Grocery stores discriminate against men. If you doubt that, you obviously are a woman. No man would design a store with cramped aisles, indecipherable organization and illogical product placement. Grocery big wigs have rigged the system to favor the way women shop.
Before men of the world join together in a class action lawsuit, your author has a solution. Let a man design the store layout, organize products into meaningful categories and place items in strategic locations to make shopping intuitive. Are you listening HEB, Kroger, Whole Foods?
In this man's vision of the ideal grocery store, products would be organized by meals. For example, there would be a Breakfast Bar in the store, where eggs, cereal, bacon, yogurt and bread would be displayed. Today's designs force men to walk the entire store just to choose food for breakfast.
Push the cart to the meat section for bacon. Then trudge another five city blocks to the cereal aisle. Next stop is yogurt hidden next to butter and milk. Bread is crammed into a lower shelf in another zip code. By this time your average male is filled with rage and bereft of patience.
And you haven't even thought about food items for lunch. Bread, lunch meat, fruit, mustard, mayonnaise, pickles, potato chips and paper plates ought to be in one section. There should be a dinner aisle, too. Toilet paper should be at the store entrance in case you are in a hurry.
Another male complaint involves the tiny aisles built for small children under the age of 10. Two people with grocery carts cannot pass each other in the aisle without risking injury. And God help you if someone in one of those motorized carts in ahead of you. Plan on skipping dinner.
While we are imagining a new concept, how about redesigning the aisles with striped, divided lanes like a freeway? You stay on your side and I will remain out of your way. Nothing irks a man more than to wait while some person straddles the aisle aimlessly sniffing for a bargain on coconut chips.
There should also be Store Cops patrolling each aisle, shooing along slow customers. Minimum speed limits should be posted in each aisle. The candy aisle might by 5 miles an hour, while the craft beer aisle would have no posted limit. If you crave candy, it shouldn't take long to make a decision.
Signage at the front of each aisle would be changed to be more descriptive. Too many stores use generic terms like "Dried Fruit." When searching for prunes, you don't want to waste too many brain cells to decide if a prune is a dried fruit. Just erect a sign that reads: Old People, Prunes Ahead.
We haven't even discussed product placement. Beer and wine should be at the cash register up front. If you rush into the grocery store to pick up an adult beverage for dinner, why should you have to walk right past the check out lane and then retrace your steps? It's a time waster.
Next to the beer and wine, there should be a display marked: Last Minute Items We Anticipated You Would Need. There you would find shoelaces, feminine products, razor blades, boxed dinners, lipstick and adult diapers. Think of the time shoppers would save.
Without sounding sexist, women don't seem to have as many issues with grocery stores. Many, but not all, appear to like the idea of casually sauntering down each aisle casually checking out every product. We men get that. Women are from Venus and Men are from Hurry The Hell Up.
Grocery store brass reading this are giggling to themselves. They secretly delight in torturing men. There goal is too discourage men from setting foot in their stores. They know the typical male vaults through the store and spends less money. That's bad for business.
Perhaps, this diatribe will encourage some young entrepreneur to start a new grocery chain called For Men Only. Sure, it sounds like the name of a gentleman's club. All the more reason it will entice males to spend more time in a grocery store. That might be good for business.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Monday, May 22, 2017
Who Is Seth Rich And Why Was He Murdered?
From all appearances, Seth Conrad Rich had landed his dream job. The 27-year-old had toiled in the vineyards of Democrat Party politics for a few years, hoping for a high-profile job. He got his opportunity when the Democratic National Committee (DNC) called with an job offer.
Rich, a native of Omaha, Nebraska, joined the DNC where he worked two years (from 2014-2016) assisting in the development of a computer program to make it easier for voters to locate polling places on election day. He played a role in the presidential primary and general election campaign.
The Creighton University graduate's promising political career was cut short on July 10, 2016. He was brutally murdered at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Rich was shot twice in the back. Although robbery was listed as the motive, nothing was stolen.
