Austin Hill - Profits! Hating Them When They’re High And Panicking When They’re Low

Breaking news: some of America’s largest corporations have begun to report declining profits. For those that are offended by highly profitable corporations, this should be really great news.

But nobody is celebrating. In fact, the sagging profits reports are thought to be such a bad thing that some believe they sent the Dow sliding downward last week, for fear that a global recession has arrived.

If profits are such a terrible thing, why aren’t we relieved by their decline?

For the record, I have no idea whether or not a recession is eminent. And to the extent that economic activity is nearly impossible to predict with precision, nobody else knows either.

But regardless of whether the economy is moving up or down, Americans need to grapple with this “love-hate” attitude towards profitable enterprise. And let’s start with a couple of philosophical questions: Are profits always a good thing for a company to produce? And is it okay for one company to be really, really, profitable, even when other companies are not?

In some spheres of life – collegiate and professional athletic competitions, for example –Americans have no problem accepting the fact that with each match-up, some will succeed while others fail. Yet when it comes to business, success in producing profits is often seen as merely a necessary evil – and only acceptable if the profits aren’t “excessive.”

Part of the dilemma may well be that far too many Americans assume economics to be, as the term goes, a ‘zero-sum game.” Just as it is the case in many sporting events that one team wins and the other loses, so also it is assumed that if one individual or group is profitable, it necessarily causes somebody else’s unprofitability.

That, of course, is a false assumption. In our competitive free market economy, success with one enterprise often creates new markets in which other companies can succeed.

An easily understood example of this is the coffee house industry. In the 1980’s, Starbucks took the concept of the local coffee house where people meet and spend time together and drink beverages, and turned it in to a global business phenomena. And since the earliest beginnings of Starbucks, several other coffee house chains have been launched - Moxie Java, Tully’s Coffee, and Caribou Coffee to name a few - as an effort to capitalize on the burgeoning coffee house market. While today Starbucks remains the largest chain of its kind, these other newer and smaller companies have nonetheless benefited from Starbucks’ success, in as much as Starbucks essentially created the market for the modern-day coffee house in the first place.

But economic realities are one thing, and people’s perceptions are something different. And at present America is surrounded by an ever-present hostility towards profitable businesses – much of which emanates from the highest levels of our government.

Some of us saw this era of hostility coming. Back in 2008 while he was campaigning for the presidency, Then-Senator Obama made it a point to chastise American businesses nearly every time a robust earnings report was published. In the summer of that year, as an example, speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers, the President-to-be made it clear his disdain for the petroleum industry:

“First of all,” candidate Obama stated, “you’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…They..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”

Imagine that! “Makin’ out like bandits” – that’s an amazing assessment of a successful business enterprise, suggesting that posting profits is tantamount to thievery. Of course at that moment in time, the early signs of a recession were appearing, and it was politically viable to send the message that “if we can’t all prosper right now, then none of us should prosper right now,” and his vitriol over the profitability of the Exxon Mobil Corporation played well with the crowd.

Yet Mr. Obama’s disdain for business “profits” has continued throughout his presidency. Fast forward to February 7th of 2011 when the President addressed an audience of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Speaking of the improving balance sheets that were emerging within many American companies at that time, President Obama stated:

“The benefits can’t just translate into greater bonuses and profits for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living, as well as your bottom line…”

Of course, we’re talking here about our Ivy League-graduate President. Surely he, of all people, understands that profits aren’t simply “shared” - they are “earned.” And surely he realizes that when a company is profitable, it’s not merely the C.E.O. that benefits (investors, employees, and customers benefit from profitability as well). Certainly the President of the United States understands these most basic concepts of free market enterprise.

But we never hear that from our President. Nor do we hear much praise at all for successful, profitable enterprise from anybody in our government. It’s usually anger and disgust when profits are good, and promises of intervention and “stimulus” when profits are bad.

It’s a very self-serving and destructive game that our politicians play. And they will keep on playing, until Americans come to terms with profits.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Can America “Minimum Wage” Itself To Prosperity?

What happens when the U.S. Secretary of Labor visits a church in Charlotte? If an incident earlier this month is any indication, faulty political promises and destructive economic policies continue to spread.

It took place on April 3rd. Acting U.S. Labor Secretary Seth Harris made an appearance at a Baptist Church in North Carolina’s largest city, along with Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx. He was visiting to promote President Obama’s proposal of elevating the federal minimum wage requirement from the current $7.25 to $9.00 an hour.

Harris and Foxx gathered in a large room within a Baptist church building. They sat in a large circle with several “average” (which means “hand-picked, pre-screened, and pre-approved by the Labor Department”) Americans living in Charlotte who work at jobs that pay only minimum wage. As news microphones and cameras caught all the action, Harris facilitated a “discussion” with the minimum wage earning Charlottean’s, and explained how their lives would benefit from the President’s new proposed mandate.

Harris told the group participants that if the minimum wage requirement was raised to $9 an hour, a full-time worker at the current minimum wage would earn an extra $3,500 more per year. A total of 557,000 workers in North Carolina “would directly benefit from that proposal,” he said, noting that President Obama is seeking to “lift people out of poverty” by imposing this new proposed requirement.

