No 854 “En mi
opinión”
Enero 21, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R
González Miño EDITOR
Time left until Obama leaves office
RAND PAC
My response to President Obama, Rand
Paul
Higher taxes, more
spending, and bigger government.
President Obama just revealed that is what he has in store for Americans in 2015.
But you and millions of your fellow Americans sent a loud and clear message to President Obama in November.
It's time to lower taxes, not raise them. It's time to reduce spending, not increase it. It's time to shrink government, not grow it.
I'm ready to answer the call and lead the fight for our conservative principles.
Tonight, I responded to President Obama's State of the Union address by outlining my vision for our great nation. Please take a moment and watch the video below.
After watching, be sure to share my response by forwarding this email and sharing it on Facebook.
In Liberty,
Rand Paul
President Obama just revealed that is what he has in store for Americans in 2015.
But you and millions of your fellow Americans sent a loud and clear message to President Obama in November.
It's time to lower taxes, not raise them. It's time to reduce spending, not increase it. It's time to shrink government, not grow it.
I'm ready to answer the call and lead the fight for our conservative principles.
Tonight, I responded to President Obama's State of the Union address by outlining my vision for our great nation. Please take a moment and watch the video below.
After watching, be sure to share my response by forwarding this email and sharing it on Facebook.
In Liberty,
Rand Paul
Amenper: La
Clase Media según Obama
Cuando oímos el discurso de Obama, la retórica de que es una ayuda a la
“clase media” es una evidente falsedad.
Los pequeños negocios que son el intento de la clase media para crear
riqueza personal y en el inento crear trabajos y aumentar la economía, son las
víctimas de la política socialista del presidente Obama.
Cuando vemos los que triunfan en los negocios, vemos admiración en algunos,
envidia en otros, pero lo que no vemos es la compasión para los miles que
fracasan en el intento, perdiendo sus ahorros, sin la ventaja de un retiro,
dependiento del social security, algunos pasado su edad productiva, cayendo en
una vejez de necesidad económica y una vida de decepción.
Estos son los “ricos” que Obama atacó en su discurso.
Las grandes corporaciones fueron protegidas, con razón, porque el impuesto
corporativo de Estados Unidos ya es el mayor del mundo, y esto limita las
inversiones extranjeras.
Pero los pequeños negocios fueron las víctimas potenciales de las medidas
que Obama trata de implantar.
En la plétora de datos publicados por las estadísticas en los Estados
Unidos, cada año, hay dos números que son de particular importancia para
pequeños empresarios: unos 145.000 nuevos pequeños negocios
comienzan cada año en este país, y unos 137.000 de este tipo de
negocios declaran bancarrota cada año.
No es difícil hacer la matemática; la proporción es casi un fracaso para
cada negocio puesto en marcha, y plantea la pregunta: "Cómo es posible que
el emprendimiento tiene tantas víctimas en términos de dinero perdido y vive a menudo
horriblemente molesto?"
La repuesta la podemos encontrar en el discurso a la nación de Obama esta
noche.
Las regulaciones burocráticas y los impuestos hacen muy difícil el triunfo
a un pequeño empresario.
Lo que debemos de que tomar en consideración no son los que triunfan, pero
loa negocios que existen, que parecen que los dueños tienen una posición
privilegiada y que vemos como cierran sus puertas.
Las estadísticas de los tribunales de bancarrota enseñan que durante los
doce meses que cerraron el período que finalizo el pasado 30 de Septiembre
de 2014, un total de 963,739 negocios y personas declararon bancarrota.
De estos 963.739, el numero de negocios que declararon
bancarrota fueron 642.366 y 7,658 se decalaron en el Capítulo 11, que es una
bancarrota en la que continúan haciendo negocios bajo la reorganización del
gobierno.
Y cada vez que un negocio cierra, un número de empleados pierde su trabajo.
Acostumbraba a tomar café en el restaurant Larios de South Miami,
parecía un negocio productivo y sólido que había estado establecido por muchos
años.
El pasado domingo cuando fui, lo encontré cerrado, y más tarde me enteré
que había declarado bancarrota.
No sé exactamente cuantos empleados pasaron a la lista de los desempleados,
pero me imagino que deben de habier sido decenas.
Este es un caso aislado de los muchos que podemos ver a diario si nos
tomamos la molestia de observar los negocios que cierran a diario.
No es fácil ser empresario, y mucho menos con un tipo de administración que
considera a los empresarios como ricos explotadores- Que usa la retórica de no
considerarlos como clase media, haciendo su labor no limitada a las
característica normales que enfrenta una empresa, pero a una labor añadida por
las regulaciones burocráticas y los impuestos de una administración de corte
socialista.
“EMO” Este es un articulo de nuestro privilegiado Saguero
Alberto Perez “Amenper” Un hombre muy valioso y dotado que equivoco su destino
pero que Gracias a DIOS ahora esta haciendo
lo que siempre debio hacer. LRGM…
Los "Carptetbaggers" y el Racismo Resultante
La historia se repite
Con este asunto del día de
Martín Luther King, en todos los canales de televisión lo inundan a uno de
esas negradas de discriminación racial al negro.
Los que hemos sido testigos de
toda la historia del racismo en el Sur de los Estados Unidos, vemos como todas
las versiones tienen una manera de presentarlas que no se ajusta a la realidad
de los hechos.
Dinesh D´Souza el
hindú-americano que hizo la película América 2016, en la que desnudaba a Obama
y su pasado, y que ha tenido que pagar con persecuciones su atrevimiento, fue
uno de los que entrevistaron.
D´Souza dijo entre otras cosas
que su próxima película será sobre el fin del racismo en Estados Unidos.
