Welcome

by Rick Lazio.

The Baroness Margaret Thatcher
(Photo from Wikipedia)

This week funeral services will be held for Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was Britain’s longest serving Prime Minister of the 20th Century and perhaps their most consequential and dominant political leader since Winston Churchill.  She was the first woman elected Prime Minister and through force of personality, determination and principle, she became a world leader that changed the course of history.

Several years ago, I had lunch with Baroness Thatcher in the House of Lords.  I recall, upon arrival, being escorted to the dining room by one of her colleagues in that chamber.  Despite having served in one of the world’s most historical legislative buildings, it was impossible not to be impressed by the sense of significance, history and authority reflected in Westminster.  I was seated, and almost immediately Mrs. Thatcher greeted me and took her seat.  Now several years out of the Prime Minister’s office, she appeared physically frail and her voice had softened.

She was meticulously dressed, nothing out of place.  Her hair was crafted in the familiar style.  We exchanged some pleasantries before she asked about the state of American politics in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks and the subsequent invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Iron Lady listened and then explained the political and moral necessity of standing up to bullies, dictators and terrorism.  She saw the need for America to pull the world toward freedom.  She talked about her experience in the Falklands conflict and how our nations stood together to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1990.

For a time she seemed to be lost in her own thoughts, but would spring back to occasionally remind me of what she and President Reagan accomplished together.  She was clearly proud of her relationship with both Reagan and America.  She saw the alliance as essential, and the former actor as a political soul mate willing to stand up to the world’s nefarious forces abroad and to champion personal responsibility, free enterprise and limited government at home.  She said that she had no tolerance for those that campaigned on these principles but compromised them away once in office to retain their political position.  Watching her and listening to her points, I thought to myself that, even in declining health, she continued to exude a remarkable strength.  That strength was incubated by conviction.

She hated deficits, government over-reach and  politicians who bought votes by making promises that destroyed individual initiative and responsibility.  In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal wrote that Thatcher was drawn to “what is best in America: freedom, enterprise, opportunity and the urge for self improvement.”  She said she wanted everyone to have the opportunity to be a shopkeeper, an entrepreneur, an investor.  She saw that potential limited by a government that constructed barriers to achieving that goal: rules that limited work, flexibility, investment and accountability.  She believed instinctively that enterprise must be in the hands of people in the private sector and spent enormous political capital devolving state owned enterprises to the private sector.  When she took office as Prime Minister, the government employed about 30% of the workforce and ran many of the largest and best known companies in key industries.  Its record was horrendous.  However, by 2009, state owned industries were responsible for only 2% of the economy, because of the programs put in place by Thatcher.

For the next eleven and one half years Thatcher “stopped printing excess money to kill inflation, cut marginal tax rates to unleash private incentives, privatized public housing so the poor could own their own homes, did away with the currency, and price and wage controls to eliminate the distortions they imposed on the economy, curbed runaway spending and sold off one state asset after another so they might be competently and profitably managed.” said the Journal.

I said to Lady Thatcher that I was amazed and impressed that she was able to accomplish so many necessary, but controversial changes and stay in power for over eleven years.  She looked at me for a brief moment, clearly not charmed by the compliment, and said that the Conservative Party stayed in power because the British people wanted the country to work.  It was fed up with unions and interest groups that had caused paralysis.  Thatcher said they were allowed to govern because they stayed true to their principles and precisely because their knees didn’t buckle when the fight came to them.

True, Margaret Thatcher had an unrivaled reservoir of political courage, but she realized that she had to win people over.  Like her contemporary, Ronald Reagan, she combined a sense of purpose and a cohesive political philosophy with an understanding of the demands of leading in a democracy.  She once said that “Democracy isn’t just about deducing what the people want.  Democracy is leading the people as well.”

She knew who she was and, with Ronald Reagan, she decisively led at a pivotal moment for the world.   I will long remember the way the aging leader spoke about Reagan.  She greatly admired him, generally referring to him as President Reagan but occasionally calling him just plain “Ronnie” during a story.  She talked about how, together, they saw the world; about how she could depend on America and how America could depend on Great Britain.  She explained the alliance without sentiment, but with gratitude.

