About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Quick Voter Guide, Part I

Posted by Josh Todd on Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:40:22 PM
Ohio House, 36th District: Charles Morton (D) v. Seth Morgan (R)
 
The Dayton Daily News endorsed Charles Morton in an editorial that didn't really explain why or give good, concrete reasoning. Seth Morgan is conservative, the Gem City's top paper said, and Morton was part of a union and worked charitably--the insinuation being that Morgan is just a mean conservative who never did anything charitable for anyone, I suppose.
 
So it always has been with those of us on the right.
 
But Charles Morton, despite being nearly twice Morgan's age, has less than half of Morgan's resume. At age 30, Morgan has already run a countywide campaign (a loss to incumbent, tax hiking by fiat, Montgomery County Auditor Karl Keith). He owns his own business and has holds an advanced degree. Morton, on the other hand, has worked in the labor movement and does not appear to have completed any program of study (per DDN). Age discrepancy aside, Seth Morgan is better-suited to be State Representative.
 
Furthermore, Charles Morton is basically a first-rate, Democrat smear artist. Earlier this year, he maligned Morgan for wanting a tax cut in Huber Heights, where the latter is a City Councilman. Then, in a scathing TV ad, Morton calls Morgan a tax hiker. Well, which is it?
 
Then, Morton issued false attacks on Morgan, claiming that his children were all home-schooled, meaning that Morgan was a hypocrite for not supporting public schools. In reality, Morgan has only one school-age child who attends Huber Heights City Schools. The Morgan campaigned filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission, which ruled in Morgan's favor.
 
Without doubt, Seth Morgan is the more qualified and more dignified candidate, thereby earning yet another endorsement, however irrelevant this one may be.
 
Ohio Issue 6: The Casino Measure
 
Frankly, I would be in favor of the casino measure because it would bring jobs to the state. Even without a dime in tax revenue to the state from the casino directly, the extra jobs would off-set some of the jobs that will be lost from DHL, the payday lender bill, and other sources. And that would be a positive development, especially considering the no-growth policies destined to come down the pike.
 
Still, there are reservations, such as the now infamous loophole--which the conservative Buckeye Institute maintains is real--and the less-than-reputable casino promoter. With all the ads from the Yea and Nay sides, one cannot possibly know what to believe.
 
Consequently, we believe that the lack of clarity will probably doom this bill. Abstention would be prudent here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Go Ahead

Posted by Josh Todd on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:58:22 PM
So you want to vote for Barack Obama? Why? Perhaps you are tired of George W. Bush, or think Republicans have stayed beyond their welcome, or that Obama is just a nice guy who says he'll help. Now let's look at what you get with President Barack Obama.
 
Speaking economically, Obama will "cut taxes" for "95%" of taxpayers, raising only taxes on those filthy, nasty rich people. Likewise, any small business making over $250,000 gets a tax hike, too, while those below that figure get a tax cut. Furthermore, capital gains tax rates will be cut for the massive middle while the filthy, nasty rich get their capital gains rates bumped upward.
 
Sounds good, eh? Boy, those darn rich folk will get soaked, won't they? And this will improve your life by...
 
Well, 95% of taxpayers are not really federal income taxpayers at all. Some 30-40% pay no federal income tax. IRS data show that of the roughly 136 million income tax filings in 2006, 43.4 million of them paid no federal income tax. Thus, under your guy, Barack Obama, these people will receive not tax cuts but transfer payments. Chances are, if you are married, you contributed to 75% of federal income tax receipts; thus, you will be paying out those transfer payments to the largely single, non-fed-income-taxpayers. What a great deal for you, eh? You with children get to pay the childless!
 
As for small businesses, Obama's "95% of small businesses make less than $250,000" stat is misleading to say the least. In fact, it's 89% of small businesses that make less than $200,000 annually; and that 11% making more than $200,000 bring in more than 2/3 of the income. Likewise, they employ, naturally, more than 2/3 of the employees. So, all of those small businesses that create the greatest number of jobs will be hit hard with taxes, forcing them to cut employees or stop hiring.
 
Then, Obama would like to soak the rich by hiking up tax rates on, basically, the top two tax brackets--both income and capital gains taxes. What will happen after the increased taxation is that the dirty, rotten rich will naturally protect their assets by investing them so to minimize or avoid excessive taxation. Furthermore, fewer will invest in new business ventures, also to protect their assets. In other words, this legal (and some illegal, to be sure) tax evasion will probably result in declining revenues to the treasury, causing President Obama to look for more taxes, because that's how liberals think the feds get more revenue.
 
Sounds good, doesn't it? Transfer payments to people who didn't do anything to earn them, fewer jobs, and lower revenues to the federal government. If that's the change you want, go ahead, America: you'll get what you ask for and what you deserve. And God help the rest of us.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Mockery ? Special: Presidential Town Hall Forum Transcript

Posted by Josh Todd on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 10:12:58 PM
Question: Senator Obama, what will you do to stop the economic meltdown?