Como nacido y criado en Cuba,
tengo como D´Souza una percepción objetiva sobre la diferencia del racismo como
era en Estados Unidos y como se presenta en otros lugares.
El racismo en la India así
como en Cuba, era el racismo de castas, que es un racismo inherente en el ser
humano. Todos nos sentimos mal ante algo o alguien que no luce igual a nosotros
o que no tenga nuestros mismos valores culturales.
En india hay una serie
de castas raciales de una multiplicidad extraordinaria, en Cuba teníamos los
negros y los chinos, y era debido al origen de la entrada de estas razas como
esclavos en Cuba.
La discriminación por castas,
que se puede también extender a la posición económica, es básicamente
social. El miembro de la casta discriminada es considerado inferior
socialmente, y la casta superior no quiere identificarse socialmente y mucho
menos familiarmente con la casta inferior.
Pero este tipo de
discriminación, como no es más que una percepción, no una realidad, puede ser
superado fácilmente.
En los Estados Unidos, los que
por una u otra razón hubimos de ser testigos de primera mano del racismo en el
sur en los años 50 que fueron el pico de la segregación, vimos el tipo de
discriminación diferente a la que teníamos en Cuba y nos asombramos
de que era una discriminación que tenía un factor añadido, era una
discriminación de odio.
El odio es un
sentimiento de profunda, aversión, enemistad o repulsión hacia una persona,
cosa, o fenómeno, así como el deseo de evitar, limitar o destruir a su
objetivo, en este caso un individuo de la raza negra..
El odio generalmente se basa
basar en el miedo a su objetivo, ya sea justificado o no, o más allá de las
consecuencias negativas de relacionarse con él.
O sea que no sólo era como en
Cuba que era un resultado de una condición inherente de ser humano ante algo
diferente, lo cual produce prejuicio y el distanciamiento pero no odio.
El problema racial de Estados
Unidos se basa primordialmente, no en la esclavitud, como en Cuba, sino lo que
pasó después de la emancipación.
La parte triunfadora impuso durante
la mal llamada reconstrucción, la condición de nación ocupada a la parte
derrotada.
En el proceso, cuando un
agente de impuestos, iba a cobrarle los impuestos a los sureños derrotados, los
llamados "carpetbaggers" siempre llevaban un ayudante negro, para
humillar más a los sureños. Utilizaron a los negros, y estos se
dejaron utilizar para humillar y degradar a los derrotados poniéndolos en
posiciones en el gobierno superior a los blancos.
Como es lógico esto creó el
odio, no sólo a los Yankees, pero a los negros. O sea que a la
discriminación natural se añadió el odio racial.
Guerrillas como el KKK y otros
surgieron de los veteranos de las tropas confederadas, los sureños lograron con
los años, volver a tomar las riendas de sus territorios, y establecieron lo que
consideraron la medida defensiva de las leyes Jim Crow de segregación al negro.
Eliminar este tipo de
discriminación tomó generaciones y muchas legislaciones y luchas,
pero se logró, y esto es lo que quiere decir D´Souza con el fin del racismo,
fue el fin del racismo del odio. Ya en el siglo XXI no existía el racismo de
odio causado por la reconstrucción, solamente un remanente de prejuicios que
también estaba desapareciendo.
El país eligió a un presidente
negro, esto se suponía que era como ponerle la cubierta de merengue al cake del
fin del racismo.
Pero tocó el negro equivocado,
y Obama con su alianza a otros negros que usan la inexistente discriminación
como un medio de protagonismo político, ha creado una nueva discriminación de
odio que cada día se hace mayor.
El trabajo que hizo Martin
Luther King, que sin lugar a dudas con sus defectos personales, fue
extraordinario, desaparece bajo los nuevos "carpetbaggers" de nuestra
época.
La historia se repite, y
surgirán los movimientos racistas como un contragolpe a la utilización de los
negros para humillar a los blancos y sus instituciones como en el caso de la
policía, repitiéndose los errores de la reconstrucción.
Debíamos aprender de los
errores de la historia, pero nosotros los cubanos mejor que nadie sabemos que
nadie aprendió de nuestros errores. Latinoamérica se encuentra bajo el sistema
que destruyó a Cuba, ellos lo escogieron pensando que era lo mejor para ellos.
Los "carpetbaggers"
de esta época no aprendieron de los de la reconstrucción, pero inevitablemente
el resultado será el mismo, y veremos una nueva segregación, quizás en una
forma más sofisticada, pero nada bueno para los negros.
Mientras tanto, voy esta
noche a oir el discurso del "Carpetbagger" en jefe, a ver cuanto
me quiere cobrar para castigarme por haberme ganado mi dinero honradamente,
para distribuirlo entre otros que lo ayuden en su agenda. La historia se
repite.
Buque
espía ruso llega a Cuba un día antes del diálogo con Estados Unidos
|
Anticipando al Discurso de Obama
Podemos hablar del discurso de Obama que dará esta noche, porque ya sabemos
lo que hablará.
Mejor dicho sabemos de lo que no hablará mucho y de lo que va a hablar
mucho.
Hablará muy poco de como protegerá a la nación contra el terrorismo, y hablará
mucho de su versión de la distribución de la riqueza.
Lo único bueno de esta parte del discurso es que todo lo que hablará sobre
el aumento de los impuestos será paja seca.
Nunca será aprobada ni siquiera por los demócratas.
¿Entonces por qué pierde su tiempo? No, realmente no está
perdiendo su tiempo.
Primero porque está ocupando el tiempo de su discurso para no tener que
hablar del peligro islámico. Después porque sirve de adoctrinamiento
sobre la distribución de la riqueza-
Sonará muy agradable a algunos oídos la dulce retórica de una distribución
que no será tal porque será protección de los ricos de las grandes
corporaciones y extorsión de las pequeñas corporaciones que afectarán los
trabajos y salarios de la clase media- Pero cumplirá con el adoctrinamiento
socialista siempre existente en el discurso de Obama.