The world is a better place because of the life of Margaret Thatcher.  When she is put to rest this week, America should likewise feel gratitude for the leadership and unwavering friendship of the Iron Lady.  Three decades after the UK’s first female Prime Minister took office, her vigorous, principled foreign policy and transformational free market economic ideals continue to shape the world.

May she rest in peace.

by Tony Braun.

I would like to purchase a Bugatti Veyron. I love the way it looks. I love the speed with which its immense engine accelerates. I love the feeling of exclusivity that owning one of the most expensive production vehicles in the world will give me. My only problem is that I do not have the 1.2 million dollars needed to buy one.

What I will need to do is approach one of my well-heeled friends and persuade him, or her, to loan me the 1.2 million I need in order to fulfill my dream. The only problem with my solution is that I will not be able to pay back the 1.2 million dollars. I do not have sufficient income to enable me to live my life, put food on the table and pay all of my other obligations, while also paying off the debt to my friend. Frankly, if all I will have to do is pay off the 1.2 million I will still be in trouble. Thus, what I will need to do is approach yet another friend in order to borrow the funds necessary to service the 1.2 million debt I will have already incurred. Not a likely scenario, as even the most gullible of my well-heeled friends will be able to grasp the enormity of the financial hole I’ll be digging myself into.

The above is the kind of scenario that gets people of all income brackets into financial trouble. As my late father used to say to me when, as a child, I would want more food than I could possibly eat, ‘your eyes are bigger than your stomach.’ Such is the situation we, as a Country, find ourselves in today. Our collective ‘eyes’ are way too big for our ‘stomachs.’

We, the people, as a country and as a whole, keep electing to positions of great responsibility and trust  individuals who should be looking out for our collective best interests, but instead look out for their own.

The USA has a current debt which is in excess of 16 trillion dollars. That debt rises continually as we borrow an additional 4 billion dollars every day of the week. That means we BORROW 1.6 TRILLION per year just to service the immense fiscal hole in which we currently reside and fall deeper each day. This scenario is completely unsustainable yet we continue on the same path.

On New Year’s Day, in the wee hours, the U.S. Congress passed a bill which averted the USA going over the so-called ‘fiscal cliff.’ However, from what I have read, it does not come close to addressing the runaway spending by, and expansion of, the government. The deal seems to hold the line on income tax rates for most Americans but does not address all of the ‘hidden taxes’ that will befall many of us due to the gradual implementation of the immense healthcare law known as ‘Obamacare.’ It allows payroll taxes to rise back to 6.2 percent. It does nothing of substance to address the out of control spending of the Federal Government. It does not address reform of Medicare or Social Security or any of the other so-called entitlement programs which are under-funded and thus unsustainable.

The president, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have known about this ‘fiscal cliff’, under which massive, across the board, spending cuts must occur, since August of 2011, when they passed temporary legislation creating it to begin with, having not been able to work out a viable solution that all could agree upon at that time. They, collectively, have had over sixteen months to solve the problem, but didn’t. They waited until the last possible minute, and then some, to come up with merely a stop-gap solution that really solves nothing for the long term.

The U.S. government lives by my aforementioned Bugatti Veyron scenario. It borrows more money to service a debt which should never have been incurred in the first pace. They get away with it due to the fact that they, theoretically, are able to tax their way out of the problem. (Something, unfortunately, I am unable to do to fulfill my dreams). However, simply confiscating everyone’s hard earned income and savings will not, and cannot, solve our current problems.

Our president keeps saying that ‘millionaires and billionaires’ have to pay their ‘fair share.’ Of course these people already pay more than their ‘fair share’ as they currently pay an enormous chunk of the monies received by all government entities. But it sounds good. These days, that’s all that seems to matter.

Unfortunately, ‘sounds good’ sound bites will not solve the financial hole that our elected representatives have collectively dug for us. What is desperately needed is for all of us to get our collective heads together in order to, in the future, elect people of character and will power who can, and will, put their heads together and finally come up with a long term responsible solution, a plan, to eliminate the immense burden of debt under which we all live. In addition, they will need to find a fiscally responsible way forward which benefits all and which overly burdens none, otherwise we will continue to dig ourselves deeper into debt and continue forward as ‘The Bugatti Nation.’

