Kevin Bryant

For all the socialists who demand higher taxes, here’s your change to pony up. S. 968 will give you the opportunity to raise taxes yourself.

TO AMEND CHAPTER 6, TITLE 12 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-5062, TO PROVIDE THAT TAXPAYERS MAY MAKE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GENERAL FUND OF THE STATE, TO PROVIDE THAT INCOME TAX FORMS MUST CONTAIN A DESIGNATION FOR THE CONTRIBUTION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS ACCOMPANYING THE INCOME TAX FORM MUST CONTAIN AN EXPLANATION OF HOW THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WILL BE USED, AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO REPORT THE AMOUNT COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.

I can here it already, sh Senator, we wanted you to raise somebody else’s taxes, not ours!

A new Rasmussen poll finds that the tea party movement‘s popularity is growing, so much so that it garners more support than the Republican party on a generic Congressional ballot. The poll hints that the burgeoning discontent among conservatives within the GOPthreatens to splinter the party at a time when the popularity ofPresident Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are waning as we head into an election year.

The tea party movement was conceived out of antipathy for President Obama’s economic stimulus plan and cultivated by groups like Freedom Works and conservative commentators such as Glenn Beck. Its guiding principals are centered around opposition to tax increases and the expansion of federal government spending. The movement rose to prominence when it organized highly-publicized protest gatherings across the country on April 15th of this year.

As reported by Talking Points Memo, the respondents to theRasmussen poll were asked the following question:

“Okay, suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?”

The response of all those who were polled was Democratic 36%, Tea Party 23% and Republican 18%. Further, the poll found thatindependents are more inclined to vote for a tea party candidate over Democratic or Republican candidates.

While some Republicans have expressed dismay over the emergence of the tea party movement, others have suggested that the GOP should embrace the group and its issues.

Tea party sympathizers recently proposed a resolution to make theRNC withhold its endorsement and funding unless candidates pass an “ideological purity test.” The movement will hold its first national convention this January in Nashville, and Glenn Beck has indicatedthat he intends to stake out a more activist role in politics going forward by holding seminars across the country to educate conservatives on how to run for office without the support of a major political party.
But the Republican party has yet to determine whether or not they can harness the energy emanating from the right wing without being pulled out of the mainstream. This dilemma was highlighted by the GOP’s November loss of a congressional seat it had held since the 1800s, after a tea party-supported candidate pressured the establishment Republican out of the race.  That race suggested something rather striking: while the GOP may not be able to win without the support of the tea party movement, they might not be able to win with it running the show either.

— Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News Blog

From Examiner.com Columbia by Robin Hansen

The California Department of Education (CDE) held a large conference at taxpayer expense.  The real agenda: How to keep special needs children from getting the instruction and services that they need while giving the impression their needs are being met. The CDE was very careful to keep this conference away from the public eye and to only invite school district personnel from around the state.  The formal title of the conference was called “A National Update of Case law 2008 to the present under the IDEA and Section 504/ADA”.  The keynote speaker was Perry Zirkel, a university professor of education and law at Lehigh University in Bethlehem Pennsylvania.  Mr Zirkel is a notoriously well known pro-district/anti-parent speaker. He charges $3000 per lecture plus expenses.  Of course his fees paled in comparison with all the money being spent on all the school personnel who came from all over the state to hear him speak.  At one point during the presentation, one administrator asked what he should do about a parent who was requesting a service that the district did not offer, Mr Zirkel, told the inquirer, “Just sue the parents”.   Fortunately, one parent did manage to slip through the cracks.  This parent was horrified to see the collusion between the state and districts joining together against the very citizens who pay for theses services?  In fact, when another conference goer found out this parent was present, the response was “What are YOU doing here?!  Who let you in? ” Read the full article

The announcement of a surprisingly large US trade deficit for September, 2009 had some assuming the US consumer is back in a buying mood. Alas, the much watched Michigan consumer confidence index for November quickly followed, and it is off a large 4.6 points, from 70.6 in October to 66.0 now. The only import gains were largely for crude oil, and there was some ‘technical’ gain from the “declunkering” auto sector, which analysts say is really but a “gain” at the expense of an even greater loss later. Canadian trade data for September came out the same day as the US figures, and it surprised many with only half the $1.8 billion deficit that had been expected. There were somewhat higher exports to the US, but the real surprise was a very large percentage gain to Europe.

Those looking for a stronger greenback near term mostly assume that would be in conjunction with a weaker Euro. That makes sense given both economies can’t see the end of the debt tunnel yet, but the players are realigning in ways that continue to bode uncertainty and the old “rules” of the currency game have not been working so well of late. Most experts believe that the effects of currency printing have only begun to erode the confidence of the people in trusting in paper to hold value. The real evidence of trust would be seen in ways which the desireability to hold currency would balance out the desire to get rid of it for anything else other than saving. Flight toward commodities and consumables stockpiling can only bode ill for such confidence.

The original prediction of the price of gold at the end of this second upswing in the commodity pendulum is $3500/oz. The argument here is that the high for gold on the first upswing of the commodity pendulum (1971-1980) was $875. Since that time, general prices in the U.S. have multiplied by 2.5. And 2.5 x 875 = 2187. Throwing in another factor of 1.6 to account for further price increases over the next decade we get a price objective for gold of $3500. This, by itself, would be a fabulous move. But there is more to come.

As you know, Obama has projected trillion dollar deficits for the remainder of his first term of office. He will not raise taxes openly to pay the deficits. Rather, he will simply print money. This 4 trillion dollar increase in the U.S. money supply plus Bush’s trillion, totaling a 5 trillion increase, amounts to a 7-fold increase in the money supply (from the $900 million of mid 2008). If we figure a 7-fold increase in prices over the next 5-10 years, then we need to multiply our original $3500 target by 7, which gives us $24,500. If Obama does what he says he is going to do, then the $24,500 figure will be closer to the truth. If not, then the $3500 figure will be closer to the truth.

If you want an overview of what is happening here, then study the collapse of the British pound in 1947-48. In the 19th century, the sun never set on the British Empire, and the pound was the world reserve currency. Then the Labor Party (dominated by socialists and Keynesians) came to power in 1945. They brought in Keynesian advisors who depreciated the currency to pay for a host of social programs. The British pound collapsed. The British Empire collapsed, and the heroic nation which had defeated both Napoleon and Hitler shrank into a caricature of its former self. This is an exact replica of Obama’s program. Change? Not a chance.

We know what the effects of Obama’s program have been in every country in which it has been tried. They are always the same. The people of the country become poor

. It is too early to say whether Obama will succeed in implementing his welfare state. If he is defeated, say by a Democratic loss in the 2010 election, then effectively America may continue to be America, and the parallel with 1940s Britain will cease to be valid. But if the social engineering continues, those who pay for it will capitulate to the tsunami of political correctness and drop out of the dwindling “middle class” only to join those for whom incentive is but a word that means ‘Federal Funds for me.’ Entrepreneurs will be discouraged to risk any ventures for fear they will be penalized for their efforts, and villified as “profit hungry” by those who consume but feel no necessity to produce.But whatever happens, America will need a class of new rich who will be willing to risk their assets to rebuild the country from the disastrous policies now being followed. That will only happen is there is a reward for their risk. When incentive is lost, failure is guaranteed.   steamroller