Nos dirá que va a poner impuestos en los ricos para ayudar a lo que él
llama la clase media.
¿Pero qué cosa es clase media en los Estados Unidos? Siempre en
este país se ha considerado clase media a los pequeños comerciantes. Siempre se
ha aceptado que los pequeños negocios son la médula de la espina dorsal de la
nación, por eso se han protegido, por eso se establecieron corporaciones
especiales para los pequeños negocios llamados Corporations S.
Estas empresas se denominan "pass-through" empresas porque sus
ingresos se pasan a sus propietarios, donde se grava la tasa impositiva
individual en lugar de corporativo.
Pero poco a poco se ha atacado a estas empresas. Actualmente, combinado con
impuestos sobre la renta estatal, muchos negocios rentables passthrough están
enviando más de la mitad de sus
ingresos al gobierno cada año.
Mayor impuestos a las herencias y ganancias de capital sólo agregarían a
esta carga.
Y esto es lo que hará Obama, y muchos dirán, bueno son ricos, que paguen,
que tienen bastante.
La idea de que estos dueños de negocios no son clase media, pero ricos, se
debe a la percepción de la mayoría de lo que es rico y clase media.
Lo podemos apreciar a nivel de las tiendas al detalle que son las que
tienen mayor visibilidad al hombre común.
Las grandes tiendas locales, como las Farmacias Navarro y los Mercados
Sedanos, tienden a ser considerados como grandes negocios, y sus dueños, antes
de que Navarro vendiera a CVS, como ricos por el hombre de a pie.
Pero en el mundo corporativo de los Walgreen, WalMart, CVS y otros, no son
nada más que unos pequeños negocios locales-
Similarmente, a nivel de industrias y distribución, hay otras empresas de
Corporaciones S, que emplean a desde 50 a 1000 empleados que también muchos
consideran a sus dueños como ricos, pero estos negocios que son pequeños
comparados con las grandes corporaciones, pero combinados, son mayores
empleadores y pagan más impuestos que las grandes empresas corporativas
multinacionales.
Paradojicamente, estos pequeños negocios son los que Obama va a cargar con
los nuevos impuestos.
Estas tasas de impuestos excesivos son un ataque directo contra nuestros
creadores de trabajo más eficaces.
Según la Fundación de impuestos, las empresas passthrough —Corporaciones S,
asociaciones y los propietarios únicos — emplean a la mayoría de los
trabajadores estadounidenses y contribuyen con la mayoría de los ingresos de
negocios para la economía nacional. Aún las preocupaciones sobre las tasas
impositivas, dañando su capacidad para contratar a los trabajadores e invertir
en nuevos equipos son en gran parte ignoradas o saludadas discretamente, algo
como encogerse de hombros y una admisión condescendiente por lo políticos con
una que otra frase de que "hagamos algo para pequeñas empresas."
Claro los mayores contribuyentes a sus campañas son las grandes corporaciones
no los pequeños negocios.
Son los pequeños negocios, no las grandes corporaciones los que en la suma
total emplean más personas en el país. En su discurso del estado de la Unión
esta noche, Obama propondrá fuertes incrementos en los impuestos a las
herencias y ganancias de capital a su lista de deseos de reformas destinadas a
ayudar a la "clase media". En realidad, sin embargo, estas medidas
harían daño a la clase media mediante el aumento de la carga fiscal ya pesado
de muchos empleadores.
El Presidente ha pedido acertadamente una menor tasa de impuesto sobre
Corporaciones C pero propone un nuevo aumento de impuestos otra capa tras las
otras en los negocios de corporaciones S.
Durante años América corporativa correctamente ha argumentado que el 35%
superior corporativa impuesto tasa — el más alto en el mundo — lo pone en
desventaja global. Pero lo más probable es la exitosa sociedad o corporación S
por la calle paga impuestos federales a un ritmo aún mayor: casi el 45% en
algunos casos.
Peor aún, para ayudar a compensar el costo de la tasa de corte en las
corporaciones C, la administración tiene propuesto "ampliación de la
base" para todas las empresas, incluyendo negocios de paso. Así las
empresas Main Street terminaría pagando tasas impositivas más altas sobre una
base más amplia de la renta.
A continuación les voy a pasar un artículo del Wall Street Journal de
hoy. Cuando leo un artículo, aunque me guste, nunca puedo decir que
no tengo alguna diferencia de opinión. En este artículo, cada
palabra es como si estuvieran presentando mi pensamiento como si fuera yo
mismo, como son mis inquietudes y mis problemas. Lo que exponen es
la verdad de lo que estamos sufriendo los que con nuestro trabajo hemos logrado
un pequeño negocio, y que ahora no podemos ni siquiera pasárselo a nuestros
hijos y nietos sin tenerle que dar una tajada de más del 50% al gobierno.
Pero podemos pensar, yo no soy comerciante, así que no me importa, o
podemos decir yo no soy una corporación S sino una gran corporación, así que no
me importa, pero cuando te intenvengan tu empresa, cuando tengas que trabajar
para el único empleador, el gobierno, entonces será demasiado tarde, y es
tarde para decir que el socialismo es como el Romerillo.
Una vez El che le pregunto a Fidel…
¿Fidel crees tu que alguna vez volvamos a
tener realciones con los yanquis.
La hiena de Biran se sonrio cinicamente y
le respondio al Che:
Si y eso va a ha ser: Cuando El presidente
de Los Estados Unidos sea un Negro y el Papa un Argentino como tu.
Gelome USA.