It all sounded so good. But in reality, there were problems.

For one, mere laws don’t “lift people out of poverty” – genuine wealth creation does. Using the force of government to mandate that a business owner pays a worker a specific wage does not ensure that wealth is being created. On the contrary, such laws are coercive mechanisms of wealth redistribution, and they only ensure that an increasing amount of existing wealth is taken away from one individual or group and transferred to another.

History, even recent history over the course of our lifetimes, demonstrates this. While roughly half of the world’s population -about 3 billion people - live in measurable poverty today, the other roughly 3 billion are measurably “middle class,” and mostly facing upward mobility.

So what has happened to the more fortunate 3 billion? We have not been “minimum waged” to wealth. We’ve been fortunate to live in countries where we’ve been relatively free to privately own property and advance in the marketplace and amass wealth for ourselves.

The best examples of this have been post-World War II Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong, along with the increasingly liberated economies of China and India. Many Americans seem oblivious to this capitalistic, free market transformation that has taken place over the last few decades – surely if we were aware of this we wouldn’t have elected our current crop of politicians who are taking us in the exact opposite direction – but the transformation is nonetheless real.

Another problem with Harris’ promises is that they are based on the false assumptions that government bureaucrats understand the inner-workings of a business than a business owner does, and that government mandates always produce their desired outcomes. Can every small business in Charlotte – or anywhere else in the U.S. – afford to “absorb” the increased labor costs that will ensure with a higher minimum wage mandate? Harris is frequently asked about the un-intended consequences of his policy proposals, and will frequently say “I reject the notion that this kills jobs.”

Did you hear that business owners? He “rejects” it, so it is obviously not a concern. In fact, Harris promised the minimum wage earning Charlotteans that raising the minimum wage requirement will actually improve wages overall, and stimulate job creation.

Harris, by the way, took no time at all in Charlotte to meet with the business owners that would be impacted by the proposed wage mandate. When you have degrees from elite schools, and your work experience is based exclusively in the worlds of academia and law, and you wield the power of government (these characteristics describe both Harris and Barack Obama), it’s easy, apparently, to believe in the infallibility of your ideas. There’s no sense wasting time on the “non-believers.”

For now, Americans have put their collective trust in politicians who have promised to re-distribute us all to a better, “more fair” existence. Let us hope and pray that we see the error of our ways – before the country is irreparably damaged.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - A Free People - And A Resurgence Of Wisdom

“People call this the ‘new normal.’ Let me assure you there is nothing normal about this at all. It’s the new ‘abnormal,’ and it won’t last, because as free people we won’t stand for it…”

With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience.

It was October of 2012, about 2 weeks before our last presidential election. Forbes was speaking to a crowd of 10,000 in the comforts of a beautiful indoor sporting area (the “Idaho Center”). He was headlining yet another west-coast based “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam (fyi-we need more native-born Americans to understand American liberty as well as this guy from India named “Krish” understands it).

Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes on “rich people,” and a growing-by-the-second government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us instinctively know in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.

We should all hope that Forbes will be proven right – that, eventually, “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because in the election that occurred two weeks after Forbes’ speech, Americans didn’t merely “stand for it” - we asked for “more of it.”

But here is our reality: if Americans continue to ignore their government, or blindly accept the promises of politicians; if Americans continue to vote (either blindly or intentionally) for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth away from our society’s producers, and then selfishly redistribute that wealth to the people of their choosing, eventually the producers will stop producing as much wealth, the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute, and we will all suffer the consequences, just like so many Europeans are suffering.

The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain and Cyprus could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely. We need a resurgence of wisdom in America, and we need to understand the frail nature of our freedom.

For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain and Cyprus qualify, yes. And within the last few months the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the world, should be a wake-up call to Americans, as well.

After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy, a leader who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions - referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment (does any of this sound familiar?).

Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”

Within his first six months in office, French President Hollande managed to raise national capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%, and now the French people are freaking-out. Juxtapose that with the hatred that American Golfer Phil Mickelson experienced when he acknowledged last month that, between federal and California state income taxes, he’s having “62, or 63%” of his earnings taken away each year, and the reality-check is even more striking.

In short, the French apparently now believe that this level of taxation is a dangerous and destructive thing. In America, however, “rich guy” Phil Mickelson is a dangerous and destructive thing.

And consider this: Laurence Parisot, a major, national labor union leader (arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S.) is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is harmful for everybody – even unionized workers.

The backlash that the Socialist President is enduring suggests that maybe the citizenry is waking up and facing reality. But are Americans facing economic reality yet?

Last week President Obama said in Miami that “we still got too many roads that are in disrepair,” and promised a plan to put people to work “rebuilding America.” He was promising this five years and five trillion dollars ago (remember the “shovel ready jobs” agenda in 2008?). Are Americans still expecting that more government spending and debt will lead us back to prosperity?

Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators. It may, however, have to get much worse in America, before we embrace reality.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Deneen Borelli - CPAC 2013 Analyzed

"I think the message is to stay on message. I think it's very exciting and refreshing that conservatives really are taking over the Republican party, because the problem has been for many, many years is that we've had a moderate establishment republican politicians - the squishy politicians, they're not sticking to their core values, their core principles of smaller government, less spending, lower debt, lower taxes this is what we need really to propel our economy and also to get jobs growing in our country."
Deneen Borelli

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Undo ObamaCare - Is The Affordable Healthcare Act Killing Jobs?

Memphis, Tenn. — A medical company is blaming President Obama’s health care law for the layoffs of nearly 100 people.

Smith & Nephew says a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices in the “Obamacare” law caused the layoffs in the Memphis and Andover, Mass., offices.

“The nearly $30 billion tax on medical devices that took effect Jan. 1, 2013, has impacted a number of companies across the U.S.,”
the company said in a statement to WHBQ-TV.

Joe Metzger, senior vice president of corporate communications for the company, tells the Memphis Business Journal that they were “not immune” to the tax burden.

“Unfortunately, and in order to absorb this cost burden into our business, this has meant less than 100 positions have been made redundant across various departmental functions in our Tennessee and Massachusetts sites,” Metzger told the Business Journal.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Undo ObamaCare - WSJ - Democrats Against ObamaCare

Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on the emerging liberal criticisms of ObamaCare. Photos: Getty Images

aired February 2013

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Obamanomics And The Jewish Deli Dilemma

Did you hear the big news from the world of small business? Jewish delis are closing in both Los Angeles, and New York City.

The trend has been a long time in the making, especially in New York City where Jewish delis’s used to number in the thousands and now total less than one hundred. Yet the Los Angeles Times reported this “news” just this past week, and the details that the report included – and the details that were ignored– point to some far greater problems.

The article, written by Journalist Tiffany Hsu, notes that the decline of the L.A. area Jewish delis “seems to be accelerating partly because of health concerns over the schmaltz-spread fare...” This may very well be the case – certainly American adults are inclined to being more “health conscious” with their dietary choices, rather than less, and food categories of all types that are perceived to be un-healthy are probably headed for a declined in consumption.

From there, the article suggests that “skyrocketing” food costs have driven some delis out of business. That may be true, too, but what has caused that to happen? The article suggests that “mass exports” of food to Japan is the culprit on the price spike. The story also blames the decline of LA-area Jewish delis on “the recession,” “too much competition” from other restaurant sectors, and the notion that younger consumers “don’t understand delis and comfort food.”

It was only one small news story in the LA Times. But let’s think through some of the ideas in this news story – ideas reported as “facts” – and consider what they mean from an economic standpoint. Consider, for example, the notion of “too much competition.” What exactly does this mean?

Obviously the more competitive a marketplace is, the more difficult it is for any particular business entity to survive and thrive. But how do we know when the level of competition is appropriate, and when it is “too much?”

Americans are accustomed to fierce competition in other arenas – in sports, especially, and even in the arts and entertainment. Similarly, most of us would never say “my favorite team didn’t make it to the Super Bowl this year because there was too much competition in the NFL.”

But when it comes to local small businesses, we often succumb to this vague, un-defined notion that there is this magical amount of competition that’s “just right,” and if our favorite business can’t compete, then therefore there is “too much” competition.

Yet in our free market economic system, we understand that competition is a good thing. If competition means that certain business entities or entire business categories decline because of the competition, then so be it. It is fairer and more just to allow businesses to rise and fall according to the market demands of consumers, rather than imposing artificial “limits” on the number of people who are to be permitted to participate in an industry.

But what are we to make of this idea that the delis’ failure is because consumers “don’t understand?” If a consumer chooses to “not understand” any particular business, and therefore chooses not to patronize it, then that consumer has made their choice – haven’t they? We’re all better-off if, win or lose, we honor and respect the choices of consumers, rather than presuming that they are ignorant if they make a choice that we don’t like.

And guess what the LA Times article about the delis completely ignored? The impact of government policy on small businesses. Nowhere did it reference the expansive and onerous mandates placed upon business via Obamacare, the impact on business owners of the President’s payroll tax hike, or his income tax increases on “rich people.”

No, the LA Times apparently wasn’t interested in how the President’s income tax hikes have taken money away from what the I.R.S. designates as “Subchapter S Corporations” (sometimes abbreviated as “S-corps”), and how this has effectively taken money directly out of small corporations, many of which operate small businesses. Likewise, the article made no reference to the fact California voters approved an increase in state income tax rates for “rich people” (thus leading to even less revenue in Subchapter-S Corporations) on their ballot last November, nor did it acknowledge that California has for years been on a trajectory of higher and higher unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation mandates for businesses.

It is perhaps more comfortable to pretend that our current government policies are not problematic, and blame the struggling economy on “too much competition” and consumers who “don’t understand.”

But how many more delis must fail, before we get honest and acknowledge that government is our problem?

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Kevin McCullough - Why Poaching Profits People

Critics of a free market economy are also critics of individual responsibility. Because they believe in higher taxes, centralized control, and absolute intolerance to other viewpoints, they find themselves reducing free market ideas to that of human flatulence.

At least the current governor of California--Jerry Brown--did this week.

The seventy-four year old was quite taken aback. He was asked by California media this week if Texas Governor Rick Perry's recent poaching expedition would matter much to the state's future. His reply was direct.

