Jones-Kelley Ordered Employee To Snoop On Joe
As DrewM points out at Ace of Spades HQ, Team McCain needs to have an ad out on this in Ohio. Heck, they should put together a national ad, showing what life would be like under an Obama presidency, where, if you disagree, you will be investigated
Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.
Niekamp didn’t know she just had checked on “Joe the Plumber,” who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain’s example in a debate of an average American.
The senior manager would not learn about “Joe” for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.
The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are “thrust into the public spotlight,” amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance.
Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. “I’ve never done that before, I don’t know of anybody in my office who does that and I don’t remember anyone ever doing that,” she said today.
First of all, as has been said many times, isn’t this grounds for a criminal investigation of Jones-Kelley? Unauthorized access to personal records? Second, isn’t this a violation of the code of conduct for Ohio employees? I work for a really, really big company, and it would be grounds for discipline up to and including termination. And I have seen this in action. Not against me, but, other employees. This goes for other companies, as well. Of the employees involved, the only ones not terminated were those who owned up to it and had clean records. Jones-Kelley lied.
Third, wasn’t it the Left who pitched hissy fits over a simple program that cross-referenced phone numbers called to determine if there were terrorism links, and no other personal data was provided without an actual warrant? Yes, they did.
Anyhow, Sue, Joe, Sue!
Others: Michelle Malkin, Don Surber, Ms Placed Democrat, The Underground Conservative
Powered by FireStats
November 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
[...] McCain Blogs [...]
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 am
Joe the Plumber is a threat to Obama because he rejects the class envy appealm of the Democratic [i.e. socialist) Party. In other words, on principal, he refuses to be bought off. That’s why he had to be destroyed, investigated, harrassed, and ridiculed.
Cutting through the Democrat Party rhetoric, it must be emphasized that the so-called “rich” already pay the bulk of the taxes in this country, a burden far beyond their proportion of the population. The latest data from the Internal Revenue Service indicates that the top 1% earn 19% of the income, but pay 37% of the taxes. The top 5% earn 33% of the income and pay 57% of the taxes. The top 10% earn 44% of the income and pay 67% of the taxes. Conversely, the bottom 50% (those below the median income level) earn 13% of the income and pay only 3% of the taxes. The above calculations do not include Social Security or Medicare.
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, but you can be guaranteed that it?s always more than what they 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). 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 $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% less 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.
These results confirm that Barack Obama and the far-left ideologues in charge of the Democratic Party are seriously out of touch, not only with the American people generally, but with the members of his own party.
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 regimes in which it is treated harshly and toward regimes 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 economic ignorance of Barack Obama.
Visit: http://www.sensiblechange.org
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 am
Joe the Plumber is a threat to Obama because he rejects the class envy appealm of the Democratic [i.e. socialist) Party. In other words, on principal, he refuses to be bought off. That’s why he had to be destroyed, investigated, harrassed, and ridiculed.
Cutting through the Democrat Party rhetoric, it must be emphasized that the so-called “rich” already pay the bulk of the taxes in this country, a burden far beyond their proportion of the population. The latest data from the Internal Revenue Service indicates that the top 1% earn 19% of the income, but pay 37% of the taxes. The top 5% earn 33% of the income and pay 57% of the taxes. The top 10% earn 44% of the income and pay 67% of the taxes. Conversely, the bottom 50% (those below the median income level) earn 13% of the income and pay only 3% of the taxes. The above calculations do not include Social Security or Medicare.
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, but you can be guaranteed that it?s always more than what they 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). 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 $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% less 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.
These results confirm that Barack Obama and the far-left ideologues in charge of the Democratic Party are seriously out of touch, not only with the American people generally, but with the members of his own party.
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 regimes in which it is treated harshly and toward regimes 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 economic ignorance of Barack Obama.
Visit: http://www.sensiblechange.org
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
it’s your life - you have a destiny - take it http://www.real-wishes.com