Gallup: Obama Plummets to Lowest Annual Approval Rating Ever
With six years down and just two left in which to build
a legacy, President Barack Obama has posted his lowest-ever average annual
approval rating.
A Gallup poll finds that Obama, in the one-year period between Jan. 20, 2014, and Monday, posted an approval average of just 42.6 percent.
During their sixth year in office, Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon showed their lowest approval rating as well, with the sixth-year approval rating of every president since 1945 averaging just 45.5 percent, Politico notes.
A Gallup poll finds that Obama, in the one-year period between Jan. 20, 2014, and Monday, posted an approval average of just 42.6 percent.
During their sixth year in office, Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon showed their lowest approval rating as well, with the sixth-year approval rating of every president since 1945 averaging just 45.5 percent, Politico notes.
President George W. Bush tapped out the lowest at 37.3
percent, while President Bill Clinton scored an average approval of 63.8
percent, just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke Politico reports. Ronald
Reagan, in his sixth year, averaged a 59.9 percent approval rating, Gallup
reports.
Previously, Obama's lowest yearly average came during the third year of his presidency, 44.4 percent, and his current yearly average is below last year's average of 45.8 percent, Politico notes.
Obama gets slightly better news from Real Clear Politics, which lists him as averaging a 44.7 current approval rating, according to the site's roundup of polls, which shows various polls giving him approval ratings ranging from a low of 38 percent, from Reuters, to a high of 48 percent, from Rasmussen Reports.
"President Obama certainly had a trying sixth year in office as he dealt with challenges abroad, such as the rise of Islamic militants in the Middle East, and faced continued partisan gridlock in trying to address key domestic issues," Gallup commented.
Previously, Obama's lowest yearly average came during the third year of his presidency, 44.4 percent, and his current yearly average is below last year's average of 45.8 percent, Politico notes.
Obama gets slightly better news from Real Clear Politics, which lists him as averaging a 44.7 current approval rating, according to the site's roundup of polls, which shows various polls giving him approval ratings ranging from a low of 38 percent, from Reuters, to a high of 48 percent, from Rasmussen Reports.
"President Obama certainly had a trying sixth year in office as he dealt with challenges abroad, such as the rise of Islamic militants in the Middle East, and faced continued partisan gridlock in trying to address key domestic issues," Gallup commented.
"During the fall months, he registered some of
the lowest approval ratings of his presidency. That culminated with
Republicans' strong showing in the midterm elections, giving them solid majorities
in both houses of Congress.
"But since that time, aided by falling unemployment, plummeting gas prices, and generally solid economic growth, as well as resurgent support from Hispanics, things have started to look up for Obama."
Obama's approval rating, The New York Times notes, has increased lately to 46 percent from around 42 percent right after the mid-term elections in November.
"It is a relatively small increase, but it is more impressive in the context of the unusual stability of Mr. Obama’s approval rating, which hovered between 42 and 44 percent for 15 consecutive months," the Times notes.
"There is a well-established relationship between the pace of economic growth and a president’s approval ratings, and Mr. Obama is clearly benefiting from signs of accelerating economic growth," the Times commented.
"The modest improvement in Mr. Obama’s standing suggests that the Republicans cannot count on an easy midterm-like victory if the economy continues to grow at a healthy pace."
"But since that time, aided by falling unemployment, plummeting gas prices, and generally solid economic growth, as well as resurgent support from Hispanics, things have started to look up for Obama."
Obama's approval rating, The New York Times notes, has increased lately to 46 percent from around 42 percent right after the mid-term elections in November.
"It is a relatively small increase, but it is more impressive in the context of the unusual stability of Mr. Obama’s approval rating, which hovered between 42 and 44 percent for 15 consecutive months," the Times notes.
"There is a well-established relationship between the pace of economic growth and a president’s approval ratings, and Mr. Obama is clearly benefiting from signs of accelerating economic growth," the Times commented.
"The modest improvement in Mr. Obama’s standing suggests that the Republicans cannot count on an easy midterm-like victory if the economy continues to grow at a healthy pace."
Read Latest Breaking News
from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/barack-obama-annual-approval-ratings/2015/01/20/id/619663/#ixzz3PTFf8r2A
Vote Here Now!
Vote Here Now!
Orrin Hatch Accuses
Obama of 'Class Warfare'
The
Senate's top tax law writer accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of
undertaking "class warfare" with his plan to raise taxes on wealthier
Americans to help the middle class.
Republican
Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the
proposals Obama is expected to set out in his State of the Union address on
Tuesday evening would violate principles of simplicity and "revenue
neutrality" that Hatch said are key to any real tax reform.
"This
plan that we'll hear about tonight appears to be more about redistribution,
with added complexity, and class warfare, directed at job-creating small
businesses, than about tax reform," Hatch said in remarks prepared for
delivery in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
He
said this was "unfortunate, because we're going to need real leadership
from the White House - not just liberal talking points - if tax reform is going
to be successful."
Obama,
a Democrat, will push a plan to increase taxes by $320 billion over 10 years on
the wealthy by closing tax loopholes and imposing a fee on big financial firms.
The money would be used to pay for an increase in benefits for the middle
class.
Obama's
aim is to help those left behind by an economic revival taking hold six years
into his tenure, which began with the president facing a crippling financial
crisis.
The
plan would need approval from Congress, which is controlled in both chambers by
Republicans.
Hatch
said he hoped Republicans could get Obama to reverse course, because his ideas
would "be particularly damaging, undoing tax policies that have been
successful in helping to expand the economy, promote savings, and create
jobs."
Hatch,
however, said he was working on another priority that he shares with Obama -
getting legislation passed to give trade deals a fast track through Congress.
Hatch
said he was talking to Senate Democrats as well as lawmakers in the House of
Representatives with the goal of introducing a bipartisan, bicameral bill on
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).
