The Senate votes this week on a small business tax-break bill which also contains controversial provisions to boost community-bank loans to small business. That is, Washington wants to “nudge” small banks into making loans that they’d otherwise avoid. Kind of like what the government did with home mortgage lending, with results some party poopers might characterize as catastrophic, but hey, who’s paying attention to things like that anyway.

One tries in vain to argue that the answer to recovery is not to artificially stimulate anything, or to overrule prices and rates in the marketplace; those are signals about underlying realities to heed and allow to play out. But beyond that, we must cut regulations that paralyze business and job creation. The starting point is to inventory all the regulations that impact a small business as it grows, and set about rolling them back.

Below is the rough inventory I’ve compiled, but I’m sure it’s out of date and some things have changed. And this doesn’t even address industry-specific rules (see endnote), themselves desperately in need of reform. And it certainly doesn’t address yet-to-come from the new financial reform and Obamacare legislation. I welcome any additions and subtractions.

FEDERAL WORKPLACE REGULATION IMPOSED ON GROWING BUSINESSES* (Draft—Wayne Crews)

ONE EMPLOYEE

• Fair Labor Standards Act (overtime and minimum wage [27% min. wage increase since 1990])
• Social Security matching and deposits
• Medicare, FICA
• Military Selective Service Act (90 days leave for reservists; rehire discharged veterans)
• Equal Pay Act (no sex discrimination in wages)
• Immigration Reform Act (eligibility must be documented)
• Federal Unemployment Tax Act (unemployment compensation)
• Employee Retirement Income Security Act (standards for pension and benefit plans)
• Occupational Safety and Health Act
• Polygraph Protection Act

(more…)

“The middle class is still treading water, while those aspiring to reach the middle class are doing everything they can to keep from drowning.”

—President Barack Obama, 8 September 2010

Bad metaphors bring bad policies. During the Great Depression Americans were told that “the pump” had to be “primed.” Despite twelve years of pump-priming, F. D. R. did not bring America out of the Depression. Bipartisan tax cuts targeted against Truman’s “Fair Deal” did.

Roosevelt had also used the metaphor of “war,” but that analogy was brought to perfection in L. B. J.’s “war on poverty.” The image is problematic. Marines going into a battle, for example, want to know, as they are locking and loading, who the “bad guys” are, that is, whom to shoot. Who were the bad guys in the “war on poverty”? The impoverished? The rich? When President Obama took office a year and a half ago, the universal call from the Democrats was to pass a stimulus package in order to “jump start” economy. Is the American economy really an old jalopy whose owner would not dare go out for a drive without taking his jumper cables? Yet that image was invoked countless times without a trace of irony as the government was moving in to take over parts of the auto industry.

If bad political metaphors are not exposed, bad policies invariably follow. That is why one of the most important moments in the debate over independence was when Thomas Paine required the American colonists to rethink the idea of Britain as the “mother country.” Does a mother send an army to attack her young? Do not children eventually grow up? In deciding to become a republic, Americans chose not to have a permanent parent overseeing their every move and aspiration.

Having failed to “jump start” the economy, President Obama and the Democrats are moving onto a new metaphor. The people are “drowning.” Now this is an indisputably powerful image. Who would not throw a “life line” to a person who is drowning? Only the most unfeeling capitalist on his mega yacht (about the size of John Kerry’s) would let someone go down in the treacherous waters of the present economy. When examined closely, though, the analogy reveals more than the president knows.

(more…)

If something stays the same, has it been cut?  The answer is a resounding YES in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of Demo-nomics.  Of course, I am speaking of the Democrats’ claims that Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage when the issue really is whether certain tax rates will remain the same or go up.  Such folly is, to be generous, not the only upside down element of Demo-nomics under which we vassals must toil.  Here is your guide to some of the more prevalent illusions . . .

