Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Back to December

Perhaps watching Taylor Swift's latest music video convinced the Republicans of a great idea -- go back to the good ol' days of December. No, not December 2010. Rather, a glorious December... a December before before Barack H. Obama was President of the United States: December 2008. By restoring December 2008 spending levels, the GOP says it can save the American people billions of dollars.

It is clear that government spending needs to be reduced. The American people want to see the deficit reduced, but have also rejected tax hikes as a means of reducing the deficit. The government has two choices:   (1) increase its revenue without tax hikes using supply-side economic concepts; or (2) cut spending. Recently, President Obama has suggested the idea #1, and the GOP took back the House of Representatives on promises to implement idea #2. There's a third option -- combine #1 and #2 to increase revenue and cut spending, providing greater ability to reduce the deficit.

The perfect place to start on reducing spending is with Congress' salaries. Members of Congress received $169,300 in base pay in 2008. However, Congress took a raise of $4,700 to $174,000 in base pay for 2009. While millions of Americans were facing unemployment and tough economic times, Congress members ended up with a raise of over 2.7%. If Congress wants to cut spending, they can roll back their paychecks to December 2008 levels. Perhaps members of Congress will have to make tough choices like many Americans, and cancel, or give up buying a new television, or downgrade from buying a luxury foreign car to a Ford Focus.

An even better idea, Congress should make itself more representative of the average American by passing legislation setting its salary equal to what the average American made the last year - roughly $51,000. This system would provide monetary incentive to members of Congress to create jobs, since people who are unemployed have lower income and bring down the average for the entire country.

Thursday, January 20, 2011


The single word that can best describe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) this week is "pathetic." Pathetic because Senator Reid doesn't care about ensuring that the Senate adheres to the will of the American people.

In the House of Representatives, the House and held a straight yea/nea vote on the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." The House passed the bill with a vote of 245 YEA to 189 NEA. A majority of the American people supported the repeal of healthcare reform (also known as Obamacare), so it made sense that the House would take up the issue, hold a direct vote on it, and voted with the will of the people.

In the Senate, however, Senator Reid says that he won't allow a straight yea/nea vote on the bill, effectively killing it. Given that the Democrats have majority control of the Senate (51 votes) and the two independents in the Senate to lean left, many would wonder why Senator Reid is afraid to allow a straight yea/nea vote. It's because Senator Reid is a weak leader, and many moderate Democrats will follow the will of their constituents instead of that of Senator Reid and President Obama. If all Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of repealing Obamacare, only four Democrats or independents would need to join them to pass the repeal. With some Democrats having campaigned on promises to support the elimination of some parts of Obamacare, and other looking at 2012 races in districts with a large number of independents and/or conservatives, it is very likely that Obamacare repeal could actually pass in the Senate.  Senator Reid doesn't want that to happen, so he simply will use procedural tactics to stop a legitimate vote on the issue and prevent the will of the American people from being followed in the Senate.

Senator Reid is even more pathetic because he is playing a role as President Obama's protector. If the American people, the House, and the Senate all supported Obamacare repeal, President Obama would be forced to either sign the bill or veto it. If he vetoed the bill, which is the most likely outcome, then the President would be in a very bad position going into the next election, having blatantly and directly ignored the will of the American people and disregarded the votes of both houses of Congress. By preventing a bill from reaching President Obama's desk, Senator Reid is protecting the President at the expense of the American people who deserve the opportunity to have the Senators they sent to Washington actually vote on legislation that matters to them.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Democrat Accuses GOP of Blood Libel

When Sarah Palin referred to attacks against her as "blood libel," it set off a firestorm of criticism. While criticism was primarily from the left, it also came from the center and even some on the right. Oddly, the same level of criticism isn't happening following Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee) using the term "blood libel" to refer to the Republican efforts to pass House Resolution #2, a bill aimed at repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Here's what Rep. Cohen said:
They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels. You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing, blood libel. That's the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it -- believed it and you have the Holocaust.
It appears that accusing your opposition of blood libel isn't allowed when you're a conservative under attack, but that when you're a Democrat trying to defend legislation that has been ruled partially unconstitutional and is has its repeal supported by a majority of the country, then it's fine. Does anyone else see the problem with this?

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Obama Must Be Listening

After reading President Obama's opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal, Towards a 21st-Century Regulatory System, we're convinced that President Obama must be reading and listening to at least some of what we've said.

President Obama opens by praising free market capitalism:
For two centuries, America's free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. That vibrant entrepreneurialism is the key to our continued global leadership and the success of our people.
The President further went on to criticize excessive government intervention and regulation, calling them "unreasonable burdens on business -- burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs." Previously, we wrote about President Obama looking towards the concept of supply-side economics to help reduce the national debt. In reading his Wall Street Journal piece, it appears that he is embracing the supply-side economic concept of removing government hinderances to the production of goods and services, which can help lead the country to greater prosperity. President Obama then mentions his new executive order:
This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps: new safety rules for infant formula; procedures to stop preventable infections in hospitals; efforts to target chronic violators of workplace safety laws. But we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.
The executive order from the President makes it clear that he is interested in reducing government involvement in the free market and eliminating rules and regulations that are bad for business and bad for the economy. President Obama cites removing regulations that stifle job creation, making it clear that he somewhat understands the American people believe job creation should be a top priority for the country.

