HPIM0049

No 854 “En mi opinion” Enero 21, 2015

No 854 “En mi opinión”  Enero 21, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

Time left until Obama leaves office

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time%20left%20until%20Obama%20leaves%20office

 

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

 

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

gelomeusa@yahoo.com

http://www.cubanet.org/noticias/buque-espia-ruso-llega-a-cuba-un-dia-antes-del-dialogo-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

By John Blosser

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.
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.

“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.”

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!

 

 

 

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!

 

Fox News Producer Tried to Report From Inside Texas Muslim Convention. Take a Look at What Followed.

Oliver Darcy

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.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/19/fox-news-producer-tried-to-report-from-inside-texas-muslim-convention-take-a-look-at-what-followed/

 

 

 

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

JAMES BEATTIE 

image: http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Illegals.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

 

 

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

  1. CHRISTOPHER AGEE

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

 

 

 

The European Union, Nationalism and the Crisis of Europe

Geopolitical Weekly

January 20, 2015 | 09:00 GMT Print Text Size

Stratfor

By George Friedman

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 NoteThe 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

Gatria@aol.com

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

“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”

http://enmiopinionlazarorgonzalez.blogspot.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s