"It's not a serious story, guys. It's not a burp. It's barely a fart," replied Brown.

Maybe Governor Brown is just in just denial but Governor Perry's three fold plan appears to be working like a charm.

In the initial stage the Texas Governor voiced a personal public service announcement to the CEOs and gatekeepers in California's business leadership communities. He placed moderate advertising buys in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and other specialty areas. The commercial created a firestorm of attention in the state and gained Perry additional earned media coverage.

He followed that up with a fact-finding mission and personal meetings with some of California's largest corporations. It should also be noted that he was invited to do so by some of California's elected leaders in Sacramento. It was this in-person visit that seemed to rile the California Governor's feathers the worst.

Lastly comes the elbow grease and follow-up with companies that had additional questions, and this appears to be where the real story lies.

Since governor Perry's return home--only days ago--the Greater Austin (Texas) Chamber of Commerce reports a definitive spike by inbound inquiries by California companies. And since the November elections--when California saw state tax increases passed (not even including looming federal tax and Obamacare increases)--businesses in the Golden State are investigating a move to a state that offers much lower regulatory hurdles and ZERO state income tax.

“We have had a spike of double or triple the amount of normal (business relocation) activity since the November election in California,” said Dave Porter, senior vice president at the Greater Austin Chamber.

Critics of Governor Perry's attempts to boost inbound business growth in his state dismiss the efforts out of hand.

Greg LeRoy, long time progressive, and now head of the liberal activist (and heavily pro-union and pro-green) "Good Jobs First" stated, "Interstate job piracy is not a fruitful strategy for economic growth." He argued that "poaching... amounts to a geographic reshuffling of existing jobs." (As opposed to new business activity.)

Recently numbers of governors are joining the open-poaching policy with fervor in a dispute that is raging first philosophically, but secondarily, economically.

Why else is it that states with the strongest economies are poaching from the states in deepest economic trouble?

Governor Walker of Wisconsin, Governor Scott of Florida, Governor Chris Cristie of New Jersey, Governor Daugaard of South Carolina, and Governor McDonnell of Virginia have all made direct plays for companies in California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota to relocate.

So while Governor Brown would like to dismiss the effort, and while leftist progressive think tanks inside the beltway claim a zero sum economic advantage, why would I still argue that poaching is good for the nation?

Significant reason number one: greater, more wide-spread fiscal accountability!

The idea of risk and competition scares progressives because there is no guarantee of "equal outcomes" (which are never actually equal, they only pretend to be.)

Governor Brown--in an already economically near-bankrupt state--could stand to lose massive tax generation from the mere number of employees that one to ten major corporations take out of state (not to even mention the corporate taxes involved.) This reality further hits the pocketbooks of the tax-payers he has promised to solve the economic woes of. If those companies leave he must find alternative solutions for balancing the cost of the state to do business which could mean: spending cuts.

The same for Maryland, Illinois, New York etc.

Significant reason number two: continued job development.

When a company saves money on regulatory costs and on taxes (which serve as a pure burden on the cost that is passed on to tax-payers--remember companies never pay taxes--their customers always do) they can create more jobs in the new location than they previously had in the higher regulatory and taxed region.

Poaching has multiple benefits most immediately for the states that are engaging in it, and long term for the states that are forced to admit that other states are beating them in the contest of ideas, revenues, economies, and contentment.

Governor Perry is right to not only brag about his state's economic growth, but he has a moral obligation to do all he can to expand it.

And while it may give Governor Brown a bit of gas, ultimately he will be forced to accommodate, innovate, or step aside.

And that's exactly the way it should be!

Kevin McCullough

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Obama is Sinking America

Although it certainly wasn’t Oscar material, I still love the 1989 film “Erik the Viking,” starring, among others, Tim Robbins, Mickey Rooney, Eartha Kitt and John Cleese. It’s a campy British comedy-fantasy about a band of misfit Vikings on a quest to reach Valhalla.
In one scene, the motley mob finds its way to the island of Hy-Brasil, a happy, peaceful, sunlit land populated by white-robed, free-loving, uber-pacifist morons.

You know, liberals.

Through a series of immaterial events, the island begins to sink into the ocean. As it does, Erik and crew evacuate and re-board the ship while Hy-Brasil’s inhabitants blithely remain, singing out of tune and playing harps, horns and other instruments badly.

As the crest of the island dips beneath the sea, King Arnulf – a blundering buffoon played by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame – exclaims: “Everyone, stay calm. This is not happening.”

It’d be funny if it weren’t true, but America has become Hy-Brasil, Barack Obama King Arnulf and liberals of every stripe his white-robed, mind-numbed, sycophantic subjects. Our enemies, both foreign and domestic – some of whom have “The Honorable” before their names – are laughing themselves silly.

Indeed, “progressives” are a caricature of themselves, fully given over to pseudo-utopian, relativist ideals that remain ludicrous – hopelessly unattainable – by any objective standard.

Still, our patchouli-wearing, pervert-pride-prancing, “pay-for-my-abortion”-shrieking friends are anything if not determined. They’ll let neither reality nor the U.S. Constitution stop them. Nothing, it seems – especially not those mealy-mouthed puddin’ pops running the GOP – can keep this ship of fools from sinking a once great nation.

