Posted on 06/23/2010 9:19:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
When eight British soldiers were indicted in Boston for murder in 1770 after five people were shot to death in a rioting crowd that was pelting the soldiers with projectiles, a young lawyer named John Adams took up the soldiers' case because he had a point to prove: Americans believed in -- and lived by -- the rule of law.
"The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations and wanton tempers of men," Adams said in his summation to the jury in the trial of the soldiers.
America did not disappoint Adams. Six of the eight soldiers he defended were acquitted, and two were convicted of manslaughter, not murder. The jury listened to the evidence and returned a fair verdict based on the facts. (For a good summary of the case, see the "Famous Trials" website maintained by professor Douglas O. Linder at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School.)
When President Barack Obama was coming under increasing political heat for his response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he decided to give his first-ever nationally televised speech from the Oval Office. But Obama is no John Adams, and preserving due process of law was not on his mind.
Many Americans were understandably angry at both BP and Obama, and Obama wanted to deflect the anger from himself by capitalizing on the resentment of BP. He would show, once again, he was the bully in chief.
"Tomorrow," said Obama, "I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party."
Now, the key words in this statement were "inform him." This was not a request. Indeed, the day before, The Washington Post said Obama would "demand" that BP turn over the money he wanted set up in this fund.
When considering Obama's action, it worth remembering that BP was not trying to disclaim responsibility for damage done by the oil spill, nor was it refusing to pay legitimate claims. As of this past Saturday, The New York Times reported, BP had already distributed 25,000 checks worth $63 million to people claiming damage from the spill. Company official had repeatedly insisted they would pay all legitimate claims.
But at his meeting with BP executives, with criminal and civil federal investigations looking into the gulf spill, Obama convinced the BP executives to surrender to an "escrow account" $20 billion of BP shareholders' money.
This "escrow account" will be managed by a Washington lawyer, who will oversee the distribution of funds to claimants. But Obama personally guaranteed that claims will be paid. "The people of the gulf have my commitment that BP will meet its obligations to them," Obama said. His political goal was to position himself as a champion of the little guy against big oil.
The owners of BP are ordinary people. You might be one yourself. According to The Washington Post, 40 percent of BP's stock is held in the United States. In Great Britain, according to the Post, one of every seven pounds -- or 14 percent -- paid in dividends to pension funds is paid by BP.
After the company's executives met with Obama, BP said it would suspend its dividend payments for three quarters -- meaning $7.8 billion would not be paid to pension funds, to retirees who invested in BP and to other shareholders.
The Fifth Amendment of our Constitution says: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
In this case, BP's executives caved to Obama, preferring to cut their own political and public-relations losses rather than insist that due process of law be observed through the normal channels of American justice as they moved forward with their stated commitment to make restitution to those injured by the oil spill. But this sets a bad precedent for people who value property rights.
America will soon face a great financial crisis. The unprecedented federal deficits coming as a result of the welfare state that liberals have build up over the past 75 years will require the government to either dramatically diminish the entitlement benefits they have promised or dramatically increase government revenues. When that crisis comes, liberal politicians just might see the modest wealth accumulated by those middle-class Americans who actually saved -- by investing in such things as, say, BP stock -- as an attractive source of revenue to keep the dole flowing.
A president who has established a pattern of using executive power to unilaterally bully and intimidate corporate executives into surrendering their stockholders' property will be a happy precedent for them -- and a dangerous one for private property rights and the rule of law.
Reagan signed budgets with tax cuts, and some tax increases with a big growth in spending and yes it resulted in a net loss called a deficit. It cannot be proved what those tax cuts produced on their own because they were not implemented on their own.
Yes, I have heard it all before, Reagan cut taxes, democrats increased spending (he signed), all good came from the tax cuts, all bad from the spending. Rush has a whole chapter saying that in his first book. That is a neat trick to draw that imaginary line. Most people wont buy that line.