There may come a time when all of this nation’s well-heeled friends, who continually loan it massive amounts of money to keep it afloat, come to the same conclusion that my imaginary friends above will have come to. That conclusion being that the United States of America, regardless of its ability to tax or otherwise attempt ridiculous slight of hand in order to appear able to raise funds to service its debt, is actually not credit worthy any more. That day may be approaching sooner rather than later. We have, indeed, become ‘The Bugatti Nation’, spending way more than we can afford.

For Today That’s … Simply My Opinion.

Tony Braun is a proud father and grandfather, and a former resident of Long Island where, as a Licensed Real Estate Broker, he specialized in Commercial Real Estate. He currently resides in Ocala, Florida. Read more of Tony’s articles at simplymyopinion.com.

by Brett Joshpe.


Photo credit: Tribune Media Services / Paul Tong | Our nation’s political dialogue has been hacked by people on both sides of the aisle who believe that compromise only leads to a parade of worst-case scenarios.

Like many other conservative Republicans, I am receptive to sensible gun restrictions that are consistent with the Second Amendment. I’ve written about this online for the National Review, American Thinker and for other publications. That position — seemingly uncontroversial in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting massacre — has sparked the ire of many of my friends on the right, some of whom have accused me of heresy.

The entire debate, or lack thereof, is a microcosm of the dysfunctional political culture that we must change.

When people explain their hostility to my position, it becomes apparent that most don’t object to the substance. Some readily acknowledge that there are changes, such as closing the federal gun-show loophole, they find acceptable. Instead, what bothers them is that I would say anything at all that reeks of compromise or concession and that could be used by the left to further its agenda.

That’s because many on the right harbor a deep fear that liberals, including President Barack Obama, aim to fundamentally reshape American society and lead us down the slippery slope to a point where firearms are essentially banned. Similarly, many on the left fear that compromise on certain issues — such as public spending or access to abortion — will lead to a total rollback of cherished rights or entitlements. They, too, are quick to dismiss ideas, even plausible ones, if they don’t like the messenger. The National Rifle Association’s potentially viable suggestion to put armed guards in schools is a case in point.

Our nation’s political dialogue has been hacked by people on both sides of the aisle who believe that compromise only leads to a parade of worst-case scenarios. They aren’t interested in having a debate. Instead, they want to control the narrative.

In this world, civility and concession don’t sell. Conflict, fear and turmoil generate ratings, money for special interest groups and motivation for core constituencies. Politics is nothing more than a sport where the goal is to beat the other team and rack up points in the process. There’s no glory in a tie.

On the gun debate — and seemingly on every other issue facing our nation — the loudest voices frame our choices as binary. We’re led to believe we have to pick one extreme or the other, because every compromise is cast as a betrayal of some principle or value. Former Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, after supporting the Iraq War, was essentially banished from the Democratic Party. Some conservatives protested the re-election of John Boehner as speaker of the House after his “fiscal cliff” compromise.

We can’t expect consensus on every matter, of course, but we shouldn’t accept complete dysfunction either. Even in Washington, there should be room for bipartisan compromise and agreement. Until we start from the assumption that most Americans, whether on the left or the right, have good intentions, we will be deceived into believing that our political opponents are our enemies and our current choices the only ones.

Changing this culture starts by electing leaders who have credibility. President Barack Obama might have more of it on gun control if he defied his own constituents more often and sought broader consensus on other issues, like health care reform and spending cuts. And conservatives’ objections to gun restrictions might be given more weight if they showed some inclination to make concessions, rather than appearing to say “no” reflexively to anything Obama says.

The optimal response to the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., like many problems we face, is complicated. But it should be informed by balance, sobriety and humanity. There’s too little of that in American politics these days, and there won’t be more until voters demand better.

Brett Joshpe, co-author of “Why You’re Wrong About the Right: Behind the Myths — The Surprising Truth About Conservatives,” is an attorney and author in New York City.  His law firm, Joshpe Law Group LLP (www.joshpelaw.com), handles a wide array of corporate and litigation matters.

by Senator Rob Portman.  Republished from Politico.com.