Problem is, they’re taking us all down with them.

How do you stop skyrocketing debt and deficits that even liberal economists admit, if left unchecked, spell America’s doom? You don’t. You print trillions more and spend it like game tokens at Chuck E. Cheese. The party must go on or the kiddos get cranky. Sugar Daddy Barack’s got hungry mouths to feed.

How do you stop evil nutjobs pumped full of psychotropic drugs from shooting-up “gun free zones”? Why, by leaving them heavily armed, of course. By unconstitutionally grabbing guns from the very law-abiding citizens positioned to tap two in the body and one in the head whenever these death-culture byproducts start killing.

Liberal logic: “Up is down, down is up, we’ll make it so and we won’t give up!”

In sum, you spend your way out of debt, tax your way to higher employment, fornicate your way disease-free, abort your way to non-violence and unilaterally disarm your way to national security.

Any questions?

Now, some of you may say, “But wait, Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s no buffoon.”

I both agree and disagree. Yes, the “progressive” dogma that courses through his veins – a mind-altering hallucinogen that gives liberals the munchies for power – is, indeed, inherently sinister.

Still, he believes it with every ounce of his nicotine-hardened heart.

By deliberately deconstructing America’s constitutional republic – our free-market form of government – and replacing it with a Euro-socialist, moral relativist amalgam of his liking, this misguided anti-colonialist radical thinks – truly believes – that he’s doing the right thing.

Such are the ways of the well-meaning tyrant.

People sometimes ask me how it is that I manage to stay so optimistic – to maintain deep joy as we watch our nation’s foundations crumbling around us like the walls of Jericho. They wonder how it is that I’m able to pick up and carry on with a smile as America heads careening toward cliff’s edge.

It’s easy. First, I put my full faith and trust in the Sovereign Creator of the universe who is the same yesterday today and forevermore: Christ, God incarnate, who is always faithful to those who have faith in Him.

Then, I laugh at them; liberals, that is. I make fun of their dull-witted, self-defeating, abjectly wicked worldview. I follow God’s example. Of those who align themselves against His laws and His nature, Psalm 2:4 says, “He who sits in the heavens laughs. The Lord scoffs at them.”

How can you not scoff at the silly twaddle they’re hocking?

Ultimately, I’ve read the end of the book. I know what happens. The good guys win. That keeps me smiling no matter what goes down on the culture-war front. It keeps me snickering.

Still, once I stop laughing, I get about the business of trying, with every fiber of my being, to defeat them. Not reason with them, not compromise with them, not suck up to them and certainly not trust them.

Defeat them.

Oh, I’ll love them. I must. I’m commanded to by the Lord I serve. I’ll pray for them, too. Do it all the time. But I’ll never, ever, under any circumstances, trust them.

You may be surprised to learn that, in various forms, I get dozens – sometimes hundreds – of pieces of hate mail each week. My recent favorite came from a delightful bloke with the email handle synth84@aol.com. “Someday, someone may just choose to use their second amendment right (sic) to put a bullet in your worthless head. You are a disgusting waste of life you uneducated, non-human, uncivilized, evil, parasitic Nazi maggot. Shame on you.”

Right. Shame on me.

How do you reason with, compromise with, suck up to or trust that?

You don’t. You defeat it.

Abraham Lincoln, a man of deep faith, forecast nearly a century-and-a-half ago our current state of the union: “America will never be destroyed from the outside,” he said. “If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

President Obama sits atop the highest perch of a nation fast-sinking. “Everyone, stay calm. This is not happening,” he assures us.

But it is happening. We’re destroying ourselves from within. We’re going down, and the only way to stop it is to utterly defeat those responsible.

In the meantime, they sure are fun to laugh at.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Approaching the Fiscal Cliff - Analyzed by Jedediah Bila - Ed Butowsky - Sean Hannity

“Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012, when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.

FISCAL CLIFF Versus POLITICAL WILL
Click HERE to View

Fiscal Cliff - The Economics
Click HERE to View

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Entrepreneurs Weigh In: What Do We Need Over The Next Four Years?

“…What the hell is he doing asking for another four years?”

Governor Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) was speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney in Virginia last week. He was talking about, and to, Barack Obama. “…If you don’t think you can change Washington from inside the White House, let’s give you the plane ticket back to Chicago you’ve earned.” With President Obama and his challenger running so close – and with so many states in-play – fiery rhetoric from the campaign trail is to be expected.

Yet Governor Christie raises a legitimate question. Besides the obvious reasons – first term Presidents are eligible to run for a second term (and most of them to), and President Obama thinks he is better suited to be President than Mitt Romney –what, really, is another four years of Barack Obama supposed to be about?

Americans who are the least bit interested in anything remotely resembling economic recovery and prosperity – yes, even Democrat Americans – should take a look at the facts. The evidence is overwhelming that President Obama’s policies over the last three and a half years are stifling our economy now, and will likely send us in to a slowdown in 2013.

That’s not mere partisan political rhetoric. Last week Reuters business news reported that Americans will face a “tougher 2013,” economically speaking, and they identified two of President Obama’s policies as the direct reason for the added difficulty.