1. Extending the current rates = a Tax Cut.   It is not so much a subtle tactic by the Democrats to frame the discussion by claiming that the Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage.  Remember that he who frames the argument often wins the argument.   The literal and basic premise of this Demo-nomics subtlety is that the rates, by all rights, should be higher.  By pedaling their line of argument, however, the status quo becomes change - and it is they who are heroes for cutting them again from where they think ”should” be.

In truth, who is to say tax rates should be this high?  After all, when the income tax was ushered in by Democrat Woodrow Wilson the top rate was only 7%.  Shouldn’t the question be:  Why are we keeping rates so very high?  Obviously not in the world of Demo-nomics.

2.  Tax Cuts Are A “Windfall” for the Rich.   This too is a brilliant job by the Democrats of framing the issue.  According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, “windfall” is defined as “an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage.” Incredibly, so pervasive is this canard that one of the examples Websters uses for the word windfall is: “They received a windfall because of the tax cuts.”  Of course, in 99%.9 of the cases, a tax is a government taking of money you have earned and probably not so suddenly but after a year of hard work.  A tax rate cut, therefore, does not result in a gain – what it really represents a smaller loss for you – just not in the world of Demo-nomics.

(more…)

Republican Congressional candidate Jon Runyan has filed charges against a campaign staffer for Congressman John Adler (D-NJ03).

From the Courier Post:

Last Wednesday, Fredric C. Samson of Mount Holly allegedly trespassed on the Runyans’ Mount Laurel property and took photographs as their youngest daughter, Isabella, played in the front yard, according to a Mount Laurel Police report.

The 8-year-old went into the house and told her mother that Samson was standing in the driveway, according to Jon Runyan. Loretta Runyan, a former Houston police officer, got into her car and followed Samson for four miles until he stopped at Rep. John Adler’s Evesham campaign office.

The Adler campaign issued the following statement:

“Last Wednesday a volunteer photographer took seven photos of the front of Jon Runyan’s house, nothing more.”

“We apologize if images of the Runyan property have brought any discomfort to Mr. and Mrs. Runyan.”

The Adler campaign has refused to say if Sansom is still involved with the campaign.

(more…)

Today, in 1992, was “Black Wednesday” in the UK. Under pressure from currency speculators, the British government was forced to withdraw the Pound from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. The financial crisis cost the British Taxpayers over $5 billion. George Soros, who had shorted the Pound, made over $1 billion.

A couple weeks ago, House Member Eleanor Holmes Norton made a fundraising call to a lobbyist. The lobbyist wasn’t available, so Holmes Norton left a voicemail.

We have been given a copy of that message. The audio is below.

By way of background, with their prospects for November quickly deteriorating, Congressional Democrats are scrambling to assemble the financial resources they hope can stave off their electoral armageddon. Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team are putting a lot of pressure on Democrat members to pony up campaign contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In the article linked above, Politico noted:

In August, Pelosi and other top leaders wrote members, saying, “We need to know your commitment is to maintaining a strong Democratic majority now” and pleading with them to call “to let us know what you are able to do and when.”

The pressure is especially strong on members from “safe” districts, who need little campaign money of their own to win reelection. The catch, though, is that many of these members haven’t amassed vast campaign war-chests, for the simple reason that they haven’t needed them. So, they are scrambling to meet their Pelosi-imposed obligations. Holmes Norton is from one such “safe” district–the District of Columbia.

In the following voicemail recording, Holmes Norton seeks a campaign contribution from the lobbyist and even mentions that she hadn’t previously asked  for a donation. Such is the pressure Speaker Pelosi has placed on the members. But, it is the content of Holmes Norton’s message that is interesting. (Note: the first few seconds of the recording, where the name of the lobbyist is said by Holmes Norton, have been redacted by the source.)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Her message raises many concerns.

(more…)

Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) announced the latest Obama administration “green” initiative: Assign cars an A-D letter grade, to be noted on labels affixed to car windows at auto dealerships, based exclusively on the car’s purported environmental-friendliness.

