Why Congressional Republicans Should Go Over Fiscal Cliff

There has been some talk within some talking head shows about the Congressional Republicans and President Obama, and talking about the Fiscal Cliff. Within this talk it has been brought up that President Obama has the upper hand when it comes to talks on the Fiscal Cliff.

The first reason why the Republicans should not be concerned with what President Obama has to say on the Fiscal Cliff is that the President has no authority over fiscal matters. Only Congress has that authority. Thus, Congressional Republicans should just ignore the President on these matters since the President is talking about doing things in which he has no authority to do it. Congress “creates” and passes the laws, and President either signs them into law or veto’s them. President is not involved in creating these laws at all.

The second reason why the Republicans should not be concerned with what President Obama has to say on the Fiscal Cliff is that President Obama talked about going back people being treated equal, having the same laws apply to them, and have the same shoot. The Republicans can point out that in order to be consistent with these things that President Obama ran on is to go over the Fiscal Cliff. Going over the Fiscal Cliff will make it so that all citizens are affected equally instead of only part of citizens being affected and others not being affected. This would prevent people being treated equally and this would limit people having the same shot.

The third reason why the Republicans should not be concerned with what President Obama has to say on the Fiscal Cliff is that President Obama talked about going back to the Clinton economic policies. So the Republicans should point out that the bush Tax cuts were based on lowering the tax rates of all Americans by lowering them from what Clinton had them. So point out that in order for President Obama to say anything about Clinton economic times and policy, it would be necessary to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts that applied to all Americans. This would mean going over the Fiscal Cliff.

The fourth reason why the Republicans should not be concerned with what President Obama has to say on the Fiscal Cliff is that Congressional Republicans were elected by their constituents, which can either be a district for the House of Representatives or a state for the Senate, and this implies that they support their position on this issue (unless majority of constituents say otherwise). They are elected Representatives, and they do not have to worry about how other people in other states think, or other districts, but only the people they are sent to Washington to represent them before the nation.

The fifth reason why the Republicans should not be concerned with what President Obama has to say on the Fiscal Cliff is a mix of the second reason,  third reason, and fourth reason. This is based on how President Obama supposedly has a “Mandate” from the American people. The Congressional Republicans may point out that they have a “Mandate” from their own constituents like the President does as well. The Congressional Republicans may point out that President Obama’s “Mandate” is about people being treated equally, and people would not be treated equally if one group of Americans have their tax rate raised while another group does not have their tax rate raised as well. The Congressional Republicans may point out that President Obama’s “Mandate” is to go back to the economic policies of Clinton and not George W. Bush, so get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts, which means going back to the tax rate under the Clinton Administration which means going over the Fiscal Cliff.

The 47% and 2012 Election

Well, the 2012 Presidential Election is “done”. We have some results in. Here is something that I found funny. Mitt Romney made some comments about the 47% of American citizens that do not pay income tax and receive benefits from the federal government. Here is something interesting from the election results for President in 2012.

51% of the popular vote went to Barack Obama, which is about 62,262,675 votes. 48% of the popular vote went to Mitt Romney, which is about  58,894,887 votes. Now here is what is funny, Mitt Romney made some comments about 47% of Americans, and Romney happen to get 48% of the popular vote. So 121,157,562 cast a vote for either Obama or Romney, and of those, 48% went to Romney. So did the 47% vote for Romeny and Romney received 1% of the vote from the 53% of Americans that do pay an income tax? Maybe some of Romney’s friends who only have a capital gains tax instead of having to pay the income tax, all voted for him and some of the 53% voted for him as well, at least 1% of the 53% who pay income tax.
Funny how Romney got the 47% he talked about and got 1% more. Looks like that video did nothing wrong and spoke the truth, and the people voted for him for it. Too bad he did not say what was needed to get the majority of Americans, those 53% that pay income tax. So out of 100 American citizens, 53 of them pay income tax and 47 don’t pay income tax. Romney received 48 of the votes and Obama received 51 of the votes, and other people received 2 of the votes, out of an assumed 100 votes total.
Here are the simple ideas in basic logical form of a syllogism: All those who do not pay income tax (i.e. 47%) are voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote. All those who voted for Barack Obama in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%). Some of those who voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%) and Some of those who did not vote for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%).

47% of Americans are the 99%

Since the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement has started, the old term of 99% and 1% have shown back up. Similar lines of thinking where used by Karl Marx when he mentioned the 9 out of 10. This would turn out to be the 90%, and the 90% would be the 99% that OWS talks about all the time. The 10% would be the 1% that OWS talks about a lot.