For one, payroll taxes are set to rise on January 1. President Obama agreed to a temporary payroll tax cut back in 2009, but he insists that it needs to be raised again, and has insisted that he’ll let this lower payroll tax rate expire at the end of this year. According to the analysis reported by Reuters, this will take an estimated $125 billion out of our private sector economy, and will likely mean less consumer spending, less profitability for businesses, and a lower GDP.

And then there’s Obamacare. The President himself isn’t even trying any longer to pretend that his “health reform” law isn’t a tax, and thoughtful analysts in the world of business news can’t pretend either. According to Reuters, the new taxes on healthcare providers, insurance companies, and employers that provide health insurance to their workers will cause healthcare costs to shoot up nearly 7% in 2013 alone. This, combined with already stagnant wages, and the estimated $125 billion taken out of private household budgets because of the President’s payroll tax increase, all add up to more economic hardship for middle and lower income Americans.

In the same week, CNN Money published a report entitled “Entrepreneurship Is Weaker Than Ever.” The report noted that across the country, local government regulations are damaging small businesses and new start-ups. But it also claimed that “uncertainty in the market” – fears of rising taxes, IRS agents penalizing individuals and businesses for alleged Obamacare violations, and the lack of investment capital – were creating huge disincentives for would-be business owners to jump in.

And then there was The Atlantic, and Yahoo! Finance, that both jointly published an in-depth article with a striking title: “What Kills Small Business? Let’s Ask Them.”

The article states that “69 percent of small business owners and managers say that complicated government regulations are ‘major impediments; to the creation of new jobs.” The article also provided this analysis:

“When over two-thirds of job creators tell us how to create jobs in an economy that desperately needs them, candidates and elected officials should not only listen, they should also tell us precisely where they stand on these ideas. How government regulates commerce -- and not just whether government regulates commerce -- should be a major issue in this election. It would tell us a lot about how the candidates, if elected, would make critical day-to-day decisions that shape law, regulation, and, ultimately, the economy.”

These are some powerful words. And they are not emanating from “conservative” media outlets – if The Atlantic has any ideological leanings, it’s generally regarded as “left of center.” And while Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer is well known for her unquestioning support of President Obama and the Democrat Party, even the business news division of her media content operation can’t ignore that the President that she has helped to bankroll is doing serious damage to the economy (that’s how bad things have become).

Back in January of 2011 (after the President’s self-described “shellacking” at the polls in November of 2010), President Obama spoke at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and tried to convey that he really does support free market enterprise, stating that “we’re going back to Thomas Edison’s principles… We’re going to build stuff and invent stuff…” The sad irony was that the speech was made days before the Obama Administration officially outlawed one of Thomas Edison’s greatest inventions, the incandescent light bulb.

Now, as he campaigns for re-election, the President clings to his “Forward” and “We can’t go back” phrases, and reminds us that he killed Osama bin Laden. Yet the stifling of our economy from the Obama Administration’s legacy of threats and fees and fines and taxes and bans on businesses, is undeniable.

Entrepreneurs and business owners are crying-out to be saved from the Obama oppression. Do American voters care?

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Yes, Atlas Will “Shrug,” Eventually

“People call this the ‘new normal.’ Let me assure you there is nothing normal about this at all. It’s the new ‘abnormal,’ and it won’t last, because as free people we won’t stand for it…”

With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience last Wednesday. Headlining the “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Indian-born Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam, Mr. Forbes was speaking before a crowd of ten thousand at the Idaho Center indoor sporting complex.

Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes and government regulations, and the ensuing government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us know instinctively in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.

We should all hope that Forbes is right – that “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because if we continue to vote for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth from our society’s producers and selfishly redistribute that wealth to those of their choosing, eventually the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute and we will all suffer the consequences. The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely.

For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain qualify, yes, and so does Venezuela. Yet even within the last week the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the free world, should be a wake-up call to all Americans.

After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions - referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment.

Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph last week. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”

In less than six months, President Hollande has managed to raise capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%. According to Reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the London Telegraph, this compares to 21% in Spain, 26.4% in Germany, and 28% in Britain (capital gains taxes reach as high as 35% here in the U.S.).

Mr. Parisot claims that President Hollande has yet to understand the “extreme gravity” of the nation’s “crisis.” Additionally, a private enterprise coalition has launched a nationwide protest movement which they call the “State of Emergency For Business,” claiming that President Hollande’s “confiscatory tax rates” threaten lasting damage to their country.

So let’s be clear about what’s happening in France. A major, national labor union leader (Laurence Parisot) – arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S. – is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is damaging for everybody. Mr. Parisot takes his criticisms further, stating that “aligning taxes on capital with those on wages is a profound economic error; it is scandalous that the French have been left in such economic ignorance for years” (a stinging indictment on France’s unionized public education system).

So is Atlas “shrugging” in France? When labor union leaders panic over taxes being too high, it suggests that, yes, the trains may soon stop running, in a matter of speaking.