The executive branch reportedly got the idea from Britain, where the labels have already been introduced in order to push drivers to purchase more “energy efficient” cars.

But here, unlike there, the idea is already meeting with stiff resistance from pretty much everyone– free market advocates, automakers, car dealers, consumers, and even some green types– on a variety of grounds that could imperil the ultimate implementation of the scheme.

The free marketeers object to the scheme on the basis that it represents a “nanny-state” approach in which government seeks to interfere with the natural operation of the market for cars.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers takes a different view, and following its announcement bashed the proposal, suggesting it was overly simplistic and reminiscent of “school-yard” style grading, while pointing out that “grades may inadvertently suggest a government label of approval.”

(more…)

As the Federal Election Commission (FEC) scans the political landscape scrutinizing tea party activist and most every other citizen who participates in this year’s federal elections, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) got a “a get out of jail free card” to ignore and flout campaign finance regulations.  At the FEC, the foxes are apparently already in the henhouse even before President Obama’s politically charged SEIU lawyer John Sullivan (Obama FEC nominee who was involved in Clinton-Teamsters-DNC campaign scandal) arrives to serve as one of six FEC commissioners.

It seems no matter where you these days it is easy to find another rule of law or procedure bent by this government to the benefit of SEIU.

FEC law specifically prohibits threats of financial reprisals in an effort to obtain PAC (Political Action Committee) contributions. Not only does SEIU threaten every local member that their PAC contributions must meet SEIU national Headquarters’ goal; SEIU brazenly made it a part of the union’s constitution.

Under this scheme, SEIU political planners notify each local of its PAC contribution goal.  If that PAC goal is not achieved, then the local receives a reduction in its allocation of forced dues money equal to the PAC shortage plus 50%. Looks like threats with financial reprisals.

(more…)

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that Americans reject rationing of medical care. The Obama Administration denied it would ever happen. They lied. The effort to ration late stage cancer drugs based upon their costs is underway in the case of Avastin. 60 Plus is rightly concerned about the impact that this decision will have down the road on the availability of any and all treatment options for seniors.

And apparently most of America shares their concern.

60 Plus and Logos Communications has just come out of the field with an extensive survey about health care and rationing. The results are extraordinary. In fact, opposition to rationing is so deep, swing voters — both seniors and women — are in open revolt over the pending FDA decision.

This is an issue that cuts across party lines. It cuts across race, age and philosophy. Look at these numbers:

– 47% of registered American voters oppose the recently passed healthcare reform law, compared to 41% who support it. (Note: the sample is much more favorable to ObamaCare than most national polls).

– 56% of registered American voters believe the new healthcare reform law will lead to so-called “rationing” of care. 26% disagree. Even 2008 Obama voters have their doubts: 39% believe it is likely to lead to rationing; 39% do not.

– 82% believe that cost-effectiveness is NOT a justification for rationing, agreeing with the statement, “As a matter of principle, the government should not ration care or deny treatment options based on what it calls “cost-effectiveness.” I don”t trust the government to put a cost on human life.”” Only 7% disagree.

(more…)

In early October 2006, as it was becoming more obvious by the day that Republicans were going to lose big in November, I was approached by a nervous young presidential aide at a White House meeting. He reminded me that I had been around in 1974 when the GOP took a post-Watergate pasting that those who lived through will never forget.

Wondering what it was like back then, he asked, “Did it feel like this?”

“Worse,” I said, “much worse.” Back then, Republicans knew there was no way out, and the apprehension by October was probably greater than among 1994 Democrats, who managed to remain in denial almost until the votes were counted.

This time, though, Democrats know what’s coming and, like their Republican counterparts back in 1974, they don’t know what to do about it. As a result, they’re rushing around the deck of the sinking ship blaming each other, the media and, in some case, the “stupidity” of an ungrateful electorate.

