Even the Socialists are Raising the Retirment Age

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez vowed he would rule until 2031 today, when he would be 77. Chavez has recently been undergoing chemotherapy for an undisclosed form of cancer raising the issue of whether or not he can continue his reign of insanity rivaled only by Sean Penn's reign in Hollywood.

Moments Like This Make Me Wonder if There is a Drug Testing Policy in Congress

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) today noted to reporters that Democrats are fighting to save the planet and life as we know it against Republican budget cuts. Shouldn't we be gently easing out the psychotic, senile grandparent rather than letting her talk to reporters?

I Think We All Saw This Coming

With a September 14 expiration of the United Auto Workers contract with the "Big Three" Detroit auto companies, rumblings have sprung up that the UAW workers want a bigger share of the profits being made by those auto companies. Apparently no one in the UAW noticed that the companies started making a profit only after they stopped paying ridiculous wages to unskilled laborers who use their lunch breaks to get drunk or high before returning to work. They've forgotten the short history that even with the cuts to union labor benefits and, gasp!, forcing the pensions to be put in a trust, the three auto companies needed to be bailed out to stay alive. Chrysler is run by an Italian company now, and pulled commercials about having repaid its government bailout because it wasn't entirely true. You and I still own 6.6% of the company, which is a significant investment and the government acknowledged it doesn't expect to get about $2 billion of the bailout back, but hey, what's $2 billion between friends. Let's also not forget that, in order to save the unions in the first place, the President of the United States, whose constitutional duty is to enforce the law, violated federal bankruptcy law and simply preempted the rights of creditors to do as he saw fit with Chrysler and GM. Even Ford had to take out private loans to keep afloat.

But go right ahead, UAW, kill your employers again. At least the current UAW president, Bob King, appears to have some inkling that being anti-business is not smart for labor, what with needing business to employ them and all.

Today's Recommended Reading

Presidential candidate Herman Caine has come under fire for some controversial comments he has made regarding the appointment of Muslims in his cabinet and, more recently, his support of a town seeking to ban the building of a mosque. This article on American Thinker supports Herman Caine's position under the analysis of federalism and is an interesting read. Both logically and legally I cannot find the fault in his reasoning, but I would have to go back to the debate language over the language and passing of the 14th Amendment to be certain if he is right. I will say that the current case law utilizing the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the individual states probably was never meant to restrict states from making laws establishing their own religions or to put a stop to school prayer, as they had throughout the history of this country.

I Wonder How He Compares to a Sock

Rasmussen reports that a poll of likely voters has Republican Congressman Ron Paul (TX) only 4% points behind President Barack Obama. Former Republican Governor of Massachusetts Mitt "I Ran a State Just Like Obama Did a Country" Romney, the apparent Republican front runner actually comes out ahead of the Demagogue-in-Chief.

Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for Romney if I have to, but I prefer Ron Paul...and maybe a sock.

Today's Liberal English to English Translation

Taxing the rich.

Liberal English = raising taxes on people who earn a lot of money, because it is not theirs and they are evil. Note that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) is fond of this concept despite being rich. Why, you ask? Because Nancy Pelosi doesn't earn a lot of money. Nancy-poo takes in $193,400.00 in salary this year (funny, I believe that falls below the President's constant talking point "rich" people tax raise level of $200,000.00 per year). Estimates vary, however, on what she's worth. Once site claims $35.5 million while a 2009 article on Roll Call claimed $58 million. Her most recent disclosure report shows $48.2 million in assets and $8.1 million in liabilities. There is no estate tax (at least not until you die). So Nancy, who identifies with all the poor victims in this world, gets to be rich, but not rich, only paying taxes on items which qualify as income to the federal government. Now it's likely that some of that $48.2 million was taxable (after all, her net worth apparently grew by 62% while everyone else's was falling), but it is likely far less than what a CEO making several million yearly pays, who is likely helping to generate wealth for others by employing them and expanding the business. You see, taxing the rich doesn't apply if the rich have accumulated wealth instead of earning it on a yearly basis.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start taxing people's estates. I would honestly love to eliminate the income tax entirely. My point is that you have to see the hypocrisy of the liberal class-warfare mongerers. They only attack the people who are producing wealth in this country, so guys like the Rockefellers can sit pretty and "serve the public" as Congressmen and Senators. Let's propose an income tax based on yearly net worth instead of merely yearly income and watch as the color drains from the faces of the Liberal English speakers. It would be fun to try, because there is no way that one would pass. Senator John Kerry (D. MA) might just pick up his boat and move it to avoid the taxes...wait, that sounds familiar.