Senator Barack Obama: Well, George Bush…

Question: Sen. Obama, who would you appoint as Secretary of the Treasury?

Sen. Obama: Well, during the George Bush administration…

Question: List your priorities, top three, in order.

Sen. Obama: Well, George Bush…

Question: Would you support a two-year deadline to fix social security?

Sen. Obama: Uh, George Bush…

Question: Sen. Obama, what will you do to protect the environment?

Sen. Obama: Under George Bush…

Question: Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?

Sen. Obama: Well, your premiums have doubled under George Bush…

Question: Is health care a right?

Sen. Obama: Well, Article VII said, until George Bush…

Moderator: Senator, we must move on—

Sen. Obama: …George Bush…

Question: How will the economy affect our nation’s ability to act as peacemaker?

Sen. Obama: If it weren’t for George Bush…

Question: Should we respect Pakistan’s sovereignty or go after al Qaeda, anyway?

Sen. Obama: It’s a difficult situation there because George Bush…
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Ball Club and the Baby Bombers

Posted by Josh Todd on Monday, October 06, 2008 8:18:38 PM
An old ballplayer—the Legend, as he was known—returned to the old Ball Club for another go at a World Championship. He stealthily led the Ball Club into the World Series, its first appearance in eight years.

In the Series, the Ball Club faced a youthful expansion team, nicknamed the “Baby Bombers.” The Bombers had only been around for about four years, but they had been a big item in the baseball world. It went without saying that the Legend and the Ball Club had a monumental task ahead of them.

Baby Bomber players were fierce, willing to get down in the dirt to play with anyone. They even played dirty baseball.

On the other hand, the Legend—the Ball Club’s leader—didn’t seem to have any fight in him. He gave a rousing speech after the League Championship Series in which he lauded his mates to “Come fight with me!” Yet, he seemed timid, somehow, unwilling to exploit obvious Baby Bomber weaknesses.

For instance, Bomber infielders were meek on double play chances when opposing base runners slid hard into second base. They also defended the bunt poorly. Bomber hitters couldn’t hit fastballs on the inside part of the plate. And Bomber pitchers had control problems, relying on the opposing batter’s willingness to swing at pitches out of the strike zone.

Yet, the Ball Club wouldn’t slide, bunt, throw inside, or take a pitch.

In essence, it seemed as if the Ball Club was hoping for the 3-run homerun, or errors on routine grounders from Baby Bomber fielders, or other Cardinal sins on behalf of the youthful club. It didn’t help that the umpires were swept up in the Baby Bomber hysteria, at times calling the game to the Bomber’s favor.

Still, the Legend and his Ball Club made it to Game 7. But what will they do?

Likewise, I ask the same question of John McCain. Barack Obama and the Democrats have clear weaknesses that McCain simply refuses to exploit—Bill Ayers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and many others. Sadly, if the Legend refuses to slide, and McCain refuses to call ‘em like they are, what happens to the country?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Seven Years Ago...

Posted by Josh Todd on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:45:27 PM
A year or two ago, I wrote a column about sex education using an allegory. It went something like so:
 
A dumb teenager (me) drove like an idiot and wrecked his car into fences and the like. Instead of altering the teen's driving habits, the teen and the mom agreed to take protective measures, including wearing a helmet and lining all roads in town with mattresses. Mom's logic was that her son was going to do it anyway, so why not protect him. Her measures, of course, discounted a lot of factors and only encouraged the dumb teen to drive like an idiot. Thus, teaching sex ed without discussing abstinence was tantamount to telling kids to go have a lot of sex and, by the way, just make sure to use a condom.
 
So, there it was. The basic idea was that negative consequences serve a purpose other than simply the infliction of suffering. They deter us from engaging in hazardous activities.
 
Examples: I was shocked when I put the paper clip in the light socket; therefore, I won't do that again. My infant son broke my glasses when I looked at him face-to-face; therefore, I'll remove my glasses henceforth. Chicago Cubs fans annoy me beyond description with their sophomoric behavior at Great American Ballpark; therefore, I just won't go to Reds-Cubs games anymore.
 
It's a simple concept, and one that is central to life in a free society, particularly in a free market economy--and the same concept applies to the current financial crisis.
 
The government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that it was best to pressure and enable banks to make bad loans, and, as was to be expected, those bad loans came back to haunt the banks. Instead of facing the music (negative consequences), the government wants to bail out the banks.
 
But this would really do the economy no good in the long-term. As one economist said, the proper solution is...bankruptcy. Let 'em fail, if you will. And it works, too. The market always fixes itself. Perhaps, though, the problem is that we, as Americans, are far too impatient for natural corrections.
 
I still think a bailout is the wrong call. The desire to prevent a recession is not sufficient justification. Simply put, the downturn won't last forever. In fact, it would probably only last for a year or two, left to its own devices (remember business cycles?). It was, after all, just about 7-8 years ago when we had a sluggish economy...and 7-8 years before that...and about 8-10 years before that...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »