lower. Inflation is down from 12.4 percent to 8.9, and for the month of December it was running at an annualized rate of 5.2 percent. If we had not acted as we did, things would be far worse for all Americans than they are today. Inflation inflation, taxes and interest rates would all be higher. A year ago, Americans’ faith in their governmental process was steadily declining. Six out of ten Americans were saying they were pessimistic about their future. A new kind of defeatism was heard. Some said our domestic problems were uncontrollable that we had to learn to live with the-seemingly endless cycle of high inflation and high unemployment. There were also pessimistic predictions about the relationship between our Administration and this Congress. It was said we could never work together. Well, those predictions were wrong. The record is clear, and I believe that history will remember this as an era of American renewal, remember this Administration as an Administration of change and remember this Congress as a Congress of destiny. Together, we not only cut the increase in Government spending nearly in half, we brought about the largest tax reductions and the most sweeping changes in our tax structure since the beginning of this century. And because we indexed future taxes to the rate of inflation, we took away Government’s built-in profit on inflation and its hidden incentive to grow larger at the expense of American workers. Together, after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their states and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them.” (Reagan’s First State of the Union Address,January 26, 1982)

This was, of course, a shrewd and effective political tool to help push the tax cuts that would become his coup de grace. The only hurdle now? The Democratic House. If Reagan wasn’t able to rally them behind his message, he would accomplish nothing. Already, people were become discontent with the President not following through on his campaign promise, and polls from that time period reflect that sentiment.

Tip O’ Neil, the House Majority Leader, was actually willing to work with the administration to make the reforms. The debate on the floor was intense during that session, however because of “boll weevils” (Southern “Reagan Democrats” who consistently took conservative positions) a middle ground was made with the reforms.

The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:
*phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%

*accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS

*indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)

*created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)

*phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987

*reduced Windfall Profit taxes

*allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs

*expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)

*replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985) (Caputo)

The critics were quick to point out that with out decreased spending, the National Debt would still continue, and especially since we were, at the time, beefing up our military due to the arms race that resulted in the end of the Cold War, spending did in fact continue to go up. Critics also claim that because of the tax cuts, the amount of revenue the Government would have seen coming in did not rise at the rate that it could have. Supporters and economic think tanks across the country, however, to this day, credit the Reagan tax cuts as the reason that the economy was able to recover in the first place. (Young)

What, exactly, did the Reagan tax cuts do, ultimately? They helped to make the general population less burdened by their debts to the government, and they helped to boost the American moral that the government wasn’t the “bad boogeyman” coming after their hard earned dollars. The Reagan tax cuts also show what can be done when those in Government take a moment away from politics, reach across the aisle, and work together for the good of the American people.

Those of us in the 18-25 year old bracket have grown up with South Park, and through the years have watched as Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of the hit TV show, have maneuvered countless celebrities, religions, political figures and pop culture icons into the cross-hairs. South Park can be amazingly smart and clever, and can also be disgustingly vulgar and lewd. But those of us that have grown up with South Park have always known one thing about the show: anything goes.

A couple of weeks ago, however, Comedy Central censored a South Park episode making fun of the Prophet Muhammad after the creators were threatened by a Muslim extremist website (the site is now, consequently, shut down) which said that Stone and Parker would “wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show.” Theo Van Gogh, for those of you that don’t know, was a political figure who was later assassinated for his anti-Islam stance.

What kind of message is this teaching the general public, specifically those in a younger age bracket? In the same episode that was censored (the word “Muhammad” was bleeped out and a giant “censored” block was placed over Muhammad’s likeness in the show), Jesus Christ was depicted watching pornography and Buddha was using cocaine. Did this offend Christians and Buddhists? Sure it did! But the Islamic religion gets special treatment because Muslims will actually follow through and kill somebody for making fun of their religion; thus terrorism is achieved.

Because Comedy Central caved under pressure (for the record, Matt Stone and Trey Parker did not censor their work, nor did the FCC) they have continued to set the standard for Islam as a “superior religion” and an “untouchable” topic. All that this does is foster the kind of behavior that we see out of radical Muslims all of the time!

We shouldn’t be bending over backward as a society to try and not offend them, lest we do the same for every other religion, group of people, celebrity, etc. Instead, Comedy Central should stand up and not allow themselves to be bullied.

Just like on the playground in elementary school, the best way to solve a problem with a bully is to stand up to him and let him know that you aren’t going to be pushed around. The only difference between the playground and the real world? The bully on the playground usually isn’t willing to blow up himself and a whole crowd of infidels just to prove a point. It’s a shame that we have to worry about that, and more of a shame that we’ll allow that kind of terrorism to dictate our lives.

Originally written for and published in the Northwest Indiana Times May 10th, 2010

Well, it’s the day after the primaries. It was exciting, had it’s ups and downs, and now Republicans can stop yelling at each other and start yelling at Democrats. Thank God.

However, as I always like to do, I’d like to critique the two contenders that won in the top slated seats in my area: Mark Leyva for House District One and Dan Coats for Senate.

Mark Leyva

This will be Mark Leyva’s 5th time running against the Democratic incumbent Pete Visclosky, and I (and I think many other Republicans) are wondering: what really makes this time much more different? Don’t get me wrong: I’ve met Leyva, I have no problems with the guy, and he’s going to get my vote. This piece (for both candidates, by the way) is not a smear piece in any way, shape, or form. However, the question IS out there: Leyva hasn’t been able to beat Visclosky, and in a year where “name recognition” is supposed to be a bad thing, why would he be voted in? Granted, Pete’s got some legal clouds hanging over his head, and that may help. Also, Democrats statistically just don’t show up to the polls on off year elections. But with that being said, let’s look at another scenario. Let’s say that Leyva wins. He hasn’t been able to win the past 5 years, which may reflect his campaign and organizational abilities. What happens if during that two year stint, he doesn’t do a whole lot? District One is a HEAVILY Democratic area, and what is needed is a Republican who can work across the aisle and make deals. With Leyva being heavily involved in the Lake County TEA Party activities, will that hurt his chances of bringing in moderate Independents? I’m not sure yet. Certainly Leyva will be better than Visclosky (who won the seat from God himself, bada chum!) but even if he would be better Representative, right now it’s about being the better candidate, and Visclosky has the charm and the war chest to win. I hope that Leyva can pull it off, and that the political climate works out favorably, but if past indicators are any indication, I won’t be too awfully surprised if number 5 is just as unsuccessful.

Dan Coats

Coats was the guy that many conservatives outside of the political arena didn’t want to win (Stutzman and Hostettler were the two grass roots favorites) and those actually working in the party were rooting for. The Republican party actually brought in Coats because they didn’t feel that there was a strong winner on the ballot. I disagree, but regardless, the decision was made, the votes were counted, and Coats is the candidate. Coats has a lot of experience in a year where experience isn’t supposed to mean anything (ironically, Leyva, who has name recognition, and Coats, who was a former Senator and US Ambassador, were the House and Senate primary winners in this year) and has a moderate voting record while talking up the conservative talking points. The biggest problem? The TEA Party groups despise him, and with Glenn Beck getting more and more attention with his “It’s not about D’s and R’s” message, there’s a good chance that Coats will lose to Ellsworth. The Times has already begun labeling Ellsworth a “conservative Democrat” in today’s paper, and with that seat being vacated by another “conservative Democrat” (Evan Bayh, who Ellsworth looks eerily like, in my opinion) I’m worried that voters will look at two people with conservative talking points, moderate voting records, and decide to simply pick the (much) younger of the two. This is part of the same series of problems that we have seen, especially as of late, with so-called conservative Democrats who get in and start to fall right in line with the Harry Reid’s in Congress. Ellsworth will probably end up doing exactly the same, because Coats will get lambasted by grass roots conservatives and TEA Party members (some will be very fair assessments, to be honest) and the charge that the Republican party should have this year will fizzle and burn. Plus, with such a weak top of the bill for Republicans, that sentiment carries on through and hurts all of the other candidates as well.

As I said, I’ll still be voting a straight R ticket and if Leyva and Coats want to put signs in my yard and need help, I’m more than happy to help however I can, and conservatives and Republicans in Northwest Indiana will hopefully do the same. I just wanted to throw my honest observations out there and see what everyone thought. And?

So Phoenix, Arizona has become the second largest kidnapping hub in the world. So what!? That’s no excuse to pass legislation to allow policemen and women to do their jobs! Come on now! That’s just racism, pure and unadulterated racism!

Or so says the Reverend Al Sharpton and dozens of others on television.

This actually amazes me a little (but not a whole lot, I’m used to seeing stupidity everywhere around me). For those of you that don’t know what I’m talking about, let me explain. The state of Arizona has passed a law that allows police to ask people for their identification cards (green cards or visas, basically) if the person is acting or seems suspicious. With Arizona being run over by the drug trade and having very real security problems with illegal aliens crossing over into their state, the law makes sense.

Is it profiling? Will the majority of people who are stopped be Hispanic? Of course the majority of people being stopped will be Hispanic! The majority of the people that are involved in the Mexican drug cartels are, der, Mexicans! Just like, although it doesn’t happen this way, the majority of people being stopped at the airports should be young Muslim men. Just like, when they are looking for a serial killer, they should be going after middle-aged white men. Or, in the case of rape, men of any color. If the suspect of a crime is identified as a black male,then yes, black males will be stopped, as with any color. Come on people!

I understand that people want to avoid profiling at any costs (unless that profiling is being done to a person riding a motorcycle, in which case they’ll get pulled over and harassed as if they were a Hell’s Angel, but I digress). But in this instance, if the people that are committing these crimes and are proving to be a problem happen to be Hispanic, then yes, a majority of the people being stopped will be Hispanic. If the IRA were causing problems in New York (which does have some Irish illegals, yes), I would say the same thing. If Canadians were kidnapping people and holding them for ransom in exchange for Americas far superior health care, yes, I would say the same thing. Let’s all take off our “sensitivity goggles” for a minute, change the setting from “Anyone that isn’t an American”, and put that setting on “Those who are in this country legally” for once, put them back on, and reassess the situation.

The Mexican drug cartels are a major problem, and are becoming increasingly more so. Americans are being kidnapped and held for ransom, drugs are easily flowing into the hands of our children, and Arizonians are fed up, understandably. The fact that these protests against this bill have in so many instances escalated to violent degrees is another thing that burns me. MSNBC actually had the gall to say that “While there are some kooks, the majority just want what they feel is right.” WHAT?! Flashback to two weeks ago and talk about the TEA Parties, and analyze what they said. Just tick off the list: racists, check, terrorists, check, lunatics, check…the list goes on and on!

But since this is a “sensitive” issue, you don’t see the footage of the policeman holding a baby being pelted by protesters with glass bottles flying all over the news. The media has always had a bit of a double standard, but this time it’s just WAY too apparent. How does one say something like that with a straight face? Really!

Thankfully, Arizona is leading the way towards amending a problem that has needed to be fixed for a long time. Illegal immigration isn’t a matter of ones race. I could care less if a person is Hispanic: Hell, work out at the mills sometime and see how hard a 65 year old Hispanic man will work, and how he leaves a 23 year old white kid in the dust. Amazing work ethic, amazing people, amazing food. But if a person of ANY color or ethnicity is here illegally, and on top of that doing things that are illegal, I have a problem with that and so do 70% of Arizonians (which happens to be the number of those that support the bill). Don’t label me a racist because I don’t want to just ignore the problem.

If any of you out there have been following the news at all, you have seen the unfolding of the courts decision to allow the morons to the left (which belong to an anti-America, anti-gay, anti-…well, just about everything) to protest at a funeral of a fallen soldier waving signs just like you see here.

The Westboro Baptist Church (whose website happens to be www.godhatesfags.com, please don’t visit the site, I really don’t want to give these people any more traffic than they may have) has been the epitome of stupidity and intolerance and gives all of us that are right leaning a bad name. In 2007, they lost a large court battle when they were sued by the father of the fallen soldier. They had showed up at the funeral, of course, and reveled in the death of this mans son. If it was me? I would have taken a few of the bastards out as they ran away screaming until the police stopped me. BUT it wasn’t me, and so papers were filed and the judge ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church (here on out WBC for convenience reasons) was to pay the father $11 million dollars. They challenged the ruling, and amazingly, the next judge overturned the ruling and ordered the FATHER to pay WBC’s court costs! Amazing.

Regardless, the Supreme Court has said they will take the case on, and it will be interesting to see what the final ruling will be. My knee jerk reaction would be that the First Amendment would be upheld, however, there are plenty of precedents that limit free speech because the speech incites violence. The often cited example would be yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there was no fire.

However, this case brings up a larger issue: the hypocrisy of so many that call themselves specifically “Good” Christians.

I consider myself a Christian, in the sense that I believe in God and Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and try and live a decent, honest life. Have I been to church lately? No, because I work 21 turn and often I work on Sundays. My main point is that so many people that tag the word “good” to the front of “christian” are often times anything but. In the news recently we have the Christian Militia (who were coming up with a plan to kill police officers and government officials) and the WBC, not to mention the scores of people I have met in my life who claim to be “good” Christians, but don’t act very Christ like what-so-ever.

I know, I know. “But Travis! You swear all the time, you haven’t been to church in a while, and you’re very judgmental (just read any of your opinion pieces)!”

Here is where I draw the difference: I don’t CLAIM to be perfect. I’ve done plenty of un-Christian like things in my life and will probably do plenty more before I die, but you will never see me hide behind God or put on a false front when I do go to church. There are plenty of people out there who, while they drive to church, yell and scream at each other, call each other names, talk badly about the people they are about to see…and then as soon as the car door opens, *BOOM!* Out come the “Good” Christians.

Being a person who believes in God should not be something you hold over your friends’ heads. It’s a lot like being an alcoholic, making a big show about beating your addiction, and then drinking a bottle and a half of NyQuil every night just to fall asleep. It’s pointless, and it’s a term that is used so very often by people who are just trying to make themselves feel better, or it is being used as a moniker in order to do hateful things (like the groups mentioned above).

By all means, believe in God, Allah, Jesus, or the flying spaghetti monster. Whatever faith you truly believe in and feel strongly about. But being a Christian, or a Muslim, or whatever, is not something that should be used AGAINST others, and not something that should be used to cover up illegal or heinous acts.