Giving to Charity? That's a Taxing.

When times are hard, people are out of work, and charitable giving takes on an especially significant role in caring for the needy--what is one of the worst things a government can do?

Tax charitable donations.

Yet this is precisely what President Obama has proposed. Taxing charitable donations from those who can actually afford to give more. His proposal would affect individuals earning $200K and married couples earning $250K. This amounts to a greater tax penalty for married couples than for single individuals.

I think Obama has covered his bases when it comes to doing harm: the very poor, the charitable organizations and the institute of marriage.

I can't conceive the levels of hubris required to even suggest such an idea. I can only wonder if this scheme is simply a red herring to take the focus away from the rest of Obama's disastrous budget plans.

I recommend that anyone reading this contact their representatives in Washington and tell them to abandon this absurdity when it comes to a vote.

Mormons and the Mainstream

Here's a very insightful article from The American Conservative magazine discussing how the religious right is finding the grassroots organization and fundraising capabilities of members of the Church of Jesus Christ more attractive. It cites Mormon support of California's Proposition 8 that defines marriage between a man and a woman.

After Prop 8, evangelical opinion leaders exhorted their audiences to stop worrying and learn to love the Latter Day Saints. John Mark Reynolds, a professor at evangelical Biola University wrote, “In the battle for the family…… traditional Christians have no better friends than the Mormon faithful.” A petition to thank the LDS church for its participation in the Prop 8 campaign circulated on conservative websites, and James Dobson signed it. Presbyterian writer John Schroeder said, “We Evangelicals must thank our Mormon cousins. …… They, along with our Catholic brethren, were better organized than us and that provided a base from which we could all work together to get this job done.”

Is this a continuing trend or a flash in the pan? Time will tell--but a lot can happen in the space of just a few years.

Mitt Romney Maintains His Relevance

After losing a presidential election – especially a primary – candidates typically fade into the background and suffer a severely diminished sphere of influence. Not so with Mitt Romney. The Washington Post places him as the #2 most important Republican to watch.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has the highest work rate of any modern politician we have observed closely. During his run for president last year, Romney's schedule would often be packed with six events a day, a stunning level of activity. He's keeping up that breakneck pace so far in 2009 -- using his Free and Strong America PAC to seed donations to up and coming politicians while penning editorials and providing counsel to congressional Republicans on economic issues. Another major advantage for Romney: much -- though not all -- of his political team has stayed in touch and intact , meaning that if and when he flicks the switch they will be ready to go from, well, day one.

Considering that the country will still be digging itself out of the cosmic-sized pit that Obama and Congress are leading us headlong into, Romney's economic credentials will be more relevant than ever.

Charlie Bit My Finger

This was just too funny not to post.

Tripping the Light Fantastic - or Just Tripping?

Here's one way to combat your depression over the weather or the economy or your tragedy du jour. It happened today at lunch. She went on for about 10 minutes.

Obama: From Crafter of Hope to Monger of Fear

In his presidential campaign, when Barack Obama resuscitated the phrase "just words" in a speech defending his lack of leadership experience, he hit the nail on the head. In the business of politics, words, for better or for worse, make all the difference.

For example, Obama's campaign theme was HOPE. He carried a message of hope, even without any backing of substance. His words, though lacking the weight of logic and reason, made a huge difference in getting him elected.

Recently, Obama's words helped to push through the biggest governmental power grab in generations--again abandoning sound reasoning in favor of soaring rhetoric. Or, in this case, fear mongering.

In the Wall Street Journal, Bradley R. Schiller expounds on the president's recent rhetorical tactics:

President Barack Obama has turned fear mongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.

Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fear mongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies.

Today the party in power has abandoned sound legislation for political gain, empowered to do so by a president who has mastered the rhetorical skills needed to persuade an increasingly weak-minded electorate. I don't hold out a lot of hope for our children.

Thank the Democrats

Eight hours to read 1100+ pages? Examination and debate was never the intention here. I'm fumed.