I'm Having a Bad Dream

In a flurry of last minute legislative activity, Governor Jerry Brown, that perennial civil servant who will hopefully retire one of these days soon without ever having held a real, private sector job, signed into effect AB 131, the infamous "Dream Act." One of 760 new laws (!) this year advanced by those otherwise unemployable Sacramento politicians, that's the companion piece to earlier legislation he previously signed which provided access to private funding for illegal aliens to attend California colleges and universities as of January 1, 2012. This one, remarkably, but perhaps not surprisingly, provides public taxpayer money for that same purpose as of January 1, 2013, providing an effort currently underway to gather signatures for a petition drive to overturn this legislative overreach are unsuccessful.

That leaves me with a question. If you can't work in the U.S. of A. without proving that you're here legally, how does providing those here illegally with a college education who have already consumed at least three and as many as twelve years of lower-level schooling at a cost to the taxpayers of more than $10,000 per annum make any fiscal sense at all? So they go on to college at public expense and graduate and still can't legally find employment. Accept that then we, the taxpayers, are out even more of our hard-earned dollars.

I'm thinking that four years from now when the ink is drying on the sheepskins of a whole bunch of newly-minted illegal alien college graduates, there will be no other choice but to extend the term of the current liberal largesse. Since they will still be illegal and still won't be able to find work, but will be much better educated, perhaps we should provide them with a graduate degree as well. A nice MBA, maybe. Or a Masters in Social Work. After all, the only place they will then still be welcome is in the hallowed halls of academia. And then how about a doctorate? Yeah, that's the ticket. A doctorate would be nice, maybe in International Relations or Criminal Justice or Latino Studies. Because then they could become professors and continue to maintain their "legal" illegal status while teaching others what it means to be a very well educated shadow resident.

Is California a Great State, or what?

Paying Their "Fair Share"

I don't know about you, but I'm growing weary of waiting for all those rich people out there to finally begin paying their fair share. We all know there's a huge pot of money somewhere and the rich managed to somehow get there before the rest of us and took more than they deserved and now they won't give it back! And that must be true because they're the ones with the big houses and the big cars and the big planes and the big boats and we're the ones with the masters degrees in Transgender Studies and Medieval Poetry and no jobs and we can't pay our student loans! All we ask is that they finally cough up what they actually owe!

Oh, I know what you're going to say. You're going to tell me that the rich already pay the vast majority of all Federal income taxes. That the top two-tenths of one percent pay more than 20% of all taxes; that the top 2% pays 40%; that the top 5% pays 70% and that the bottom 47% of all wage earners pay no income taxes at all! Well, Mr. and Mrs. Know-it-All, I just don't care, and neither do the rest of the 99%ers. The rich need to pay more! Redistributor-in-Chief Obama and past, present and no doubt future Governor Brown (aka Civil Servant for Life) tell us so and we know they wouldn't lie to us, right? Obama is campaigning every day for wealth redistribution. "At some point you've made enough money," he's told us. "You've got to spread the wealth around. It's good for everybody," he told Joe the Plumber. Obama says the millionaires and billionaires, you know, those nasty folks making more than $250,000 a year (!), should pay more so the rest of us can continue to enjoy our perks and entitlements. It's working well in Europe, right? And Brown is even advocating a ballot measure for next June which would require a tax surcharge of up to 2% on all those who make more than a certain amount. No matter that California is already in the top one or two states as far as income taxation is concerned, and that the wealthy are leaving in droves. Well I say, why stop there? I mean, who's better at determining how to redistribute "excess" earnings? Those who earned it, or the Government?

Even though the "rich" are the folks who operate the businesses that hire almost everybody in America, I say in the interest of "fairness" they should be required to pay much, much more. After all, it's okay to extoll the virtues of capitalism and studying hard and getting ahead and keeping your nose to the grindstone, but once the rich have gotten that way, it seems reasonable to change the rules a bit and penalize them for doing so. Who the heck do they thing they are, anyway? So I say, if a little bit is good, more must be better. So why not simply tax everybody who makes more than a politically correct amount at 100% of their earnings? Pick their bones clean! Teach them a lesson! Punish them! Who cares that there would be no more new MicroSofts, or Apples, or Googles, or E-Bays, or Amazons, or McDonalds or Trader Joes, or Starbucks, etc., etc., etc. As Obama has stated, even if lowering tax rates would increase Federal revenues, he'd still rather bump up tax rates on the rich. We're talking fairness here, right?