"My
plan, therefore, is to move carefully but quickly to mark up (vote in committee
on) a TPA bill," he said. Hatch did not give a time frame but said he
wanted to introduce a bill "that we can move in short order."
He
also urged Obama to be more "forward leaning" in urging members of
his own party to support TPA. Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/hatch-obama-tax-hike/2015/01/20/id/619525/#ixzz3PTIkUZv2
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Fox News Producer Tried to Report From Inside Texas Muslim Convention.
Take a Look at What Followed.
Fox News producer Jesse Watters attempted to report from inside a Muslim
conference that took place near Dallas, Texas, over the weekend, but was denied
entry.
“Did you fill out the media form?” a man appearing to be an organizer
asked Watters outside the ”Stand With the Prophet” event.
“Yeah, I filled out the media form and I bought tickets too,
personally,” the Fox News producer replied. “And now they’re saying I can’t go
in.”
“There’s a certain type of media allowed,” the man replied to Watters.
“I thought this was supposed to be open press and I came all the way
down here from New York,” Watters countered as the man walked away.
Image source: Screen grab via Fox News
Seeking to get more answers about why Fox News couldn’t enter a
conference center owned by a local school district, Watters spoke with a police
officer.
“They can’t ban us from being a conference center,” he said. “They don’t
own the conference center.”
“They rented it out,” the unidentified officer replied.
After appearing to report outside the conference center for hours,
Watters reported that organizers eventually told him they “specifically barred
‘The O’Reilly Factor’ from coming inside.”
Tax Reform Should Go Right
Down Main Street
Large firms need relief, but
smaller enterprises vital to the economy are often hit even harder.
By BRIAN REARDON
And TOM NICHOLS
Jan. 19, 2015 7:06
p.m. ET
In his State of
the Union address Tuesday night, President Obama will add steep increases in
capital-gains and death taxes to his wish list of reforms designed to help the
“middle class.” In reality, however, such steps would hurt the middle class by
increasing the already heavy tax burden of many employers.
The president has
rightly called for a lower corporate tax rate even as he proposes to layer one
new tax hike after another on Main Street businesses. As negotiations
commence with the new Republican-controlled Congress, there’s still hope for
pro-growth tax reform, but only if Main Street businesses are brought in and
made equal partners with larger corporations.
For years
corporate America has correctly argued that the 35% top corporate tax rate—the
highest in the world—puts it at a global disadvantage. But chances are the
successful partnership or S corporation down the street pays federal income
taxes at an even higher rate—nearly 45% in some cases.
These enterprises
are called “pass-through” businesses because their income is passed through to
their owners, where it is taxed at the individual rather than corporate tax
rate. Combined with state income taxes, many profitable pass-through
businesses are sending more than half their income to the government every
year. Higher capital-gains and death taxes would only add to this burden.
These excessive
tax rates are a direct assault on our most effective job
creators. According to the Tax Foundation, pass-through businesses—sole
proprietorships, partnerships and S corps—employ the majority of U.S. workers
and contribute the majority of business income to the national economy. Yet
concerns about tax rates hurting their ability to hire workers and invest in
new equipment are largely ignored or waved off with a shrug and a condescending
admission that we should “do something for small business.”The Obama
administration’s 2012 corporate tax-reform plan is an example of this
neglect. The administration proposes to lower marginal rates on C corps
only. S corps and partnerships would continue to pay top marginal rates in
excess of 40%, while C corps would pay rates as low as 25%.
In place of lower
rates, the administration offers pass-through businesses higher limits on
expensing and cash accounting. Helpful provisions to be sure, but provisions
that apply to some businesses only and whose benefits are marginal compared
with lower rates.
Worse, to help
offset the cost of the rate cut on C corporations, the administration has
proposed “broadening the base” for all businesses, including pass-through
businesses. So Main Street businesses would end up paying higher tax rates
on a broader base of income.
From 2003 to 2012,
American businesses paid a top rate of 35% regardless of how they were
organized. In January 2013, the “fiscal cliff” deal allowed the top
individual rate to rise to 39.6% from 35%. Meanwhile, health-care reform hiked payroll
taxes and enacted a new investment surtax, both of which can apply to income
earned from pass-through businesses.
These changes have
the owners of many proprietorships, S corps and partnerships paying tax rates
nearly 10 percentage points higher than most C corps.The Obama administration’s
plan would substantially increase this rate disparity. Instead, tax reform
should re-establish rate parity and lower top marginal tax rates on all
businesses.
The double
taxation of corporate income must also be addressed. Shareholder-level
taxes raise the cost of hiring and investing, while imposing a second layer of
tax on the same income encourages all sorts of economically harmful behaviors,
including creating a strong incentive for corporations to take on too much
debt. If tax reform is to be real reform, it must focus on reducing or, better
yet, eliminating the double corporate tax.
Businesses can’t
prosper if they are forced to send too much of their income to the government
(effective rates), and they avoid taking risks and hiring new workers if each
new investment faces an even larger tax bite (marginal rates). Lower
effective and marginal rates are crucial to growth, which is why tax reform
should combine lower top tax rates for all business structures with a single
layer of tax.
Done correctly,
tax reform would reduce the marginal tax on new investments while leveling the
tax burden paid by businesses of all types and across all industries. To
accomplish this, however, Main Street businesses will need to be full
participants in the plan.
Mr. Reardon is
president of the S Corporation Association. Mr. Nichols, an attorney, is a
former chairman of the American Bar Association Tax Section Committee on S
Corporations.
Liberal
Healthcare Group Wants To Provide Healthcare To Undocumented Immigrants And Expand
Dental Coverage For All
"Healthcare 2.0" proposal released
by FamiliesUSA.