In fact, police found his wallet, credit cards, keys, watch and necklace at the crime scene. If robbery was the intent, how do police explain the criminal(s) took nothing? And why kill an unarmed man? Those questions are just a few of many that remain unanswered.
After the murder, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz attended a vigil for Rich and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton inserted his name into a speech about gun control. Rich was not some flunky laboring in the bowels of the DNC. He was a top staffer with extraordinary access.
Meanwhile, the investigation by District police has languished for 10 months. During that time, there have been no arrests. There are no suspects. Despite rewards totaling more than $100,000, not a single person has come forward with information that might shed light on the killing or the motive.
The Seth Rich murder was all but forgotten until last week. That's when FOX News reported that federal law enforcement investigators uncovered 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments that were sent by Rich to Gavin MacFayden, a Wikileaks director based in London.
(In a strange twist of fate, MacFayden died a few months after Rich. The cause of death for the 76-year old reporter was listed officially as lung disease. There is no indication of foul play.)
Fox's source was Rod Wheeler, a former D.C. homicide detective hired by the Rich family to investigate the murder. Wheeler told the network that his "investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks."
Wheeler added, "I do believe that the answers to who murdered Seth Rich sits on his computer on a shelf at the D.C. police or FBI headquarters." That prompted the Rich family to cry foul, claiming the private investigator was "contractually barred" from disclosing details publicly.
After the news report aired, denials pored in from police and intelligence officials. They dismissed the account as groundless theories hatched by some vast right wing conspiracy. The D.C. Police Department issued a statement saying Rich's death was "not connected to his employment."
However, the police have not explained how they reached that conclusion. This is curious in light of the fact they have no witnesses and no suspect. Wheeler has suggested that the D.C. police are not actively continuing a probe of the Rich's death, adding weight to a conspiracy theory.
Even the family joined in the pooh-pooh chorus. They blasted the private detective and remained adamant their son had no connection to Wikileaks. But at this point there has been no evidence offered publicly to disprove Wheeler's findings. Zero.
While this entire episode may truly be a robbery that ended in the tragic death of a young DNC staffer, it seems odd that no mainstream media have pursued the story. Even The Washington Post, has ignored the story in its own backyard on grounds there is nothing to investigate.
Ironically, the newspaper has run several stories using anonymous sources to spread the conspiracy of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. The newspaper's latest anonymously sourced article recounted classified information passed by the president to Russian officials.
Perhaps, this is the larger conspiracy even bigger than Rich's death: Why has The Washington Post lost interest in this unsolved murder and has unearthed no anonymous sources to provide some details about why a DNC staffer was killed in cold blood? Your turn Washington Post.
Rich, a native of Omaha, Nebraska, joined the DNC where he worked two years (from 2014-2016) assisting in the development of a computer program to make it easier for voters to locate polling places on election day. He played a role in the presidential primary and general election campaign.
The Creighton University graduate's promising political career was cut short on July 10, 2016. He was brutally murdered at 4:20 a.m. in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Rich was shot twice in the back. Although robbery was listed as the motive, nothing was stolen.
In fact, police found his wallet, credit cards, keys, watch and necklace at the crime scene. If robbery was the intent, how do police explain the criminal(s) took nothing? And why kill an unarmed man? Those questions are just a few of many that remain unanswered.
After the murder, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz attended a vigil for Rich and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton inserted his name into a speech about gun control. Rich was not some flunky laboring in the bowels of the DNC. He was a top staffer with extraordinary access.
Meanwhile, the investigation by District police has languished for 10 months. During that time, there have been no arrests. There are no suspects. Despite rewards totaling more than $100,000, not a single person has come forward with information that might shed light on the killing or the motive.
The Seth Rich murder was all but forgotten until last week. That's when FOX News reported that federal law enforcement investigators uncovered 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments that were sent by Rich to Gavin MacFayden, a Wikileaks director based in London.
(In a strange twist of fate, MacFayden died a few months after Rich. The cause of death for the 76-year old reporter was listed officially as lung disease. There is no indication of foul play.)