Now Mitt Romney brought up some point about the 47% and the 53%. The 47% pay no federal income tax, the 53% pay federal income tax. Interesting part is that Mitt Romney was accused by Harry Reid of being part of the 47%, i.e. was accused of not paying federal income tax. But Mitt Romney is also accused of being part of the 1%, as well. Assuming that all of the 1% are the 53%, but not all of the 53% are the 1%, then some of the 99% make up the 53% as well. All of the 53% are the 1% and some of the 99%. So it follows that all of the 47% are the 99%, though.

So this means that a some of the 99% pay no federal income tax while all of the 1% by the federal income tax. This means that the 1% pay for most of the benefits that the 99% obtain. This means that the 1% have their money taken from them and redistributed to people that do not pay into the system, and those people that do not pay into the system complain about the 1% not paying more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. It is like a starving person complaining that a certain individual did not give them more food than they did were given.

But, of course, the 47% and the 53% both pay other taxes than the federal income tax. They both either pay for the gas tax, the cigarette tax, the sales tax, toll tax, or etc. But yet the 53% have to pay more in taxes than the 47%, and the 47% complain that the 53% do not pay more in income taxes. The 53% have more of a burden to bear in losing personal income than the 47%. This means that the 53% pay more to keep the system running, and the entitlements running, than the 47%. This would mean that the 1% pay more to keep the system running, and the entitlements running, than the 99%.

Think of it this way. There are 100 people, and 53 of these people unwillingly supplement the income of 47 people. The 47 people pay no federal income tax, and 53 people pay federal income tax. But both the 47 people and the 53 people pay other taxes besides the federal income tax. Interesting part is that Mitt Romney was accused by Harry Reid of being part of the 47 people, i.e. was accused of not paying federal income tax. But remember that all of the 1% are part of the 53 people, or 53%. This means the one individual has a lot more money, and because federal income tax makes the 1% pay more than the the rest of the 99%, this means that the 1 person is going to pay more to keep the system running than the other 53% or the 99%. One individual will pay more for the entitlements that the other 99 enjoy and want.

Commentary on Elizabeth Warren’s “You didn’t Build that”

There is a talk that this woman named Elizabeth Warren, who is part of the Democratic party and was the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, i.e. TARP.

She was recorded at a some gathering of individuals, and was recorded saying a couple of things. One of them is very much in line with this “You didn’t Build that” type of mentality. Now I want to focus on particle part, which sums up the position of “You didn’t Build that” type of mentality.

Elizabeth Warren says, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.  You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear.  You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.  You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.  You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory… Now look.  You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it.  But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Now she admits that someone built a factory. Now what does she say to justify the you didn’t build that idea? Well you used roads that the rest of people paid for, in order to sell the goods from what you built.

There is a very interesting Supreme Court case called Plessy v. Ferguson. In that case, an opinion by Justice J. Haring was recorded as dissenting with the “Separate but Equal” idea. In the case of dissenting, he happens to quote something that is related to this roads idea of “you didn’t build that”.

Mr. Justice Strong in Olcott v. The Supervisors: “That railroads, though constructed by private corporations and owned by them, are public highways has been the doctrine of nearly all the courts ever since such conveniences for passage and transportation have had any existence. Very early the question arose whether a State’s right of eminent domain could be exercised by a private corporation created for the purpose of constructing a railroad. Clearly it could not unless taking land for such a purpose by such an agency is taking land for public use. The right of eminent domain nowhere justifies taking property for a private use. Yet it is a doctrine universally accepted that a state legislature may authorize a private corporation to take land for the construction of such a road, making compensation to the owner. What else does this doctrine mean if not that building a railroad, though it be built by a private corporation, is an act done for a public use.”

Another point is made, while quoting another court case, basically stated that “…the real and personal property necessary to the establishment and management of the railroad is vested in the corporation…”

The key point that is being made is that the railroads were built by private corporations, built by private individuals. In fact, lots of production on private rail roads were based on an economic bubble. Private investors were putting lots of money into laying down rail-road tracks and obtaining the private land from individuals and some from the government taking it through eminent domain. There was exponential growth in the building of the railroad infrastructure by private individuals and corporations, and eventually with that the economic bubble burst. Many of those private corporations, individuals, who invested in that infrastructure and railroads went broke. But they left something behind in the infrastructure of the railroads.

Another private corporation, or a few, came in and bought up lots of this land and railroads. They now provide the service or product. They took up all the infrastructure left behind. The same thing happened with telephone wires. Lots of private individuals invested in those things, but they failed because they invested lots of money on infrastructure when there were not many consumers, or private individuals, who could afford the service or even wanted it in the first place. But the infrastructure is what was left from these private investments. These failed private investments. But another private corporation came along and bought up most of the infrastructure at a later time. This private corporation was Western Union. Western Union didn’t pay for most of the telephone wires and poles, if any, but they did pay to obtain them at a later time. Another private corporation buying up on the private investment of another private corporation.