President Obama seems to also be taking a hint from Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in indicating that the American people must be listened to when developing rules and regulations. President Obama wrote that moving towards a better regulatory system for the country requires "writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens." Additionally, the President suggests "using disclosure as a tool to inform consumers of their choices, rather than restricting those choices," indicating that he understands that the American people should be free to make their own decisions instead of having the government make decisions for them.

President Obama, who is the first United States President to be on Twitter and the first to utilize a smartphone (reportedly, a BlackBerry), also called for "means making sure the government does more of its work online, just like companies are doing." The President further noted that the federal government would focus on "getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money." In the private sector, using technology to eliminate paper has resulted in a savings of time and money, and also created new jobs. It is good for the American people that President Obama understands the need to utilize ideas proven in the private sector in the federal government.

As an example of fixing government regulation, President Obama pointed to the EPA and saccharin:
...the FDA has long considered saccharin, the artificial sweetener, safe for people to consume. Yet for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month.
While many who make up President Obama's base on the left may balk at the idea of reducing government regulation and intervention in order to grow the economy, President Obama is wise to embrace supply-side economic principles. After all, they worked during the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was President.  As written about yesterday, former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that President Obama will be a one-term President. However, if President Obama continues to listen to the American people, adopts more moderate positions, and successfully turns the economy around, he could win the votes of some "Obama Republicans" back and retain "Reagan Democrats." Indeed, if the President acts properly, American people might just vote in 2012 to give him four more years.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Barack Hussein Obama - Not Approved

A majority of Americans do not approve of Barack Hussein Obama's performance as President of the United States. Recently, four different polls confirm that President Obama has an approval rating below 50%:
Interestingly, the American people support repealing the job killing, tax hiking health care reform legislation more than they do President Obama. 55% of Americans support Obamacare repeal. President Obama, however, defies the American people and has insisted that he will veto a repeal if it ever reaches his desk. Additionally, Senate Democrats have vowed to disallow a straight yea/nea vote on the matter in the Senate should it pass the House of Representatives, which is taking up the issue tomorrow and will vote on Wednesday. Several Democrats are expected to back the Republican-led Obamacare repeal effort, coming from districts where their constituents oppose the bill and put them in office under the impression that they would not support Obamacare.

If President Obama does not want former Vice President Cheney's prediction that he will be a one-term President to be true, then he must learn how to listen to the will of the American people. President Obama would be wise to follow the model of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and the White House should also be "the People's House." 

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Who Wants to Raise Taxes?

The answer: 18 percent of Americans. Fewer than 1 in 5 think that the way to reduce the deficit is through hiking taxes. 86 percent of Americans think that the deficit can be reduced through spending cuts. The numbers come from a new poll by CBS News, and are bad news for those on the left who advocate for increases in taxation to reduce the national debt.

As written about previously, even President Obama has been considering the use of supply-side economic principles for debt reduction. State-by-state, the trend has been for businesses (and the jobs they provide) to move out of high tax states to low tax states. As a result, people move from states without jobs to states with jobs. The tax revenue in states that hike their taxes actually ends up lower in the long-run, while states with low tax rates see greater revenues. That's supply-side economics at work, and evidence that the Laffer Curve holds true.

When fewer than 1 in 5 Americans support tax hikes, it is a clear message to Congress and to the President that the solution to America's deficit problem is not new taxation, but instead new reductions in spending. Rep. John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, was right when he stated that "Washington does not have a revenue problem." Speaker Boehner further added "Washington has a spending problem." Washington's spending problem, much like an alcoholic's drinking problem, will have greater negative effects the longer it is allowed to continue. Putting an end to the spending problem must be a priority for the country.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The Double Standard

Earlier today, we tweeted about the double standard that seems to exist in politics, where behavior that is deemed unacceptable for a conservative, is determined to be fine for a liberal. Yet, frequently we see those on the right engaging in behavior that just doesn't make sense. We see people on the right making personal attacks on President Barack Obama or Senator Harry Reid -- yet, they oppose the personal attacks against conservatives like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. Effectively, some on the right think it's okay to defame or make personal attacks against the left, but that it isn't okay to do this to the right. They're half correct: it isn't okay to make personal attacks against, or to defame, the right. However, it's also unacceptable to do it against the left.

We believe in priding ourselves on objective commentary. We don't post about how President Obama is an evil atheist, because he has shown otherwise and even if he were an atheist, the Constitution says that's totally fine. We don't write about the sexual escapades of women running for the United States Senate, because once again, these personal attacks are not relevant to their positions on items that actually will affect the American people, such as taxation or job creation.  We believe that true conservatives understand that being respectful is a part of adhering to true conservative values.

In our writing, there's no double standard. We will hold those on both sides accountable. We've called the left out of line, we've called the right out of line, and we're willing to call either side out again in the future.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Jared Lee Loughner

A tragic act of mass-murder took place yesterday in Tucson, Arizona. As The Report tweeted, we pray for the recovery of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others who were wounded in the shooting. We also offer our condolences for those who were lost, including Federal Judge John Roll and 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green.