IMAGE:
HTTP://WWW.WESTERNJOURNALISM.COM/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/AVATARS/33316/78CA689B2BD8CB8C1950E450B02D00CD-BPTHUMB.JPG
On Monday, a liberal advocacy organization laid
out a plan to strengthen the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) –
colloquially known as Obamacare – that includes expanding Medicaid to
low-income adults in every state, providing health insurance to undocumented
immigrants, and giving universal dental coverage to every adult.
FamiliesUSA, an advocacy organization based
in Washington, D.C. rolled out Healthcare
2.0 Monday. In a blog
post, executive director Ron Pollack outlines its four objectives:
Securing
health coverage for all
1.
Ensuring that health
coverage means access to needed care
2.
Transforming our
healthcare system to provide care that is appropriate, highest in quality,
equitable, and patient-centered
3.
Reducing healthcare
costs and making care more affordable
“Expanding
to low-income adults in all states” was the first of 19 points outlined in the
FamiliesUSA document. “Despite generous federal funding 23 states have not yet
implemented the ACA’s Medicaid expansion for adults with incomes up to 138
percent of the federal poverty level.” it says.
This has left millions of low-income
individuals and families with no coverage options. Many of these people cannot
get job based coverage, either because it is not offered to them or because it
is too expensive. And people with incomes below the federal poverty level
cannot get tax credits that make private coverage much more affordable.
States must extend the medicaid lifeline so
that all low-income individuals and families can get the care they need.
Another
point in HealthCare 2.0 is extending coverage to undocumented immigrants. “At a
time when Congress refuses to consider pathways to citizenship and scorns
administrative proposals that would enable people to stay in the country,
practical proposals to secure health coverage for immigrants are elusive,” the
proposal states.
“However,
immigrants – who often fill key jobs that disproportionately place them in
harm’s way – should be able to obtain necessary health care.”
FamiliesUSA
is also arguing for universal dental care, noting that dental coverage was made
a required benefit for children’s plans, but not for adults. “To ensure that
affordable dental coverage is available regardless of age, Congress should
require all public programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) and private
health plans in the health insurance marketplaces to cover adult dental care,”
according to Healthcare 2.0.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/liberal-healthcare-group-wants-provide-healthcare-undocumented-immigrants-expand-dental-coverage/#Z7suryHcVm8ZtmzZ.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/liberal-healthcare-group-wants-provide-healthcare-undocumented-immigrants-expand-dental-coverage/#Z7suryHcVm8ZtmzZ.99
Ted
Cruz: Obama Presided Over An Assault On The American Dream
He also stressed the need for a strong
conservative to represent Republicans in the 2016 presidential race.
IMAGE:
HTTP://WWW.WESTERNJOURNALISM.COM/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/AVATARS/3289/3DA321B9693559DBB826187F825667C8-BPTHUMB.JPG
As one
of the speakers at this week’s South Carolina Tea Party Convention, Texas Sen.
Ted Cruz indicted the Obama administration for its
perceived assault on the American dream. The tea party favorite explained to a
receptive crowd that the next generation of Americans is likely to lose hope
that hard work and commitment will lead to personal advancement and success.
“The
central challenge facing this country right now is that for millions of Americans,
the American dream seems to be slipping away,” he said.
Cruz
went on to cite recent surveys backing up his assertion. As Western Journalism reported last year, polling indicates about
60 percent of Americans now define the American dream as unattainable. An even
greater majority believe children today will grow up to be worse off than their
parents.
A
subsequent survey found more than three out of four respondents believe the
next generation will be less successful than they are.
“You
know,” he continued, “today for the first time in our country’s history, a
majority of Americans believe our kids will have a worse life than we did.”
He
affirmed that such a sentiment “has never been true in over 200 years of our
nation’s history until right now.”
Cruz
further criticized the Obama administration’s foreign policy, stating that
“America’s leadership in the world” has been damaged as a result.
“The
Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind is a disaster.”
During
the same address,
Cruz, who has yet to announce whether he will seek the Republican nomination in
the 2016 presidential race, did weigh in on what the ultimate candidate will
need to win in a general election.
“If we
nominate another candidate in the mold of a Bob Dole or a John McCain or a Mitt
Romney,” he cautioned, “all of whom are good, honorable, decent men, the same people
who stayed home in ’08 and ’12 will stay home in 2016 and the Democrats will
win again.”
Instead,
he urged conservatives to back a candidate who shares their views.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/ted-cruz-obama-presided-assault-american-dream/#rbabzYhoeVVPBxmI.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/ted-cruz-obama-presided-assault-american-dream/#rbabzYhoeVVPBxmI.99
The European Union,
Nationalism and the Crisis of Europe
January 20, 2015 | 09:00 GMT Print Text
Size
Stratfor
Last week, I wrote about the crisis of Islamic radicalism and the problem of European
nationalism. This week's events give me the opportunity to address the question
of European nationalism again, this time from the standpoint of the European
Union and the European Central Bank, using a term that only an economist could
invent: "quantitative easing."
European media has been flooded for the past week with
leaks about the European Central Bank's forthcoming plan to stimulate the
faltering European economy by implementing quantitative easing. First carried
by Der Spiegel and then picked up by other media, the story has not been denied
by anyone at the bank nor any senior European official. We can therefore call
this an official leak, because it lets everyone know what is coming before an
official announcement is made later in the week.
The plan is an attempt to spur economic activity in
Europe by increasing the amount of money available. It calls for governments to
increase their borrowing for various projects designed to increase growth and
decrease unemployment. Rather than selling the bonds on the open market, a move
that would trigger a rise in interest rates, the bonds are sold to the central
banks of Eurozone member states, which have the ability to print new money. The
money is then sent to the treasury. With more money flowing through the system,
recessions driven by a lack of capital are relieved. This is why the measure is
called quantitative easing.