With limited funds and a need to focus on incumbents they might actually be able to save, today’s fights among the Democrats are over who ought to be allowed into the lifeboats and who ought to stoically accept their fate. Democratic leaders have triaged candidates they believe are drowning anyway in an understandable effort to save those they can.

(more…)

He was hired by the Obama administration to slash executive compensation at companies bailed out by the federal government. But now he’s involved in a salary controversy of his own. In a Washington corruption chronicles classic, the Obama administration can’t even shoot straight on the pay of its pay czar!

I’m speaking of Kenneth Feinberg, President Obama’s “Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation.” Judicial Watch recently received documents from the Treasury Department indicating that Feinberg received a $120,830 annual salary to establish executive compensation levels at companies bailed out by the federal government. We got hold of these documents pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request we filed on July 20, 2010.

Now there’s nothing necessarily unusual about a federal appointee hauling in six figures. But here’s the problem: These documents contradict multiple press reports that Feinberg would not be compensated for this work for the Treasury Department at all.

When President Obama appointed Washington lawyer Feinberg “Pay Czar” in 2009, the press reported that he would perform his duties pro bono. Dozens of mainstream media stories confirmed that Feinberg, founder and managing partner of the Washington, D.C., firm Feinberg, Rozen, LLP, would not receive a salary to set pay limits for more than two dozen executives at companies receiving government bailouts.

(more…)

There were three major surprises in the sometimes nasty Republican Senate primary results last night.  The first is the most obvious, Christine O’Donnell pulled off a stunning upset over nine-term Congress Mike Castle.

Tea Party conservative Christine O’Donnell knocked off longtime Republican insider milquetoast Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican primary Tuesday for the Senate seat once held in a lockbox by Vice President Joe Biden.

It’s another victory for the GOP rank and file, whose party leadership has abandoned them in recent years on its great detour into the wilderness of big-government leftism.

One of the lessons that leaped out at me in recent days, as O’Donnell stormed from out of nowhere to win, was the symbolic difference in the two candidates:

O’Donnell: pretty, young (41), wide-eyed, smiling and bright, marching off confidently from appearance to appearance with a strong conservative message. The very image of the girl next door.

Castle: old (71), weathered, worn, dour and gray, walking lamely and slowly. The very image of the tired old white-guy GOP that has turned off young voters at least since the days of Reagan, and maybe longer, pitching leftist policies from his RINO perch.

GOP leadership wants to cling to its tired, old, go-along-to-get-along image. The GOP rank and file, in primary after primary, is very clear in what it wants: young, new, vibrant, and conservative! They don’t want to go along to get along with big-government statism. They want to fight. They want to take back their country.

(more…)

Democrats have been protesting that only 3% of small businesses are affected by the Bush tax cuts…  this is technically true, it is also true that almost all the small businesses that create jobs are part of this 3%.  The unspeakable truth is that wealthy small business owners are the only heroes we can turn to in this economic crisis.

So, the incoming Republican Congress needs to take swift and decisive steps to hand Obama a tax cut bill that he cannot veto.

In light of this, it would be a mistake of epic proportions to get tangled up in arguments about extending Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.  Instead, the GOP ought to come out in favor of Progressive Corporate Taxes.

I submit that more than any other long term tax cut, Obama will have a harder time arguing against this proposal – because it just smells like a jobs boom.

Corporate taxes stay the same for companies earning profits over $1BILLION.

Companies earning under $10 MILLION pay no taxes.

For earnings in between $10M and $1B there is a graduated tax schedule.

This is a slam dunk for Main Street.

(more…)

This year marks the centennial of the Mann “White Slave Act,” when Congress made it a federal offence to transport a woman across state lines for “immoral purposes.” Though the act is still on the books (as former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer can tell you), and has been made gender-neutral, it is usually seen as a relic of nineteenth-century moralism. In fact, no act did more to overturn the nineteenth-century constitutional order. The Mann Act was boldly challenged the idea that the Constitution limited Congress’ power the ends enumerated in Article One, section eight. It established an all-purpose federal “police power” that now permits Congress to regulate just about everything.