So when you hear people talking about this roads type, never forget that they were first built by private corporations and private individuals. They laid the ground work for these “public goods” or “public services”. They made the investments, they took the risks of failing, and we benefited from it. We benefited from their success and benefited from their failure. But this is not all. Everyone pays for it with taxes. They pay for it when they use transportation taxes like a gas tax. They pay for it when they go through a toll road. So they laid the foundation out of their own money, but also pay to keep it up with their own money. We only payed to keep it up after they started it on their own. Only after they took the initiative, after they took the risk. We co-invested with them after they got it up and running.

They built it, we liked it, we all pay to keep it.

Now there is another reason that I brought up Plessy v. Ferguson, which deals with something else that Warren said in her talk. But first let me quote some more from the dissenting opinion of J. Harlan. “But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.” (Sentences in bold are my emphasis)

Now if you do not know, Plessy v. Ferguson created the doctrine known as “Separate but Equal”, and Justice J. Harlan dissented from the idea of “Separate but Equal”. The ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson was later overthrown by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown v. Board of Education, the opinion of the court overturned Separate but Equal, and understood it to mean that “equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate.” Now “facilities” were things basically like bathrooms, building safety, and other raw goods.

Elizabeth Warren, “My favorite part of looking at this hole, we got in this hole, one billion dollars, uh, one trillion dollars, on tax cuts for the rich under George Bush.  We got into this hole two trillion dollars on two wars that were put on a credit card for our children and grandchildren to pay off.  And we got into this hole one trillion on a Medicare drug program that was not paid for and was 40% more expensive than its needs to be because it was a giveaway to the drug companies.  That’s just four trillion right there. So part of the way you fix this problem is don’t do those things! I hear all this, oh this is class warfare, no!”

I am not concerned with what lead to the economic condition that came about in 2007 with the Housing Bubble. So her talking points with that are of no concern to what follows. Now Warren is specifically talking about the rich, those “tax cuts for the rich under George Bush.” Now the rich were paying less than they did from Bill Clinton. They payed less of a percentage of their income with Bush than they did in comparison to when Clinton was POTUS.

Person A has 30% of their personal income taking from them each year by the government, under President X.
Person B has 10% of their personal income taking from them each year by the government, under President X.

Person A has 20% of their personal income taking from them each year by the government, under President Y.
Person B has 5% of their personal income taking from them each year by the government, under President Y.

Warrens complaint is that one “class” of people are paying less in income tax than they did before, or could be taxed on. She wants one specific class of people to have more of their personal income taken than another class of people have taken out of theirs. But, of course, this would not be unequal because they are separate but equal. All people in Class A pay the exact same income tax percentage. All people in Class B pay the exact same income tax percentage. So no individual in Class A is paying more in income tax percentage than any other individual in Class A, and vice versa with Class B. Now the class of A and B are separate, but they are equal. Every person in Class A pay the same income tax of 20%, and every person in Class B pay the same income tax of 5%, but both classes don’t pay the same income tax percentage. They are separate but equal.

Separate and Equal:
Person A, who makes 100,000 dollars in personal income a year, pays a 30% income tax; Person A will pay $30,000 dollars in income tax.
Person B, who makes 50,000 dollars in personal income a year, pays 10% income tax; Person B will pay $5,000 dollars in income tax.

Equal and not Separate:
Person A, who makes 100,000 dollars in personal income a year, pays 10% income tax; Person A will pay $10,000 dollars in income tax.
Person B, who makes 50,000 dollars in personal income a year, pays 10% income tax; Person A will pay 5,000 dollars in income tax.

Notice that when equal and not separate, both Americans pay their “fair share”, but one group of Americans are still paying more when they pay their “fair share”. But their fair share is the same as every other American. In fact, the richer you get, the more of an exponential growth in the amount of money you will give up, based on that income percentage of their personal income still being the same. To create a play off of what J. Hardlan said in his opinion, “Our Constitution is economically blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. The poorest is the equal of the richest.” But Elizabeth Warren appears to care little about “fair share”, let alone “Equality”. She prefers to think that the rich are similar to blacks of the olden times, Separate but Equal under the law. Different laws and regulations apply to the rich that do not apply to the non-rich, like different laws and regulations applied to white people that did not apply to the non-white people. She just prefers to discriminate based on economic status instead of race status, but discrimination nonetheless.