Fox's source was Rod Wheeler, a former D.C. homicide detective hired by the Rich family to investigate the murder. Wheeler told the network that his "investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks."
Wheeler added, "I do believe that the answers to who murdered Seth Rich sits on his computer on a shelf at the D.C. police or FBI headquarters." That prompted the Rich family to cry foul, claiming the private investigator was "contractually barred" from disclosing details publicly.
After the news report aired, denials pored in from police and intelligence officials. They dismissed the account as groundless theories hatched by some vast right wing conspiracy. The D.C. Police Department issued a statement saying Rich's death was "not connected to his employment."
However, the police have not explained how they reached that conclusion. This is curious in light of the fact they have no witnesses and no suspect. Wheeler has suggested that the D.C. police are not actively continuing a probe of the Rich's death, adding weight to a conspiracy theory.
Even the family joined in the pooh-pooh chorus. They blasted the private detective and remained adamant their son had no connection to Wikileaks. But at this point there has been no evidence offered publicly to disprove Wheeler's findings. Zero.
While this entire episode may truly be a robbery that ended in the tragic death of a young DNC staffer, it seems odd that no mainstream media have pursued the story. Even The Washington Post, has ignored the story in its own backyard on grounds there is nothing to investigate.
Ironically, the newspaper has run several stories using anonymous sources to spread the conspiracy of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. The newspaper's latest anonymously sourced article recounted classified information passed by the president to Russian officials.
Perhaps, this is the larger conspiracy even bigger than Rich's death: Why has The Washington Post lost interest in this unsolved murder and has unearthed no anonymous sources to provide some details about why a DNC staffer was killed in cold blood? Your turn Washington Post.
Monday, May 15, 2017
America's Political Puppet Master
His ranks one of the world's richest people. He spreads money around like manure in American political campaigns. He backs social causes ranging from legalization of marijuana to open borders and euthanasia. He views himself as a messianic figure who wants to reshape America in his image.
The mystery multi-billionaire is George Soros, born 86-years ago in Budapest, Hungary. He immigrated to the U.S. in 1956 and has amassed a personal fortune estimated this year to have eclipsed $25 billion. He heads up a large hedge fund and has an unsavory business reputation.
He made his fortune by shorting the British currency in 1992, earning him the title of the Man Who Broke the Bank of England. In 1997, Soros was called a "villain" by the Malaysian prime minister after he nearly destroyed the nation's economy through currency manipulation.
His financial entanglements usually end up damaging others. An activist in Thailand once labelled Soros a "kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from people." He was convicted of insider trading in France and was fined $2.9 million by his native Hungary for illegal market manipulation.
This month an Israeli resources company filed a $10 billion lawsuit against Soros in New York Federal Court, accusing him of meddling in politics in the West African country of Guinea in order to prevent the firm from obtaining a lucrative contract.
This is the man who now pulls the strings in the Democratic Party. He funneled $21 million to Democrat candidates during the 2016 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets, a non-profit that tracks political donations. Over the years, he has spent close to $100 million to support Democrats.
He also is among the top bundlers, rich fund raisers who solicit donations from their pals and collect the money for the candidate. In the period from 1990 to 2016, he bundled $28 million in campaign contributions for the coffers of Democrat candidates, calculates Open.Secrets.
In 2008, Soros forked over a stunning $5 billion to the Democratic National Committee. A man can buy a lot of influence with dollar signs that add up to billions. It was no coincidence that 2008 was the year that Barrack Obama won the Democratic nomination, upsetting favored Hillary Clinton.
His political largess extends to 187 organizations in the country that support liberal causes, giving him enormous power and leverage. He has plowed millions into groups such as Media Matters for America, an organization that aims to silence Fox News and conservative radio talk radio.
Soros has pored millions more into Moveon.org, which has been at the forefront of organizing protests against then-candidate and now President Trump. The recent Women's March in Washington had ties to at least 50 organizations that are financially connected to Soros.
