August 11, 2026

Obama’s surreal fiscal cliff speech

After a refreshing vacation to Hawaii for Christmas, President Obama took the stage this afternoon (EST) to make a speech on the impending fiscal cliff. Driving home during lunch, I listened to KSL’s Doug Wright describe the scene, and I arrived home just in time to watch the President speak.

Wright was describing the scene while waiting for the President to take the stage, and since Obama was late, he tried guessing where they were at. He could see a podium, but he after listing through the typical rooms where Obama addresses the nation from the White House, he concluded that he didn’t know where they were.

Our problem isn’t the taxes, but the spending

Is it time for Republicans trying to avert the fiscal cliff to give up on protecting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for entitlement reform?

Maybe a better question would be: do Republicans still have a choice?

In many respects, the debate over taxes–raise them on the rich! Lower on the poor! Middle class! Get rid of deductions! Close loopholes! Reform the tax code!–is important, but really misses the point of what is behind the fiscal problems our country is facing. At the root of it all, the problem isn’t the tax code–though I’m all for reforming it, simplifying it, and making it more flat–the problem is that we are spending more than we are paying in taxes. And I mean, ALL of us.

Are you overtaxed? Do you know how much you pay?

Do Americans “dramatically underestimate” taxes? Not only do more than half of Americans believe they are overtaxed, it turns out that many of us don’t even realize that our employer pays more taxes on top of our payroll deductions. In other words, many Americans don’t realize that your employer is paying an extra price for every worker, money that might otherwise be spent wages, R&D, employee benefits, or investment. I’m just sayin’…

Hitting the Limit: A Financial Argument for Limiting Government [Contributor]

Tyler Lees is a conservative engineer and train nerd from Midvale, Utah.You can follow him on Twitter as @ThePacificSlope. After he and I discussed on Twitter the necessity of establishing priorities for government in order to cut spending, I invited Tyler to share his view on the topic in a format longer than Twitter’s 140 characters. The following are his thoughts.

I believe that there is a practical limit to how big government can get, irrespective of ideological points of view. Let me explain. [cont…]

Should the rich pay more taxes (than they already do)?

If where the “fair share” line is up to private opinion, what does it say about President Obama’s opinion that, when the economy is struggling and unemployment is high, he wants to take wealth out of our country to balance the debt? Wouldn’t it be better to grow the economy and lower the cost of government? Why would we soak the rich–most of them owners of businesses and investors in businesses–at the very time capital is most needed to grow business and expand? [cont…]

The Obamacare saga encourages political dishonesty [Contributor]

Political dissemblance over the nature of taxes and regulatory architecture looms as an inevitably dark truth of post-Obamacare government. Through the tortuous legislative course of Obamacare’s genesis, Democrats continually denied that the individual mandate was a tax, the heaviest word in America’s political lexicon. Instead, the mandate was a “penalty,” or a “shared responsibility payment.” (A chillingly Orwellian turn-of-phrase). The Democrats knew that truth in taxation would slay Obamacare and scuttle their century-long obsession with state-directed flu shots and hip replacements. So they prevaricated. What do congressmen call a law that amends the Internal Revenue Code, is enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, and forces families to pay up to 2.5% of their incomes into the federal treasury? Anything but a tax.

Unless you’re in court—there, any word will do. [cont…]

When the government picks winners, the applicants might already be losers

Maybe it’s time to choose leaders who won’t keep “picking winners” by subsidizing private businesses and using government to compete with the market? Even the Chinese can make a city look good by pouring enough money into it. Just look at the Olympics. That doesn’t mean the economy will do better because of it.

Government subsidies equal corporate welfare. It doesn’t matter if you’re in Washington, D.C. or West Valley City, it’s the same thing. Whether it’s Solyndra or UTOPIA, the more a company shells out to get onto the public assistance, the less likely it would perform well in the market. Spending more money on campaign donations and lobbying might be correllated. [cont…]