If the government cuts your taxes 1$ but hires a new government employee for 10$ but he payes $3 dollars in new taxes even without speculating about economic growth that looks like a net revenue increase of $3-$1 = $2 on the surface. But it still results in 10$+1$-3= 8$ of new deficits. But Rush includes that $2 in increased revenue paid by the government employee (which he gets from deficits) as resulting from the tax cuts, that he cant prove.
Some tax cuts can reduce the deficit, but others will increase it.
You can try to spin those years any way you like. Most folks accept that tax cuts spurred economic activity. Reagan took over an economic mess, and turn things around. Kennedy cut taxes and got big economic growth. Obama has refused to cut taxes, and we’ve got one of the worst periods of stagnation I’ve seen in my lifetime.
If you wish to blame large deficits on Reagan, go ahead.
The fact is, government receipts doubled under Reagan. He cut taxes, and the economy skyrocketed.
Explain that away if you can. Nobody else has been able to.
I think Reagan was our best president but he also increased FICA taxes and cut benefits to create surplus and then spent that leaving IOUS that are being cashed in now(by borrowing) . And he started taxing SS benefits so he could spend them as general revenue too, but that increased tax revenue, Clinton expanded this. You cant add all these things together and then just say all increases in income tax revenues were due to any one thing, just because Reagan really didnt want to do those other things.
Amazing how few people understand how that works. JFK's tax cuts gave the exact same result.
If I understand the time frame of those taxes correctly, they were towards the end of his term in office, less than two years.
So trying to make the case that those tax increases were responsible for the majority of new income, falls flat. Receipts had escalated prior to the new taxation.
Why are we having this conversation? What’s your plan to increase federal receipts if you don’t want to cut taxes to spur the economy? I’ve advocated cutting spending too, and so far you haven’t jumped on that band wagon either.
What gives?
I am not blaming anything on Reagan but I am not swallowing a theory popular here based on bogus numbers just because it might benefit me. The theory includes new receipts from taxing SS benefits as well as new revenues from new government workers that were paid for by deficits, all credited as resulting from tax cuts.
Some tax cuts can reduce the deficit, but others will increase it. A general rule is , if it is really popular it probably increases the deficit.
And then you have Obama refusing to, and we have the worst stagflation I’ve seen.
Seems rather clear to me...
They do have rights. I don’t think there is a “right” to financial gain though, which is probably what this is about.
Cutting spending is the only option, that and making the 48% of the public (lower incomes) that pay no income taxes pay some so they understand what it is like.
But those things are unpopular. That is why no Republican is running on them, or at least few are. So I am skeptical they will do it. Where I live they wont even support tax cuts on themselves it's so bad.
I don’t believe in redistribution of wealth, so we’re on target there. The earned income credit is just stealing from one person to pay another.
Reagan cut the top individual tax rate from 70% to 28%. THAT alone made the economy explode.
Gentlemen,I have been in high finance all of my adult life. I have lived in the USA, UK, and Asia. I have seen first hand what tax increases do to a country, and what substantial tax cuts do for a country.
Every country that has substantially cut personal, and corporate taxes has experienced an unpresidented boom. Every country that has increased personal and corporate taxes has either suffered greatly, or collapsed altogether.
The Democrats spent money like water when Reagan was in office. Anyone remember him tossing a “continuing resolution” on the floor on network television?
Reagan made mistakes, but his Milton Friedman economic advocacy was not one of them.
The year before Regan’s person income tax cuts, I paid $106,000 in federal taxes. The next year(earning 6,000 less) I paid 42,000.
What did I do with the difference? I invested it in the expansion of my business.
D U H
Cutting certain taxes and decreasing spending is our best bet but we have been hosed by so many Santa Clauses that someone proposing just tax cuts alone then in a year or so without real spending cuts will probably just spook the bond market and raise interest rates and inflation, especially if it gets the job creation going. (We are headed for that anyway unless Obama keeps us in this endless depression.)
Everyone should pay some VISIBLE federal tax like the rest of us so they know spending actually costs. But no one elected will say that.
Thanks SJB. I appreciate your personal insight on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.