Oh wait. I just put pencil to paper and came up with a simple fact: If we take 100% of the earnings of the 249,000 millionaires in America, leaving them without a single dime, we'd bring in a grand total of $1.2 Trillion into the Treasury. Or, put another way, two hundred billion less than what it would take to cover our increased Federal debt of $1.4 Trillion for just this Fiscal Year alone. Whoops! On second thought, maybe we should leave them with some of what they have earned so they can continue to operate their filthy businesses and keep on hiring those of us who aren't occupying someplace or other and making some of their evil profits so we can continue to buy big screen TVs and double mocha lattes and ugly little overpriced, plug-in electric weenie cars. After all, we've got to save the planet, right? Maybe we should just leave the successful alone to continue creating wealth in our society and finally decide to spend a little bit less as a country for a change. After all, when was the last time a poor person hired somebody?

Occupy Everywhere

Has anyone besides me noticed that this whole Occupy Wall Street, and nearly everywhere else it seems, protest movement started just about a nanosecond after our Campaigner-in-Chief decided that engaging in class warfare was his one and only chance at reelection? With 9% unemployment, GDP growth stagnated, housing in the dumper and the Federal debt in the stratosphere, he realized running for reelection on his record obviously wouldn't work. So he fired up his TelePrompTer and started blaming Wall Street "fat cats" and banks and Congress and Republicans for his troubles, pitting Americans against Americans to cover for his own shortcomings. And to assist him in this effort he enlisted MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, SEIU, ACORN, the AFL-CIO and Congressional Democrats to join with him in a carefully orchestrated effort to retain power. Their bought-and-paid-for "Occupy" movements, which began in NYC, have now spread across the country. By their actions they hope to change the subject away from the abject failure in leadership that Obama and his Chicago crowd have visited upon America.

Unlike the Tea Party, which spontaneously rallied against unfettered government spending, massively increasing Federal debt and unwanted healthcare legislation, the "Occupiers" are protesting against something or other as yet undefined. My favorite Occupy Wall Street sign thus far stated: "We demand an immediate and unconditional change in a whole bunch of unspecified things!" And unlike the Tea Party, which was calm, considerate and clean, the Occupy movement is messy, dirty, anarchic and dangerous.

Since Obama cannot use success in the job as his platform for reelection, vilifying the so-called "rich" has become his default campaign strategy. You know, forcing the so-called "1%" to "spread the wealth around." Even though the top 1% pays more than 40% of all Federal income taxes, he says "They need to pay their fair share." Huh?

I just love these protesters. Beating drums all day and night, smoking dope, defecating on police cars, raping and pillaging and setting fires and blocking entrances to businesses, they have been led to believe by their keepers that the rich have somehow stolen their money and their future. They are making their lefty supporters truly proud.

The Occupiers have trashed NYC, Atlanta, D.C. and now Oakland. There have been thousands of arrests, serious property damage, numerous assaults, untold economic costs, a severe disruption to the residents and businesses around the encampments and every reason to believe it will get far worse. And who has publicly endorsed the Occupy movement? Here's a short list: President Obama; the Republic of North Korea; the American Nazi Party; Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam; Revolutionary Guards of Iran; Communist Party of China; Michael Bloomburg, Mayor of New York City; Industrial Workers of the World; V.P. Joe Biden; David Duke; Hugo Chavez; the Black Panthers (original); Nancy Pelosi; Hezbollah and the Socialist Party USA (various sources).

If an organization is known by the company it keeps, or by those which endorse it, the above list of supporters says more about the Occupy movement than anything else I could mention.

Open Carry

We can all thank God that the silly season is finally over in Sacramento. Yep, 760 new laws were passed by those otherwise unemployable legislators up there and now they've all gone home. Did you really need 760 new laws? 760? Didn't think so. And now our perennial civil servant, Gov. Jerry Brown, a man who will hopefully soon retire after an entire career completely devoid of ever having held a real, private sector job, has gone about approving some and vetoing others. And, like in previous years, many if not most of these laws were laughably ludicrous, especially when fixing our State's broken fiscal condition should have been those politicians' primary, if not only, focus.

But one of those that was passed, and then signed into law by the Guv, attracted my special attention. Assembly Bill 144 bans the open carrying of an unloaded handgun. Now we know that the open carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens has been necessitated and provoked by California's unfair concealed carry laws, which allow citizens from one county to apply for and receive a permit while neighbors in the next county over are denied that same basic Constitutional right in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Kind of like the difference between Riverside and Orange counties, as an example.