The United States did this in 2008.
In addition to government debt, the Federal Reserve also bought corporate debt.
The hyperinflation that some had feared would result from the move never
materialized, and the U.S. economy hit a 5 percent growth rate in the third
quarter of last year. The Europeans chose not to pursue this route, and as a
result, the European economy is, at best, languishing.
Now the Europeans will begin such a program — several years after the Americans
did — in the hopes of moving things forward again.
The European strategy is vitally different, however. The
Federal Reserve printed the money and bought the cash. The European Central
Bank will also print the money, but each Eurozone country's individual national
bank will do the purchasing, and each will be allowed only to buy the debt of
its own government. The reason for this decision reveals much about Europe's
real crisis, which is not so much economic (although it is certainly economic)
as it is political and social — and ultimately cultural and moral.
The recent leaks have made it clear the European Central
Bank is implementing quantitative easing in this way because many Eurozone
governments are unable to pay their sovereign debt. European countries do not
want to cover each other's shortfalls, either directly or by exposing the
central bank to losses, a move that would make all members liable. In
particular, Berlin does not want to be in a position where a series of defaults
could cripple Europe as a whole and therefore cripple Germany. This is why the
country has resisted quantitative easing,
even in the face of depressions in Southern Europe, recessions elsewhere and
contractions in demand for German products that have driven German economic
growth downward. Berlin preferred those outcomes to the risk of becoming liable
for the defaults of other countries.
The major negotiation over this shift took place between
European Central Bank head Mario Draghi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Draghi realized that if quantitative easing was not done, Europe's economy
could crumble. While Merkel is responsible for the fate of Germany, not Europe,
she also needs a viable free trade zone in Europe because Germany exports more than
50 percent of its gross domestic product. The country cannot stand to lose free
access to Europe's markets because of plunging demand, but it will not
underwrite Europe's debt. The two leaders compromised by agreeing to have the
central bank print the money and give it to the national banks on a formula
that has yet to be determined — and then it is every man for himself.
The European Central Bank is providing the mechanism for
stimulating Europe's economy, while the Eurozone member states will assume the
responsibility for stimulating it — and living with the consequences of
failure. It is as if the Federal Reserve were to print money and give some to
each state so that New York could buy its own debt and not become exposed to
California's casual ways. The strangeness of the plan rests in the strangeness
of the European experiment. California and New York share a common fate as part
of the United States. While Germany and Greece are both part of the European
Union, they do not and will not share a common fate. If they do not
share a common fate, then what exactly is the purpose of the European Union? It
was never supposed to be about "the pursuit of happiness," but
instead about "peace and prosperity." The promise is the not
right to pursue, but the
right to have. That is a
huge difference.
The anthem of the European Union is from Beethoven's
9th Symphony, which contains these lines from the German poet Friedrich
Schiller:
Joy,
beautiful sparkle of the gods,
Daughter
of Elysium,
We enter,
fire-drunk,
Heavenly
one, your shrine.
Your magic
binds again
What
custom has strictly parted.
All men
become brothers
Where your
tender wing lingers.
I wrote in my new book, Flashpoint:
The Coming Crisis in Europe, that Europe is about:
"…the
joy of joining men into a single brotherhood, overcoming the divisions of mere
custom. Then there would be joy. Brotherhood means shared fate. If all that
binds you is peace and prosperity, then that must never depart. If some become
poor and others rich, if some go to war and others don't, then where is the
shared fate?"
A Crisis of Brotherhood
Europe's crisis is not ultimately an economic one.
Everyone — families and nations — has economic problems. The crisis is not war,
which tragically is as common as poverty. Europe's problem is that it
promised a joy beyond custom, a joy yielding brotherhood and abolishing war,
and a promise based on prosperity, which is a promise so vast it is beyond
anyone's hope to make perpetual. Neither perpetual peace nor perpetual
prosperity can be guaranteed; therefore, the joy that would overcome custom and
bind men in brotherhood is a base of sand.
In the European Central Bank's compromise with Germany, we
can see not only the base of sand dissolving but also the brotherhood of Europe
falling apart. At the heart of this promise is the idea that Germany will not
share the fate of Greece, nor France the fate of Italy. In the end, these are
different nations. Their customs can be overcome by the joy uniting them in
brotherhood, but absent that joy, absent peace and prosperity, there is nothing
binding them together.
The test of the American Republic came when the idea that all men are
created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights was
juxtaposed with the brutishness of slavery. Prior to the revolution, these
United States were divided into sovereignties so profound that many states saw
themselves as individual nations not bound by the promises of the Declaration
of Independence. They believed themselves free to withdraw from the federation
if displeased by others' moral interpretations of the Declaration. What ensued
was the Civil War, which was fought, as Abraham Lincoln put it, to test whether
a nation so constituted could long endure.
That is precisely the question of the European Union. Can
an entity, founded on nations of wildly different customs, expectations and
economies long endure and share a common fate? In the dry technicalities of
quantitative easing, Europe has defined its limits of brotherhood. One of those
limits is prosperity. Each nation determines how it will plot its own course,
its money distributed by the European Central Bank, but under the rules of the
individual states and without any nation being compelled to share the fate of
another. The euro is a common currency that has no one's picture on the front
because the histories of Eurozone countries are so divided that there are no
common heroes. The United States knows that Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton,
Jackson, Grant and Franklin are our common heritage. There is no such
commonality in Europe, and, therefore, no transcendence of the customs of
nations.
The strategy proposed for quantitative easing is a great
compromise, and it may solve the economic problem. But at its first test,
hardly on the order of slavery and the American Civil War, Europe has failed a
more profound test: brotherhood, which is men bound together by a
joy-transcending culture.
Some will say that I am making too much over a useful
political compromise — that the basic institutions of Europe remain, and we
therefore have a useful solution to the problem. I think this argument misses
the deeper point. Europe never expected to face this crisis because it thought
peace and prosperity would endure. It has not because it could not.
Quantitative easing is not merely the desire to avoid responsibility for
prosperity. There is no unity in Europe over the fears of Romania or Russia about
Ukraine. There is no real unity over how to face terrorism in the
name of Islam. There is simply no unity.
If Europe can parse the common search for prosperity in
this way and calmly consider the secession of one of the brotherhood, Greece,
over malfeasance far from terrible on the order of human things, then what is
to keep any of the Europe's institutions intact? If you can secede or be
expelled from the Eurozone, and if you might choose to close your border to
Slovaks, seeking jobs in Denmark, then perhaps you can choose to close your
borders to German products. And if that is possible, then what is the fate of
Germany, which relies on its ability to sell its goods anywhere in Europe?
After all, it is not only the poor and weak in Europe whose fates are at risk.
In the end, Europe becomes not so much a moral project as
it does a convenience, a treaty, which is something a country can leave at,
will if it is in its interest to do so. When the South seceded from the United
States, Northern men were prepared to die to preserve the Union. Is there
anyone who would give his life to preserve the European Union, block secession
and demand a permanent, shared fate?
I predicted that a decisive moment would arrive in
Europe, but the speed at which it did surprised me. I expect that its
institutions will survive a while, and I expect that most people will think I
am overreacting. That is possible, but I do not think so. Regardless of the
technical and political purpose behind the decision to implement quantitative
easing, and however defensible it is on its own grounds, the moral lesson is
that Europe ultimately is a continent, not an idea.
Last week, the question was why Europe found it so
difficult to assimilate immigrants and why it resorted to multiculturalism. The
answer was that the customs of the nation-state made it impossible to imagine
someone born outside the customs of the nation-state to truly become part of
its brotherhood. This week, the question is why the European Central Bank
cannot distribute the money it prints but will give it to national banks to
manage. The answer is that no country wants to be responsible for the debts of
anyone else in Europe. That is not a foolish position, but it makes a union
impossible, certainly not one that can overcome custom.
In Flashpoints,
I wrote the following:
"We
are now living through Europe's test. As all human institutions do, the
European Union is going through a time of intense problems, mostly economic for
the moment. The European Union was founded for "peace and
prosperity." If prosperity disappears, or disappears in some nations, what
happens to peace? That is what this book is about. It is partly about the sense
of European exceptionalism, the idea that they have solved the problems of
peace and prosperity that the rest of the world has not."
But if Europe is not exceptional and is in trouble, what
comes next? The history of Europe should give us no comfort.
Editor's Note: The
newest book by Stratfor chairman and founder George Friedman, Flashpoints:
The Emerging Crisis in Europe will
be released Jan.
27. It is now available for pre-order.
Read more: The European Union, Nationalism and the Crisis of Europe | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.
3044 S.W. 27 Ave
Reporte
conversaciones congresistas/disidentes en CUBA
|
EXTRACTO DEL INFORME DE MARTHA BEATRIZ ROQUE CABELLO SOBRE LA
REUNION DE DISIDENTES CON CONGRESISTAS NORTE-AMERICANOS .
La reunion de 4 senadores y 2 congresistas con 12 disidentes
cubanos se efectuó el pasadoDomingo 18 de enero en la casa del Jefe de la
Sección de Intereses de EU., en Cuba. Esta reunion comenzó a las 4 de la tarde
y terminó un poco después de las 6 pm. Por la parte Americana estuvieron
presents los senadores demócatas: Patrick Leahy (Vermont); Debbie
Stabenow(Michigan); Richard Durbin(Illinois) y Sheldon Whitehouse(Rhode
Island).
Por la oposición: Antonio G. Rodiles, Berta Soler, Eliécer Åvila,
Elezardo Sánchez, Héctor Maseda, José Daniel Ferrer, Laritza Diversent, Manuel
Cuesta Morúa, Miriam Celaya, Miriam Leyva, Yoani Sánchez y Martha Beatriz Roque
Cabello. Los disidente expresaron sus criterios y en algunas ocasiones
surgieron preguntas de los congresistas que fueron repondidas.
Para todos quedo bien claro que las opinions con respect a las
medidas del Presidente Obama, no tienen consenso en la oposición. Hay quienes
no están de acuerdo con ese paso diplomáticoy así l hicieron saber; otros que
consideran que es algo bien hecho y un tercer grupo no opinó al respect.
Lo que ha causado mucha molestia en la oposición es la
excarcelación de los presos. Casi el 30% de los de la lista habian salido de
prisión antes de que se anunciara que iban a ser “liberados”.
Por mi parte deje claro que estas conversaciones comenzaron con el
Pie Izquierdo, falta de transparencia y sobre todo sin permitir que la sociedad
civil participara. Es dificil saber con exactitude la cantidad de presos ya que
a lo largo del país hay muchos que ni siguiera han ido a juicio y ya llevan
hasta 4 años presos por Peligrosidaad Predelictiva que es lo mismo decir que no
cometieron ningún delito, pero están presos “ Por Si Acaso “.
Poco lograrán hacer los que nos visitaron , incluso cuando se van
sabiendo que no todos estánde acuerdo. “este es un problema de la nación
cubana”. Si el Gobierno de los EU. Comete los mismos errors con los que se ha
empezado todo este proceso, estará DESTINADO AL FRACASO TOTAL.
“En mi opinión”
No 854 Enero 21, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST”
Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
No comments:
Post a Comment