He prefers to operate out of public view, using his financial muscle and the web of philanthropic and liberal groups he supports to do his bidding. No Democrat could raise sufficient funding for a national campaign without the political and financial backing of the Godfather, George Soros.
But Soros has ambitions that extend beyond controlling the Democrat Party. He has branched out into media, building a large share holding in Time Warner, which owns CNN. Soros also has direct ties to 30 mainstream media organizations, reports Media Research Center.
High-level executives from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, ABC and the Associated Press serve on Soros-funded organizations, the Media Research Center has documented. Soros wants increased clout with news outlets that peddle propaganda to Americans.
The man's power and influence are unparalleled. It begs the question: Should any one American be allowed to monopolize America's political landscape? The country's founders would have shouted "absolutely not." Now Americans must decide if that want one-man rule.
The mystery multi-billionaire is George Soros, born 86-years ago in Budapest, Hungary. He immigrated to the U.S. in 1956 and has amassed a personal fortune estimated this year to have eclipsed $25 billion. He heads up a large hedge fund and has an unsavory business reputation.
He made his fortune by shorting the British currency in 1992, earning him the title of the Man Who Broke the Bank of England. In 1997, Soros was called a "villain" by the Malaysian prime minister after he nearly destroyed the nation's economy through currency manipulation.
His financial entanglements usually end up damaging others. An activist in Thailand once labelled Soros a "kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from people." He was convicted of insider trading in France and was fined $2.9 million by his native Hungary for illegal market manipulation.
This month an Israeli resources company filed a $10 billion lawsuit against Soros in New York Federal Court, accusing him of meddling in politics in the West African country of Guinea in order to prevent the firm from obtaining a lucrative contract.
This is the man who now pulls the strings in the Democratic Party. He funneled $21 million to Democrat candidates during the 2016 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets, a non-profit that tracks political donations. Over the years, he has spent close to $100 million to support Democrats.
He also is among the top bundlers, rich fund raisers who solicit donations from their pals and collect the money for the candidate. In the period from 1990 to 2016, he bundled $28 million in campaign contributions for the coffers of Democrat candidates, calculates Open.Secrets.
In 2008, Soros forked over a stunning $5 billion to the Democratic National Committee. A man can buy a lot of influence with dollar signs that add up to billions. It was no coincidence that 2008 was the year that Barrack Obama won the Democratic nomination, upsetting favored Hillary Clinton.
His political largess extends to 187 organizations in the country that support liberal causes, giving him enormous power and leverage. He has plowed millions into groups such as Media Matters for America, an organization that aims to silence Fox News and conservative radio talk radio.
Soros has pored millions more into Moveon.org, which has been at the forefront of organizing protests against then-candidate and now President Trump. The recent Women's March in Washington had ties to at least 50 organizations that are financially connected to Soros.
He prefers to operate out of public view, using his financial muscle and the web of philanthropic and liberal groups he supports to do his bidding. No Democrat could raise sufficient funding for a national campaign without the political and financial backing of the Godfather, George Soros.
But Soros has ambitions that extend beyond controlling the Democrat Party. He has branched out into media, building a large share holding in Time Warner, which owns CNN. Soros also has direct ties to 30 mainstream media organizations, reports Media Research Center.
High-level executives from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, ABC and the Associated Press serve on Soros-funded organizations, the Media Research Center has documented. Soros wants increased clout with news outlets that peddle propaganda to Americans.
The man's power and influence are unparalleled. It begs the question: Should any one American be allowed to monopolize America's political landscape? The country's founders would have shouted "absolutely not." Now Americans must decide if that want one-man rule.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Six Firms That Control American Media
Six giant media corporations control most of what Americans watch, read and hear. These business behemoths produce more than 90 percent of all news and entertainment available in the United States. As a result, consumers are left with the illusion of choice instead of real alternatives.
As recently as 1983, roughly 90 percent of the American media was owned by 50 companies. In the intervening years, waves of mergers and acquisitions have produced a near monopoly. Meanwhile, federal regulators napped through the sea change without raising an eyebrow.