Let me say that again. Apply for a concealed carry permit in Orange County and the Sheriff will issue a polite rejection. She came to us from up there in that vast wasteland toilet called Los Angeles, where packing hidden heat is verboten. Of course the Crips and the Bloods and every other gangbanger there is armed to the teeth, but allowing the average taxpaying citizen a means of self-protection? No way. And then there's Riverside County, just a short drive away. Make an application to the Sheriff and, assuming you're an upstanding citizen devoid of any felony convictions, you'll walk with a permit. So now, with the passage of AB 144, no more open carry in our once-Golden state. Why is this a problem?

27 little words comprise the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. I'll hereby cut to the 14 meaningful words writ therein: "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Hmmm. According to my handy dandy little dictionary, "bear" is defined as: "To shoulder, carry, take, have, show, display, exhibit and present." I'm guessing the majority party miscreants in Sacto either do not have access to a dictionary, or can't read, or, more likely, simply do not care that by their action they have willfully ignored – more accurately, shot the bird – to a rather important part of the document under which our nation was founded and is supposed to operate. And the consequences? I predict not too many days will pass before the National Rifle Association, perhaps backed with amicus briefs from the Attorneys General of the more than 40 states which shall issue concealed carry permits to law-abiding citizens (no option, political or otherwise) when requested, will file suit to overturn this stupid law. And they will win. And California will waste tens of millions of dollars in legal fees in a misguided effort to defend a piece of legislation that should never have been conceived, much less passed and signed. Of course, there will be one contingent of our population overjoyed at this bill's passage: Lawyers. In fact, I predict that this piece of legislation will come to be known as "The Attorneys' Full Employment Act of 2011."

Maybe it would be simpler if we just went straight from the 1^st Amendment directly to the 3^rd. Oh, and the 4^th and the 10^th have been causing a lot of trouble lately. Maybe we could get rid of those also…

Venture Socialism

As a member of that minority group of Americans which actually pays Federal income taxes, I have a question: Can I deduct my portion of the Country's losses on the Obama Administration's venture socialism investment in Solyndra, Inc., from my income taxes? Or from losses on any of the other $38 Billion in "green energy" loan guarantees issued by the White House?

For those too busy earning a living to follow this shocking travesty as it unfolds, the Obama folks chose to guarantee with our money a $535 million dollar loan to this Silicon Valley solar chip manufacturer, even though the Bush White House refused to do so and his own Treasury, Energy Department and Office of Management and Budget officials counseled against it. And that loan placed the public, you and me, in an unprecedented subordinated position behind private investors in the event Solyndra went upside down. And upside down it went, as of August 30^th, declaring bankruptcy as of that date.

Now, the half of America that pays income taxes (does that mean we're finally paying our "fair share?") has watched one half-billion of their precious dollars go "poof" in an uncoordinated partisan flurry of activity to finally produce some of those so-called "green jobs" in time to create a little bit of positivity in advance of the 2012 general election.

So, I'd like to know if I can recoup some of that loss by declaring it on my taxes. Or as one of the ever-diminishing cadre of those who are actually pulling the wagon so that others can ride for free, do I not deserve even this small consideration? Or has half-a-billion dollars become such chump change that it becomes a rounding error? Loose change Obama could find between the cushions of his Oval Office couch, perhaps? Pardon me, but I'm growing a bit weary of this whole costly charade. How about you?

I Now Pronounce You...Divorced!

Campaigner-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama is at it again. He's such an ideologue that he just can't get away from his deep-seated, almost religious fervor to tax the "rich" into the Stone Age. Maybe that's because his mom was a devout communist, his dad a proud socialist and his step-dad a dedicated, militant Marxist. In any event, after nearly 3 years of his White House-sponsored class warfare, during which he has beaten the tax increase drum unrelentingly, he's just announced Stimulus 2 (or is it 3 or 4, or 8 or 9? I've lost count.).

After blowing nearly a trillion bucks of our money on a failed stimulus program in 2009, which created somewhere around ZERO jobs, he's asking Congress for another $447,000,000,000.00 (that's billion, with a "B"). He wants to create some jobs, knowing that if he doesn't, his own job is toast next November. And where is this money to come from? Our President, who's never managed anything except the Federal Government, if you can call that "managing," tells us $421 Billion of the total will come from a tax increase on, and the eradication of tax deductions utilized by, those nasty, evil "rich" people among us. "Rich," according to the Redistributor-in-Chief, are those individuals who make $200k or more per year as individuals, or couples making $250k combined.

