You should be fired on the spot. You are the very reason that I hate government now. If you are a REAL leader you should go on national television and apologize to Mr. Wurzelbacher and the American people and then you should step down. As a woman, I can say in my humble opinion you have lowered the “glass ceiling” for all of us too. You acted on emotion and gossip and you acted as a follower, not a LEADER. You embody the problems that is our government in America today.

Ma’am, never, ever assume that your actions won’t come back to bite you.

Do the correct action. Resign, apologize and take responsibility for your inestimably horrific decision to give up Mr. Wurzelbacher’s privacy.

You sicken me.

Sincerely,
Tracy Pfau

Democrats have milked the refrain of making the rich pay their “fair share” so long it makes you want to vomit. They never really define what the “fair share” is. It’s an elastic concept, trotted out every election cycle to catch the next round of gullible voters susceptible to the class envy appeal. but you can be guaranteed that it’s always more than what the rich are currently paying. Otherwise, they would have no issue at the next election cycle. This continual jiggering of income tax rates is, as Milton Friedman used to say, the politicians? re-election program. That’s why so many fear such reforms as a permanent flat tax, or fair tax. Such reforms would provide an incalculably positive benefit to the American economy, not only by spurring economic growth, but by drastically reducing the enormous costs of tax compliance, estimated to total more than $600 billion annually. And we would have the additional positive benefit of adding to the unemployment rolls thousands of Washington lobbyists, many of whom are dedicated to gaining some benefit, or forbearance, from the federal tax code.

Obama would raise the top marginal rate from 35% to 39.6% for those families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals), assuming he would stop there. But he would also remove the cap on Social Security taxes for those earning more than $250,000. For the self-employed who pay both the employee and employer shares of the tax, this would amount to an additional 12.4%, pushing their effective tax rate to more than 50% for all marginal income above the $250,000 level. This change would also transform Social Security from a form of social insurance, with defined contributions and benefits, into a welfare program. Add in state and local taxes and you have a total tax burden of at least 60%, comparable to that of the most advanced socialist welfare economies in the world.

Ironically, when Ronald Reagan lowered the top marginal rate from 70% to 28% in the early 1980s, economic growth increased, people were encouraged to realize more taxable income, and the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers rose from 18% to 27%. In the name of ?fairness,? Obama would reverse course and cause a drastic reduction in total revenues by punishing the rich. He has learned nothing from history.

What the American people have to ask themselves is: would you rather have more income tax revenues at lower tax rates to spend on government programs, or the lower revenues which will result by raising the rates on those families making more than $200,000/$250,000 per year. One approach achieves results, the other sacrifices revenue gains for the illusion of fairness. One is grounded in the fundamental principles of economic liberty, the other in the failed ideology of Marxism.

Revealingly, James Pethokoukis, writing in U.S. News and World Report, took a poll of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. His survey revealed that the vast majority of delegates do not share Obama’s taste for higher marginal tax rates. In fact, they don’t even know what the current tax rates are. The poll of 24 delegates revealed that 50% of them thought the rich should pay 25% in taxes, while 25% thought they pay should 20%. Only 12% said 35%, the current rate. Another 12% said 30%. The average response of 25.6% was about 10% lower than the current highest marginal rate of 35%. The results highlight the level of elitism and ideological extremism was captured the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Lest you think that Pethokoukis?s findings are a statistical anomaly, consider the results of a June, 2008 Gallup poll:

When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today’s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

Americans’ lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

Barack Obama?s tax proposals are not only dangerous, but woefully ignorant. They are based on fundamentally flawed economic assumptions about the ability of higher taxes to generate additional revenues. They are based on a Marxist hostility to wealth and a willingness to sacrifice revenues for the sake of the illusion of ?fairness.?

Fifteen years ago, San Francisco investment economist and Hoover institution president W. Kurt Hauser published a remarkable study which demonstrated that, regardless of tax rates, tax revenues in the post-WWII era have remained at about 19.5% of GDP. Hauser demonstrated that the federal tax yield held steady at about 19.5% whether the highest marginal rate was 91% (as it was prior to the Kennedy tax cuts) or 35%, (as it is today) and that tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. His conclusion: if you want to increase tax revenues, you need to increase GDP.

Hauser also points out that economists of all stripes accept the view that a tax rate increase would have a negative impact on tax revenues. He discovered that rising tax rates encourage taxpayers to shift, hide, and underreport income, while higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity and job creation. David Ranson concludes that capital migrates away from countries in which it is treated harshly and toward those in which it is free to be invested profitably and safely, and the economics of taxation will be moribund until economics accept and explain Hauser’s law. Hauser’s findings expose the gross economic ignorance of Barack Obama.

For further information, visit my web site: http://www.sensiblechange.org/economy.htm

Night, Night. I have picked on you enough. Just playing devils advocate for the hateful-liberals.

May God smile on you and our country on Nov 5th! Don’t forget to vote..

it is wrong to elect someone when the strongest attribute he has is speaking well and able to follow a telepromptor well ,and the first thing people say when asked why are you gonna vote for obama? and they say”Cause he’s young and will do better then Bush,we need a change”
do you liberals know how government works?
the president can only sign bills into law that have been vetted and voted on and passed in both the house and senate, the president can’t make his campaign promises into law,it don’t work that way,thats why i don’t understand people who would blame the president for high gas prices he has nothing to do with it,if thats the case why don’t you liberals give him the credit for gas being down to 2 bucks a gal now??

Good luck finding a planet to come back down to when you are done drinking that GOP kool aid with your misguided McCain voting fear believing Sheeple.

I miss that man that I admired in 2000, too bad he took up the same (and worse) tactics of the one who beat him, and screwed us as well as him!