Here in the U.S., it might not be so much of a proactive “shrug” right now as it is a more passive abandonment, a “sitting on the sidelines,” “waiting to see what happens” phenomenon with those who could otherwise be starting new businesses (a subtle “death by a thousand cuts,” perhaps). If he’s re-elected, President Obama will get his “Francois Hollande moment” as he can allow income and capital gains taxes to skyrocket on January 1 (which he has pledged to do) and watch lower and middle income Americans reel from the infliction of Obamacare taxes and penalties.

Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators; that we will choose to remain a “free people” – and that we will reject President Obama in November.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Barack Obama - One Term Presidency

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Friday (10/12/2012) defended the White House approach to the deficit as his department officially confirmed a fiscal 2012 deficit of $1.089 trillion.

That figure is $207 billion less than in 2011, and $238 billion less than forecast in February.

The fact the deficit remains above $1 trillion for the fourth year in a row, despite President Obama's pledge to cut it in half by now, is a major headache for Obama’s reelection campaign.

Obama Pledges to Cut the Deficit in Half By the End of His First Term in Office.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Americans for Prosperity - The Dinner Table

Government spending is producing massive amounts of debt that is crippling our nation’s economic future. We now owe more than $16 trillion, up 50% under President Obama.
Businesses aren’t confident to invest and expand in the United States because of our nation’s dismal debt outlook

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Get A Grip: Americans Must Demand Better Government in November and Beyond

Barack Obama is beating Mitt Romney.

Wait- Romney and Obama are tied in Pennsylvania.

And how about all those bungled calls from the NFL fill-in refs?

Americans are seriously pre-occupied as we enter the fourth quarter of 2012. Obsessions about the football season and “Dancing with The Stars” are a pleasant diversion from our present hardship and gloomy future, and frustrations over the logic-defying presidential polls makes for interesting talk show fodder.

But after the election – and after the close of 2012 – Americans will need to grapple with myriad problems in our government. Whoever wins the White House will face an avalanche of trouble in the months ahead, and the ways in which these problems are addressed will reverberate for generations.

Americans must begin to see through the rhetoric of politicians and the slant and soundbytes of the media, and demand better government from those elected to serve. The “pass the bill and then figure out what’s in it” approach is unacceptable. So let’s start with our “get a grip” agenda with this: Americans must sober-up about our economic and fiscal condition.

At present it would seem that we’re taking the upcoming election about as seriously as a football game. Team Obama has the home field advantage, while Romney and company are the visitors trying to upset Obama at his homecoming. The make-up of the Congress will then round-out each team’s roster, but the “players” are thought to be all essentially the same.

Yet America is in serious trouble. Private industry is suffering shell shock from the flurry of demands and restrictions placed upon it in the last three years, most of which have stemmed from environmental constraints, so-called “banking reform,” mortgage restrictions, and Obamacare. Our currency is being debased by the minute, as our government’s debt exceeds 70% of our GDP and the Federal Reserve continues to print money while keeping interest rates artificially low.

President Obama is committed to making matters worse- he promises higher taxes and more government spending, and has offered no vision for undoing the disastrous and damaging components of Obamacare. Mr. Romney is moving in the correct direction by proposing an expansion of free trade and modest spending cuts, but does not (and in political terms perhaps cannot) come close to where we must go.

So Americans must decide – do we want prosperity and opportunity for the long-term, or do we want the short-term yet unsustainable pleasure of politicians satiating our petty jealousies towards “rich people” and dolling-out lots of free goodies? If it’s the former we want, then we’ll have to seriously change some things: freeze income tax rates where they are; cut corporate taxes; raise the Social Security eligibility age to 72 (for, say, American workers age 45 and younger) and allow for private investment of portions one’s withholdings; gut Obamacare and start over; and cut taxes on small businesses and restrictions on small business lending.

And here’s another agenda item: America must begin utilizing its own resources again. While the currencies of Europe, Japan and the U.S. have fallen in to varying levels of disrepute over the past four years, the dollars of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have remained relatively strong. And these three countries share something else in common as well- they all harvest and export their own natural resources.

Canada exports oil and natural gas. Australia exports iron ore. New Zealand uses its land to produce and export food, wood products and heavy machinery. Americans must decide – do we want to be more prosperous and secure, or do we want to feel like we’re doing something nice for plant and animal life by not using our natural resources?

A radical environmental agenda has co-opted the national dialog to the point that we only talk about drilling and refining when gasoline surpasses four dollars a gallon. And as for manufacturing and farming – plenty of us blindly accept the notion that these endeavors do nothing but rape and pillage the earth and consume “too much” energy (if you don’t believe this, ask a farmer in California). It’s time to utilize our resources and unshackle our farmers and manufacturers – and to do this we have to demand change with our government.

And agenda item number three: Americans must respect private enterprise as the necessary engine of our sustenance, instead of allowing it to be co-opted for political agendas. President Obama’s “renewable energy” agenda sounds noble and makes people feel good. But after running up untold billions of dollars in debt with the financing of “green energy” companies (over 80% of which were headed-up by Obama campaign donors), there has been no such energy produced and a majority of these companies have already lapsed into bankruptcy. What masquerades as the “green energy industry” is nothing more than debt for future generations spent financing the President’s environmental politics of today.