The mammoth media and entertainment firms are: Comcast, Walt Disney Company, 21st Century Fox, Time Warner, Viacom and CBS Corporation. The companies' annual revenues collectively are more than $100 billion. Total market capitalization for the firms is about $500 billion.
These jumbo corporations own NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, ABC, ESPN, Fox, DreamWorks Animation, CNN, HBO, Cinemax, CBS, Showtime, Paramount Pictures, Nickelodeon, TNT and Warner Brothers Pictures, to mention just a few assets.
There is not enough room in this space to list every media and entertainment company the six own. Included in the asset mix are magazines, book publishers, children's television channels, amusement parks, professional sports teams, websites, radio stations and music production companies.
The concentration of power is unprecedented. You wind up with about 300 executives at six Herculean conglomerates making all the decisions about the information and entertainment that influences many Americans' political and social attitudes.
Having such a monopoly clustered in relatively few hands might not be bad if they acted and reported independently. The reality is that the six march in lockstep with each other, particularly when it comes to political agenda. Fox may be the lone exception, but be advised to reserve judgement.
Research reveals the political action committees and corporate executives at the super-sized six favor Democratic candidates and their positions. Comcast Corporation, perhaps the most politically active of the bunch, has been a regular contributor to both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton.
Comcast, which owns NBC and the Spanish language network Telemundo, has dished out more than $31 million in political contributions since 1990, including $7 million in 2016. The size of its political largess dwarfs the other five members of the Big Six Club.
Time Warner, which owns CNN and HBO, doled out $2.3 million in 2016 in political donations, almost exclusively to Democrats. The company padded Ms. Clinton's campaign coffers with $550,000 and raised $2.2 million for Barrack Obama's two campaigns.
CBS and Disney hand out political donations through their Political Action Committees (PAC). Both are spendthrifts compared to Time Warner and Comcast, each totaling about $200,000 in donations. A review of their reports reveals both have overwhelmingly favored Democrats over Republicans.
The surprise of the lot is 21st Century Fox. James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of the enterprise, has contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. However, in the most recent election cycle the Fox PAC spent $325,000, with the GOP getting 55 percent.
(As a side note, James and brother Lachlan Murdoch will one day inherit the mantle of leadership at Fox when their 84-year old father Rupert steps down. The brothers are far more liberal than Rupert and some analysts are predicting Fox News will join the Democrat echo chamber in the media.)
For the record, the contribution figures cited above were reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, independent non-profit that collects and disseminates information on the influence of money on politics and national policy. The center also tracks companies' lobbying costs.
Each one of the elephantine outfits has influential lobbying organizations which actively exert pressure on Congress and the executive branch.
The Samson Six have logged nearly $500 million in lobbying expenses since 1990. Comcast is the biggest spender, reporting $167 million in lobby costs during that time frame. Since 2009, Time Warner has ponied up $80 million to lobby in Washington.
This toxic mix of media and political cash should concern Americans worried about unbiased news reporting. Media businesses have the same right as other firms to be involved in the political process. Nonetheless, their activities still raise questions about political advocacy prejudicing media decisions.
As recently as 1983, roughly 90 percent of the American media was owned by 50 companies. In the intervening years, waves of mergers and acquisitions have produced a near monopoly. Meanwhile, federal regulators napped through the sea change without raising an eyebrow.
The mammoth media and entertainment firms are: Comcast, Walt Disney Company, 21st Century Fox, Time Warner, Viacom and CBS Corporation. The companies' annual revenues collectively are more than $100 billion. Total market capitalization for the firms is about $500 billion.
These jumbo corporations own NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, ABC, ESPN, Fox, DreamWorks Animation, CNN, HBO, Cinemax, CBS, Showtime, Paramount Pictures, Nickelodeon, TNT and Warner Brothers Pictures, to mention just a few assets.
There is not enough room in this space to list every media and entertainment company the six own. Included in the asset mix are magazines, book publishers, children's television channels, amusement parks, professional sports teams, websites, radio stations and music production companies.
The concentration of power is unprecedented. You wind up with about 300 executives at six Herculean conglomerates making all the decisions about the information and entertainment that influences many Americans' political and social attitudes.
Having such a monopoly clustered in relatively few hands might not be bad if they acted and reported independently. The reality is that the six march in lockstep with each other, particularly when it comes to political agenda. Fox may be the lone exception, but be advised to reserve judgement.
Research reveals the political action committees and corporate executives at the super-sized six favor Democratic candidates and their positions. Comcast Corporation, perhaps the most politically active of the bunch, has been a regular contributor to both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton.
Comcast, which owns NBC and the Spanish language network Telemundo, has dished out more than $31 million in political contributions since 1990, including $7 million in 2016. The size of its political largess dwarfs the other five members of the Big Six Club.
Time Warner, which owns CNN and HBO, doled out $2.3 million in 2016 in political donations, almost exclusively to Democrats. The company padded Ms. Clinton's campaign coffers with $550,000 and raised $2.2 million for Barrack Obama's two campaigns.
CBS and Disney hand out political donations through their Political Action Committees (PAC). Both are spendthrifts compared to Time Warner and Comcast, each totaling about $200,000 in donations. A review of their reports reveals both have overwhelmingly favored Democrats over Republicans.
The surprise of the lot is 21st Century Fox. James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of the enterprise, has contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. However, in the most recent election cycle the Fox PAC spent $325,000, with the GOP getting 55 percent.
(As a side note, James and brother Lachlan Murdoch will one day inherit the mantle of leadership at Fox when their 84-year old father Rupert steps down. The brothers are far more liberal than Rupert and some analysts are predicting Fox News will join the Democrat echo chamber in the media.)
For the record, the contribution figures cited above were reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, independent non-profit that collects and disseminates information on the influence of money on politics and national policy. The center also tracks companies' lobbying costs.
Each one of the elephantine outfits has influential lobbying organizations which actively exert pressure on Congress and the executive branch.
The Samson Six have logged nearly $500 million in lobbying expenses since 1990. Comcast is the biggest spender, reporting $167 million in lobby costs during that time frame. Since 2009, Time Warner has ponied up $80 million to lobby in Washington.
This toxic mix of media and political cash should concern Americans worried about unbiased news reporting. Media businesses have the same right as other firms to be involved in the political process. Nonetheless, their activities still raise questions about political advocacy prejudicing media decisions.
Monday, May 1, 2017
Democrats' Mantra: Tax Cuts Are Evil
From the second President Trump unveiled his plan to reduce federal income taxes, the Democrat clucking began. The party of Resistance discharged a stream of negatives. The plan will enrich the wealthy. It will rob the poor. The middle class will get shafted. Tax cuts are evil, evil, evil.
If all this sounds familiar, it's because Democrats dip into their bag of class warfare tricks and pull out the same arguments every time the GOP floats the idea of tax cuts. Their thesis becomes the media narrative, creating an illusion that not a single American wants lower taxes, except the fat cats.
The Tax Policy Center, an virtual arm of the Democrat Party supported by Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, rushed to judgment on Mr. Trump's plan. Without waiting for the details to be hashed out in Congress, the center howled the government would lose $6.2 trillion in revenue.
That last counterfeit claim is a hackneyed favorite of Democrats. It is factual that not all tax cuts hike government revenues. However, evidence exists that many have lined the government's coffers.Those are never mentioned by demagogue Democrats in their anti-tax sermons.
For instance, the federal tax rate for the top one percent was reduced in 1997. Despite the drop, individual tax revenues rose 9.8 percent that year. In the following year, tax receipts climbed 10.6 percent. Tax rates fell but the government took in more money. Amazing.
The same scenario played out in 1997-1998 when corporate income taxes were sliced. During the period, income tax revenues actually increased by 28.3 percent the first year and 8.2 percent the following year. Jobs and investments grew. Corporations and individuals benefited.
The Mother of All tax cuts occurred in 1981 when President Reagan wielded a meat axe to the federal tax tables. The jobless rate was 9.6 percent when he took office. When he left, it had dipped to 5.3 percent. Government revenues soared 82 percent from 1981 to 1989. The economy roared.
In every one of the instances cited above, the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) predictions about tax revenues were off the mark. Keep that in mind when you start reading and hearing about the CBO's dire predictions about revenue shortfalls and soaring deficits triggered by the Trump plan.
The CBO, which supports Congress' budget process, has a long history of being wrong. The bureaucrats are experts at crunching numbers, but their assumptions often fail to correctly gauge the economic activity fueled by reducing taxes for individuals and corporations.
Mr. Trump's tax plan needs to be fleshed out in Congress before it can be fairly assessed. The basic outline requires added specificity. But it is a step in the right direction. Americans will benefit from simplification with fewer tax brackets. Many will pay less in federal taxes.
There will be increased child care tax breaks for couples. The tax marginal tax rate will drop for upper income earners who pay the lion's share of revenues collected by the government. Despite the benefits, don't expect the Democrats or the lapdog media to embrace the plan.
The Resistance is banking on Americans' ignorance and gullibility about taxes to win the argument. Class envy is their weapon of choice. Soak the rich is their battle cry. Lost in all the rancor will be a rational discussion of how tax policy can jump start America's weakling economy.
If all this sounds familiar, it's because Democrats dip into their bag of class warfare tricks and pull out the same arguments every time the GOP floats the idea of tax cuts. Their thesis becomes the media narrative, creating an illusion that not a single American wants lower taxes, except the fat cats.
The Tax Policy Center, an virtual arm of the Democrat Party supported by Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, rushed to judgment on Mr. Trump's plan. Without waiting for the details to be hashed out in Congress, the center howled the government would lose $6.2 trillion in revenue.
That last counterfeit claim is a hackneyed favorite of Democrats. It is factual that not all tax cuts hike government revenues. However, evidence exists that many have lined the government's coffers.Those are never mentioned by demagogue Democrats in their anti-tax sermons.
For instance, the federal tax rate for the top one percent was reduced in 1997. Despite the drop, individual tax revenues rose 9.8 percent that year. In the following year, tax receipts climbed 10.6 percent. Tax rates fell but the government took in more money. Amazing.
The same scenario played out in 1997-1998 when corporate income taxes were sliced. During the period, income tax revenues actually increased by 28.3 percent the first year and 8.2 percent the following year. Jobs and investments grew. Corporations and individuals benefited.
The Mother of All tax cuts occurred in 1981 when President Reagan wielded a meat axe to the federal tax tables. The jobless rate was 9.6 percent when he took office. When he left, it had dipped to 5.3 percent. Government revenues soared 82 percent from 1981 to 1989. The economy roared.
In every one of the instances cited above, the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) predictions about tax revenues were off the mark. Keep that in mind when you start reading and hearing about the CBO's dire predictions about revenue shortfalls and soaring deficits triggered by the Trump plan.
The CBO, which supports Congress' budget process, has a long history of being wrong. The bureaucrats are experts at crunching numbers, but their assumptions often fail to correctly gauge the economic activity fueled by reducing taxes for individuals and corporations.
Mr. Trump's tax plan needs to be fleshed out in Congress before it can be fairly assessed. The basic outline requires added specificity. But it is a step in the right direction. Americans will benefit from simplification with fewer tax brackets. Many will pay less in federal taxes.
There will be increased child care tax breaks for couples. The tax marginal tax rate will drop for upper income earners who pay the lion's share of revenues collected by the government. Despite the benefits, don't expect the Democrats or the lapdog media to embrace the plan.
The Resistance is banking on Americans' ignorance and gullibility about taxes to win the argument. Class envy is their weapon of choice. Soak the rich is their battle cry. Lost in all the rancor will be a rational discussion of how tax policy can jump start America's weakling economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)