Some observers were quick to conclude that the New Year’s Eve fiscal cliff agreement “killed” tax reform for 2013. It’s certainly true that President Obama’s insistence on a tax rate hike as the price for preventing trillions of dollars in tax increases on all Americans was a huge missed opportunity. But reports of the death of tax reform are greatly exaggerated. As a new member of the Senate Finance Committee, I am confident that an overhaul of our broken tax system remains not only doable but essential for job creation and economic growth.

For all its defects, the fiscal cliff agreement actually made tax reform easier to achieve by making tax rates permanent. Since 2001, taxes on everything from salaries and small business income to investment earnings and gifts have been temporary - a source of economic uncertainty and perennial fiscal fights. New permanent rates create a clear starting point for tax reform and end disputes over the baseline that have vexed past reform attempts.

Nor did the agreement in any way blunt the momentum for tax reform. There is a broad and growing consensus that our tax system is plagued by excessively high rates on business and labor income, a complex maze of tax preferences, and an outdated approach to American businesses competing for customers abroad. The cliff deal did nothing to solve those problems and in some areas worsened them. The pressure for tax reform is strong as ever.

But far more important than why tax reform can happen this year is why it should happen: our tax code has become an obstacle to growth, and only a robust, growing economy can create the new jobs (and future tax revenues) that we need.

Today, three years into the weakest recovery on record, the American economy is still sputtering. Twenty million people are jobless or underemployed, and fewer jobs were created last year than the year before. Median family income is at its lowest level since 1995.

Taking a larger tax slice out of a shrinking economic pie is not the way to spur job creation or erase the government’s trillion-dollar deficits. The solution is to grow the pie - to unleash the forces of economic growth and job creation. And there is no better way to do that than through structural spending reforms to boost confidence in America’s long-term fiscal solvency, paired with reform of our tax code to promote growth, investment, and entrepreneurship.

Our tax code has become a drag on the economy. Excessive tax rates on business income decrease the incentive to build and invest in the United States and put American workers at a competitive disadvantage. As the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation has reported, high corporate tax burdens are “most harmful to growth.” Yet as our major trading partners have slashed their rates to attract jobs, the U.S. corporate rate last year became the highest among our 33 major industrialized competitors. One study in the Journal of Public Economics showed that a 10-point rate cut could increase economic growth by 1-2 percentage points - which translates to about a million new jobs per year.

Meanwhile, our tax code has become a tool for picking winner and losers. Hundreds of federal tax preferences - for everything from Hollywood film shoots to algae growers - distort economic decisions and misallocate capital. This tax favoritism allows some to avoid paying their share and rewards interests armed with expensive tax lawyers and lobbyists. It’s time to clean it up.

The good news is that tax reform can kill two birds with one stone. Just as President Reagan and Democrats and Republicans in Congress did in 1986, we can cap or eliminate inefficient tax preferences and loopholes and use that revenue to reduce both the corporate and individual tax rates without adding a dime to the deficit.

Tax reform should not be short-sighted revenue grab but rather an opportunity to promote long-term economic growth - which will lead to more revenue. The Simpson-Bowles Commission, the President’s Jobs Council, and the Treasury Department have all called for using the revenue raised from broadening the tax bases to cut rates. We should hold firm to that bipartisan principle of deficit-neutrality on both the corporate and individual side in the upcoming tax reform process.

Finally, tax reform would be incomplete if we fail to modernize our 1960s-era approach to international taxation. The U.S. system of worldwide taxation with permanent deferral puts U.S.-headquartered businesses and workers at a disadvantage, and it creates an powerful incentive for firms to keep their foreign profits outside the U.S. - more than $1.7 trillion by recent estimates. The solution is to eliminate the penalty on bringing home foreign earnings as our competitors have done, while strengthening measures to prevent artificial sourcing of income to low-tax countries. By creating a level playing field for American businesses seeking new customers overseas, we will see greater output and job creation in the United States.

The president and the new Congress have an opportunity to do something big and bipartisan on tax reform, if we remain focused on the goal of job creation. Tax reform done right is a surefire way to boost U.S. competitiveness and reduce the deficit through growth. Let’s get to work.

Rob Portman is a Republican Senator from Ohio and a former director of the Office of Management and Budget.  http://www.RobPortman.com