Now, anyone with any sense at all knows that this level of income does not make one rich. Not even close. Especially in cities like New York or L.A. or most other large U.S. population centers. That's your average married fireperson and nurseperson. And anyone with any sense knows that more than half of the folks making this level of income own and operate small businesses, which are responsible for the creation of way more than 70% of all American jobs. And Obama has stated repeatedly that the very last thing you want to do in a recession is increase taxes on the folks who create jobs (!). And because most of these small business types file their taxes as individuals under Subchapter S of the IRS code, their wages are taxed as ordinary income just like the fireperson and nurseperson. They don't get the benefits of myriad deductions, even on money they may plow back into their businesses. So money picked from their pockets by the Feds is money not available to them to hire with, or expand their business with, or even pay their bills with. So Barry's America's Jobs Bill, if passed, will obviously result in fewer jobs, not more. But he either doesn't know this (unlikely), or doesn't care (quite probably), or is doing it on purpose so as to screw things up (almost certainly). Clearly, the Golfer-in-Chief won't stop until he's gotten his wish and hiked taxes unmercifully on those "miwwionaires and biwwionaires." You know, the ones making $200k/$250k a year.

And now we have Warren Buffett, America's second richest man and the Oracle of Omaha, joining forces with the TelePrompTer-in-Chief to convince the American People that the "rich" are under taxed. He's fond of saying that his secretary pays a higher percentage of taxes than does he. He's right. He pays 17.4% and she pays 30%. He wants his taxes raised so that he and his secretary are both hosed equally. What good ol' Warren fails to mention (an oversight, no doubt), is that his income is realized almost entirely from capital gains on investments, not from ordinary income like his secretary. And he fails to mention that the income he used to make those investments, which are now producing capital gains, was already taxed once as ordinary income, back when he first earned it. So Warren wants you to throw in with the Vacationer-in-Chief on the idea that taxing us twice and at the same rate is quite alright…once when we first earn our paycheck, and again when the pittance that's left over after we've paid our bills is invested at a risk in something that might possibly produce a return. It's called, I understand, the "Buffett Rule." Excuse me Warren, but isn't that double taxation? Do you think that's fair? And if you do, might I suggest you utilize the line provided at the bottom of your IRS Form 1040 which permits you to pay more than your tax liability would ordinarily be if the spirit moves you to do so. That might help you get over some of that Democrat guilt you're experiencing from making so damn much money.

So I, the Chuckmeister, a graduate economist, entrepreneur, humorist, gadfly, food and wine connoisseur, noted business consultant and blogger extraordinaire have a solution. I recommend all the successful married Americans who might get caught up in this commie, pinko, lefty, dumbass, progressive weenie trap proceed directly to their local shyster, bottom-feeding lawyers and file for divorce. Then, you and your significant other can earn up to $400 Grand together without getting reamed by the Speechifier-in-Chief's National Wealth Distribution Whether You Like It Or Not plan. Of course, unless America turns him out next November, he'll come back after us again and again like a rabid hamster until he's managed to trade the fruits of the labor of the productive to those who are less than in exchange for their ill-considered votes. But for the short term we can all put a "we dodged that bullet" smirk on our faces while shooting him the collective bird.

No need to thank me. That's why God put me on this Earth…

National Underachievers Day

Folks, in less than two months another anniversary will be upon us. And although we haven't up until now, it's one we as a nation should all be celebrating. Please allow me to elucidate…

As everyone unfortunately knows, the elections' over and Barack Hussein Obama won. Congratulations Mr. Obama on your historic accomplishment. In recognition, I'd like to propose that November 4^th, the date you were elected, be forever proclaimed "National Underachievers' Day." No more must those who have heretofore failed to excel be relegated to the scrap heap of mediocrity. You have a new champion! Mr. Obama, with the possible exception of Millard Fillmore, is almost certainly the least qualified candidate for President in the history of our beloved Union. He boasts no private sector employment or record of success. He has no management experience of any kind, not even so much as a running the corner 7/11. He never met a payroll. He never signed a check on its face. He never hired or fired or held executive-level authority. While serving as an Illinois State Senator and during the 143 days (only!) he served as a U.S. Senator before deciding he was worthy of becoming a candidate for POTUS, he sponsored absolutely no major legislation. In fact, most of the time he voted "present" in order to avoid taking a controversial position on legislation. And, although he is Commander in Chief, he never served in our military.

So now, all Americans who could have, and should have, but didn't, work unceasingly to gather the experience necessary to be considered qualified for the Most Important Job in the World, are hereby vindicated. If you share our new President's qualifications, or rather the lack of same, you're just as qualified as is he. You should hold your collective unqualified heads high! In fact, it's not too late for you to launch your exploratory campaign for POTUS - 2012. With Obama's breakthrough, we could have any one of 50 million or so underachievers running for President next time. All they'll need is $1 Billion or so in donations from questionable sources like the unions, a "D" behind their names, a media that chooses not to ask any questions, difficult or otherwise, and the White House could well be theirs. Is America a great place, or what?