A similar phenomenon took hold last decade. Despite President Bush’s attempts to slow things down, both Republican and Democrat leadership in the Congress enabled the cheap credit, lax lending, and “affordable housing” policies that supposedly drove “home ownership” to an all time high (it’s hard to say no when “everybody gets a house”). It made the politicians popular in the short-run, but it drove us to the brink when the bubble burst. Government co-opted the real estate and lending industries, and it failed us in painful ways.

We are not helpless victims of politicians. But will we demand better?

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mitt Romney - Too Many Americans

Too many Americans are struggling to find work or are living paycheck to paycheck. Mitt Romney will create 12 million new jobs over the next four years and help lift families out of poverty, while strengthening the middle class. We can't afford another four years like the last.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Thomas Sowell - Uncommon Knowledge

At various times and places, particular individuals have argued that existing tax rates are so high that the government could collect more tax revenues if it lowered those tax rates, because the changed incentives would lead to more economic activity, resulting in more tax revenues out of rising incomes, even though the tax rate was lowered.

This is clearly a testable hypothesis that people might argue for or against, on either empirical or analytical grounds. But that is seldom what happens.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Job Creation Nation: America Faces Harsh Realities In 2013

The political conventions have passed, the August jobs report is out, and many Americans are said to be “giving up hope.”

So how can we jumpstart our greatest engine of economic growth – the American small business market – and get our economy growing again?

Regardless of which presidential candidate wins this November, in 2013 Americans will have to focus on saving, and expanding, the small business marketplace. The sector of our economy that makes up nearly 60% of the entire American private sector workforce, and creates between 60 and 80% of all new jobs, has been under attack over the past few years by politicians who have created lots of bad laws.

And if Americans are serious about expanding actual employment (rather than merely expanding government welfare and entitlement programs), then we will have to make better choices at the ballot box, and hold our elected leaders responsible for making serious changes. To start, let’s consider consider this harsh reality: the so-called “fiscal cliff” is real, and President Obama’s proposed solution to it is potentially lethal.

Under current federal law, both income tax rates and Social Security tax rates are set to rise dramatically on January 1st of 2013. Along with these tax increases, a dramatic reduction in government services will take hold at the same time.

This confluence of private citizens having more of their money taken away (higher taxes), and a reduction of government services (which means that private citizens will have to fill the gap and spend more of their own money) is expected to trigger a new recession next year. As a means of preventing a “double dip,” both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress have proposed that taxation rates be frozen where they are at, and held steady in 2013.

But President Obama has insisted that taxes should be raised on so-called “rich people” next year, and has refused to do what most economists and many members of his party have said is the one thing that could save us from another downturn.

And with the President polling as well as he is, it seems apparent that millions of Americans are far more excited about his “make the rich pay” rhetoric than they are aware of the consequences of his proposals. Obama supporters may get their wish in November, but it will come at a painful price – a price that all of us will pay.

And here’s another harsh reality: Americans need to get comfortable with other people’s financial successes. Since the early days of his first presidential campaign in 2007, Barack Obama has been pouring fuel on the fires of resentment and envy towards the wealthy. As a political strategy this has worked well for the President, but as government policy this has been bad for all of us.

The President’s tax-hike push is a perfect example, as many of America’s small businesses are set-up under the I.R.S. code as “Sub-chapter S” corporations. These are businesses wherein the company profits are reported to the I.R.S. directly as personal income by the business owners and are subject to personal income tax rates – and many of these business owners are being targeted by President Obama for an income tax-hike.

If the President gets his wish, and the government begins confiscating more money from the owners of Sub-chapter S corporations, by definition this leaves less money in these corporations for hiring and expansion. Thus Americans have a choice to make – do we want to employ our President for another four years so he can satiate the hatred some of us have towards “the rich” and take away more of their money? Or would we like private business owners to have money available to employ more of us? From the way things appear right now, we probably can’t do both.

And here’s harsh reality number three: Americans have to stop Obamacare from wiping-out small businesses. A central feature of this law is the mandate that businesses provide healthcare insurance to their workers. It sounds great – workers will now be “guaranteed” health insurance – but once again, the “make somebody else pay” approach is heaping more weight on the shoulders of small business owners.

Americans must decide how serious they are about job creation – even if it means that some jobs won’t include health benefits. If we honestly want employers to employ more, we must force the Congress and the President to fix this devastating component of Obamacare next year.

And here’s yet another harsh reality: Americans must stop making small businesses a scapegoat on illegal immigration. Roughly two-thirds of Americans want our national borders secured and a coherent immigration policy, yet for over a decade Washington has refused to do the former and has scarcely attempted the latter.

Amid the frustration, businesses have become the target of Americans’ wrath. If business owners would simply quit hiring illegals -so the reasoning goes -the illegals would go away.

Mitt Romney has pledged that, if elected, he will seek to require American employers and workers to register with the federal government’s “e-verify” website, as a means of policing the problem. But this adds even more bureaucratic burdens to small business owners, and ignores our failed immigration policies and un-secured borders.

Do we want politicians who merely tell us what we want to hear? Or do we want leaders in our government who can actually enable businesses to grow? Americans must become more discerning-and face some harsh realities.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.