And they said George Bush had fuzzy math!

I've been reading with amazement Obama's plan to tax the wealthy to pay for health care. Here's how part of his plan works:

Those making $250,000 or more would have their itemized deductions frozen. If they are in the 35% bracket, and they have $10,000 in itemized deductions, that would amount to a savings on their tax bill of $3,500 ($10,000 x .35). Under Obama's plan, though, they would only get to deduct as if they were in the 28% bracket or $2,800. In other words, you don't get a full dollar for your deductions. Obama says this is only fair -- it is not right for "high-income people to get a bigger tax break than middle-income people for claiming the same deductions."

What backwards thinking! Does he think we are all idiots? They are not getting a bigger tax break -- their tax rate is higher to begin with. What he is saying is that the wealthy's deduction dollars are of less value than their taxable dollars. Let's break it down using these general examples and analyze it to see if these people are, indeed, getting a bigger tax break.

As it stands now, Joe Wealthy makes $250,000 a year and is in the 35% bracket. His tax bill is $87,500. But Joe has $10,000 in deductions. That means he will pay tax on only $240,000 a year, or $84,000. Joe has saved $3,500 on his tax bill making his effective tax rate 33.6%. Joe's tax rate dropped .4%.

Joe's neighbor, Jim Notaswealthy, makes $150,000 a year and is in the 28% bracket. His tax bill is $42,000. But Jim also has $10,000 in deductions, so he will pay on only $140,000. His tax bill is now $39,200. Jim has saved $2,800. His effective tax rate is now 26.13%. Jim's tax rate dropped .67%.

Which one got the better tax break? Looks to me like Jim did. Now let's see what happens to Joe under Obama's new plan.

Joe may have $10,000 in deductions, but he will be able to count only $7,200 of them, because Obama plans to freeze his deductions to the 28% bracket. That means Jim will now pay tax on $242,800 -- a total of $84,980. That makes his effective tax rate 33.99%. His deductions will have afforded him only a .31% savings. So Jim's deductions are worth more than twice as much to him as Joe's are.

If that's all too complicated, look at it this way. Macy's is having a 10% off sale. You and your shopping buddy decide to take advantage and are there when the doors open. You find a really cute blouse marked $50. Your friend finds what she likes for $30. When you check out, your friend gets her $30 blouse for $27. When the cashier rings up $47 for your blouse, you remind her that it's a 10% sale -- your blouse should be $45. "Oh, no," she says. "It's not fair for you to get a bigger discount than your friend." That's how Obama is treating the taxpayers -- one is allowed to deduct a percentage, and the other's deduction is limited to a dollar amount. They are not the same thing. And that is what's unfair! (And I haven't even mentioned that Obama plans to raise Joe's rate to more than 39% to begin with).

Well, this all doesn't bother me any -- I don't make $250,000. But remember, Obama started out in his campaign not raising taxes on anyone who made more than $400,000. Then it kept sliding. He still has three years and eleven months to get down to you!

"Health care tied to tax on rich." The Dallas Morning News; February 26, 2009; p. 1A.

Is that the best you can do?

There's a trial going on in Dallas. Elizabeth Prezio was riding her bike on the Katy Trail in 2007 when she was attacked by Jose Torres and a juvenile. They wanted to steal her ipod. She was beaten and kicked repeatedly, causing multiple broken bones. She said she remembers her attackers laughing during the assault.

These brilliant criminals were caught when they used Prezio's cellphone to call Torres' girlfriend. So what is Torres' defense? It wasn't aggravated robbery -- Torres' attorney says Ms. Prezio had "pre-existing medical conditions that contributed to her condition after the attack." So, according to this theory, as long as somebody is already sick or otherwise debilitated, go ahead and beat the stuffing out of them and take their possessions. They can't pin aggravated robbery on you, because they were already in bad shape!

All I can say is, if that's the best defense this idiot has, he should have just gone ahead and pled guilty!

"Woman: I was kicked, laughed at on Katy Trail." The Dallas Morning News; February 25, 2009; p. 6B.

Another Octonut Update

The Octonut case just gets crazier and crazier. Denis Beaudoin has told Good Morning America that he suspects he is the father of the octuplets, and he wants DNA testing done. And why did he donate his sperm (about 10 years ago) to this nut? Because she told him she had ovarian cancer and could not have children. The Octonut says this is not true. She does admit that Beaudoin donated his sperm to her. But he can't have kids, she says. I guess she doesn't count the two he has with his ex-wife (according to some sources I read, he is married, but the AP says he's divorced).

Denis says he suspects some of the older children are his as well. I'd like another look at those babies, because Denis Beaudoin is black. I didn't notice that the babies had any black traits, but it's sometimes hard to tell with newborns. What I think is that he sees a possible gravy train, and he wants his share of the pie. What I hope happens is that the courts hold him responsible for child support.

As for the Octonut, I'm pretty sure there's a good reason God hasn't allowed her to conceive naturally.

Essie May funny for the day: Seen on a sign in a golf pro shop -- "On Sale! Hail-sized golf balls"

"Ex-beau seeks paternity test." The Dallas Morning News; February 24, 2009; p. 4A.

And he walks on water, too!

In last Saturday's presidential address, Barack Obama said he was determined to "get exploding deficits under control" and that his plan would "restore fiscal discipline." This from the man who just doubled our deficit with his big stimulus package. Now he says, "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences." He's promising to cut our deficit in half by the end of his first (and we hope only) term. How's he plan to pull this rabbit out of his hat?

By raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy. It's what we conservatives call "redistribution of the wealth." What it means is that if you're a productive, hard-working citizen who takes care of all your bills, they're going to take your money and give it to all those deadbeats who expect the government to support them. But I'm not wealthy, and I don't own a business, so it won't affect me. Think again. When businesses are taxed, they'll recoup that money by cutting jobs and benefits. When the wealthy are taxed, they'll cut down on buying from the retail outlets people work for. The retail outlets will cut jobs. Then services like beauty shops, car washes, contractors, and others will feel the effects. When these cuts start manifesting themselves, factories won't need to produce as many goods. That will result in factory layoffs. You can't penalize the people who keep this country running and expect there to be a positive result. The newspaper reports that even non-partisan observers are questioning the wisdom of announcing tax increases in the midst of a recession. The bottom line is that gravity works -- wealth doesn't "trickle up."

I would like to think, for the sake of our country, that Obama can double the deficit today and cut it in half tomorrow. But I, for one, don't believe this hypocrite can walk on water!

Paris News funny for today: Mary Madewell, in her editorial of February 23, says, "I continue to be amazed at fragrant violations of Texas law . . . communication among council members about city affairs, whether by personal contact, telephone calls or e-mails is strickly prohibited." Strickly speaking, Mary, it smells pretty fishy to me, too.

"Obama says he'll halve U.S. deficit." The Dallas Morning News; February 22, 2009; p. 1A.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

Is it any wonder?

It seems the newspapers are full today of problems with the younger generation: teenage promiscuity and pregnancy, illiteracy, violence, lack of a work ethic. What has caused all these problems?

My guess is a generation of parents who either are ignorant or just don't care. Mark Davis had a column in Sunday's Dallas Morning News that I think perfectly explains the origin of today's lost generation. He went to see the movie The Wrestler. It is a very explicit R-rated feature with violence, nudity, and sex. A few seats down from him sat an oblivious father with a child around four years old -- old enough to absorb what was going on on the screen even if she didn't fully understand it. Mr. Davis said that as the film credits rolled, he confronted the father with, "I'm sure the child enjoyed the film."

I'm afraid that was probably a little too subtle for the moron who subjected this child to such adult material. Where has common sense gone? Does the father see nothing wrong with a little girl watching this stuff? What effect will that have on this child? Will she have nightmares? Will she think if someone touches her inappropriately it's OK, because the people in the movie did it? And if Dad is so lax in this area of the little girl's life, what else is he subjecting her to?

I think this is all a sign of the times -- people being lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, lovers of their own selves, without natural affection, truce-breakers, inventors of evil things, without understanding, disobedient to parents, blasphemers, unthankful, unholy, and the list goes on. It appears to me from the last election that God has given up the U.S. to a reprobate mind. Until, as a country, we fall on our knees and confess our sin, we can only expect things to get worse. Be not deceived, God is not mocked; whatsoever a man (or a nation) soweth, that shall he also reap. For at least forty years now, the U.S. has been sowing the wind. Now, we are reaping the whirlwind.

Essie May will now step down from the pulpit.

"Why I spoke up at this Oscar movie." The Dallas Morning News; February 22, 2009; p. 4P.

And the winner is . . . .

Here we are at the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion watching all the Hollywood luminaries take their walks down the red carpet. What an exciting night this is! Actors, directors, producers, composers -- all adorned in designer fashions and accessories! Vera Wang, Versace, Prada, Ralph Lauren, YSL, diamonds, rubies, emeralds -- there's more glitter here than in a kindergarten art class!

Here comes another limo -- let's see who's about to face the cameras and the adoring crowds. The chauffeur is opening the door -- it's Essie May! Essie has been nominated for the special Miss Cleo Award for best prognostication for her December 17, 2008, prediction of Oscar winners. And isn't she lovely? Leave it to Essie May to scoop the fashion world with her cotton print dress by Sears. And those little Mary Janes by Naturalizer certainly set it off, don't you think? And look at that stunning As Seen on TV Buxton over the shoulder organizer. I'm told that her Timex was lent to her by Wal-Mart, and J. C. Penney provided her cubic zirconia.


Now it's time for the announcement for the Miss Cleo Award for best prognostication. The cameras have all the nominees in view. And the winner of the special Miss Cleo Award for best prognostication goes to -- the envelope, please -- I'm so nervous! -- ESSIE MAY FOR DECEMBER 17, 2008, PREDICTION OF SEAN PENN AS BEST ACTOR FOR MILK!

Essie May rushes to the stage to a standing ovation. Her acceptance is phenomenal. "You like me, you really like me!"

When did you last have a helpful problem?

Maybe we are graduating students who don't know how to write a coherent sentence because their teachers can't accomplish that task themselves. A local elementary school teacher of superior students was quoted in an article in the newspaper this past week: "The kids have to scrapbook everything and then they have a six page paper they have to write addressing all the problems that are going to help the community." Since when do problems "help the community"? Did she mean to say, "The kids have to write a six page paper offering helpful solutions to the problems the community faces"? I honestly don't know. I wonder if she does, or if she was just trying to say something that sounded important.

"A healing look at life." The Paris News; February 19, 2009; P. 1.