By 1910, Congress had already taken some steps toward the establishment of a police power—outlawing, for example, the interstate shipment of lottery tickets and of impure food and drugs. The U.S. had recently ratified a multinational treaty to stamp out the international trafficking in prostitutes. The act’s proponents emphasized that it was an attack on the big business of “commercialized vice.” The press and U.S. officials, particularly U.S. Attorney Edwin Sims in Chicago, claimed that a vast “white slave trust” was operating in the country, when in fact there was little coerced prostitution at all.

The bill raised constitutional objections in the House, often from states-rights advocates. But prostitution was so universally reviled that most overcame their constitutional scruples. Rep. William Cox of Indiana had doubts as to the bill’s constitutionality, but said that he “would unhesitatingly resolve that doubt in favor of its constitutionality on account of the enormity of the crime sought to be stopped and the evil intended to be remedied…. Who can be hurt by its provisions? None but the guilty.” The bill’s sponsor, Illinois Republican James R. Mann, claimed that the white-slave traffic, “while not so extensive, is much more horrible than any black-slave traffic ever was.” New York Representative William Sulzer denounced the “quibbling in regard to the constitutionality of the provisions of this bill. In this frightful matter I shall not allow technicalities to cloud my sense of immediate duty.” In an ominous sign of Congress’ progressive abdication of its constitutional duty, he said, “The courts must take the responsibility for its constitutionality.”

(more…)

Rep. Charlie Rangel won his primary. And, the tea party had a temper tantrum, but we aren’t going to comment on that. Lame-duck session, here we come…

I remember using the Jeep Cherokee’s door for cover, moving fast, hunched over, running zig-zag from tree to boulder to tree for cover, instinctively, as if I was still in the sniper hell of Ramadi. This was the very first time I had dismounted on a recon mission near the border in southern Arizona. Given that we were scouting an extremely rough, remote dirt road that we had been told was only used at night by Mexican cash mules heading south to Mexico, and given that it was surrounded by perfect hilltop sniper hides, this made sense. As disorienting as it was to be doing this mere miles form my home, it just made sense.

Sign on the other side of American Rancher X’s fence

The day ended without incident, and the next day began the same. We were heading to another key trafficking area, and were going to go right up to the border. Two of our team, non-journalist, non-militia civilians, wanted to engage in a little for-the-camera horseplay, and piss on Mexico. Despite knowing better, I told them it was okay, and that I’d take the shot. I had begun to think that I was taking things too seriously the day before, and should lighten up.

Getting closer to the border, we continued our regular task of finding, tracking, mapping, and decoding what we were discovering to be a vast network of illegal immigrant trails. Many of the trails were strewn with every type of human debris imaginable, some of it layered so thick it was clear that the layers were years in the making. (more…)

Former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Glen Robinson wrote yesterday about FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposed “Third Way” solution to Commission Internet regulation – whereby the FCC unilaterally rips the Internet out of its current lightly regulated framework and places it under the antiquated and oppressive Title II telephone regulatory regime.

Mr. Robinson deems this to be not the “moderate” solution the Chairman – and pro-Net Neutrality zealots – purport it to be.  Of course, he is exactly right.

The Hill’s Sara Jerome gets the goods:

“If this new middle way seems moderate, that appearance is an illusion,” writes Glen Robinson, a member of the board of academic advisers at the free-market think tank the Free State Foundation. Robinson served as a commissioner in the ’70s.

Under the “third way” plan, the FCC would seek more power to police broadband service providers and enforce net-neutrality rules. To do that, it would place broadband services under telephone regulations.

But Genachowski promises that the FCC would not hold onto the complete set of rules that govern telephone services. In an effort at moderation, he says the FCC would give up the power to enforce the strictest telephone provisions through a process titled “forbearance.”

Please forgive us if we do not trust a federal agency to forever restrain itself as to what it takes under its authoritative auspices.

(more…)