The person responsible for these heinous acts of mass-murder and violence is not Sarah Palin or the Tea Party, as some on the left have tried to blame. It is one man: Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner is a self-described terrorist. Loughner is a man who believes in burning the United States' flag, as well as a man who supports discrimination against of homosexuals and members of the Jewish faith. Additionally, Loughner is a supporter of socialism, which is the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from the Tea Party. Further, Jared Lee Loughner, for the overt acts of assassination of a Federal Judge and attempted assassination of a Congresswoman is a traitor. There are certainly more than two witnesses. However, since first-degree murder is a capital offense in Arizona and Loughner can be charged with no fewer than six counts of it*, he can still be executed without a treason charge.

Most importantly, the acts of Jared Lee Loughner cannot be allowed to defeat democracy. Rep. Giffords was shot while at an event designed to allow her to connect in person with members of her constituency. Ms. Green was there because she had recently been elected to her school's student council, and as a constituent representing other constituents of Rep. Giffords, she wanted to meet the Congresswoman. This is the way Congress should work. Representatives and Senators should reach out to their constituent, and hear them, and act based on their input. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, is right to say that "this inhuman act should not, and will not, deter us from our calling to represent our constituents."

President Obama said "such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society." Jared Lee Loughner has the right to a speedy trial under the United States Constitution. That right must be granted to him -- not for his sake, but because the the faster Loughner is found guilty, sentenced to death, and executed, the better off our free society will be.

* At the time of this post, there are six dead from his actions, and others could still succumb to their wounds in the hospital.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

No More Ads

It came to the attention of The Report that users were seeing ads that were paid for and placed through Google AdSense by organizations that were seeking to misinform readers. Both the far-left and the far-right were engaged in this anti-conservative, unethical behavior. As a result, The Report has discontinued its participation in this program so that readers are not subject to seeing misleading information as they look to The Report for objective information and opinion.

The original reason for the ads was to develop revenue that would allow The Report to invest in expansion and growth, such as obtaining its own domain name and acquiring use of a platform that would enable better integration with social networking and commenting. Additional revenue could then go towards providing authors with revenue for their hard work, and if revenue became large enough, donations to support causes or charities could be made. For now, this is on hold and readers of The Report can enjoy an ad-free experience.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Guns Make Us Safer

Liberals and others opposed to the American people being able to own and use guns often argue that the guns lead to murders happening, and that if we got rid of guns, people wouldn't be killed. Yet, history tells us that people were murdered well before guns existed. Julius Caesar, for example, was killed in 44 B.C. The fire-lance, which could be considered the first guns, didn't exist until the 10th century. Murder took place without guns, and gun-free murders continue to take place guns today. Reading the news, there are stories of murder by stabbing, murder by drowning, murder by strangulation, and other means. Criminals do not need guns to kill!

Guns, rather than leading to more crime, actually serve as a deterrent to crime. If you were a criminal on a street with four houses looking to commit a robbery, knowing the owners of three home are armed and that the owners of another are defenseless, you would use common sense to rob the house where the homeowners are defenseless. Further, if someone enters a school looking to kill in a Columbine or Virginia Tech style massacre, they will be able to kill dozens of people if no one is able to stop them. If a majority of people are armed, they'll be stopped after killing just a few people. While every life is precious, it is a better situation for a few people to be killed than dozens to be killed.

If guns led to crime, the leaders of America would never have submitted the Bill of Rights to be added as amendments to the United States Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This amendment doesn't force anyone to buy or own a gun, rather it states that people have the right to have guns if they want. It is irresponsible and ignorant for anyone to try to undermine the 2nd Amendment. Further, it is improper: the Constitution can be amended, meaning that if the American people no longer want the right to have guns, there is a proper process to bring about that change.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

John Boehner Keeps His Promise

Last year at CPAC, the man who will become Speaker of the House of Representatives tomorrow, Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), pledged that if the Republicans took back control of the House, all bills would be posted online for the American people to read and provide their feedback to members of Congress. Mr. Boehner even promised to provide the bills 72 hours in advance, to eliminate the potential for shenanigans such as posting a bill at 2:00 PM EST only to have the vote take place at 2:01 PM EST.

Mr. Boehner has kept his promise. The first bill the House is set to vote on is a rules package. The vote will take place on Wednesday, and the bill was made available last week. On Thursday, the House will consider a bill that will cut the budget of Congress. In fact, Mr. Boehner has gone above and beyond his promise to the American people. On January 12, the House will vote on a bill "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law," that has become known as Obamacare -- an act that has been challenged by several states and even ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge as The Report previously discussed. While this bill will likely not make it past the Senate, and would almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama were it to pass Congress, the bill is posted online for the American people to read over seven days before a vote will take place! That is double the time promised by Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Boehner has the opportunity ahead of him to be one of the greatest Speakers in the history of the House of Representatives. Tomorrow, the American people will be able to watch the start of a era in the House of Representatives... literally, as for the first time, Congress will broadcast a live stream on Facebook in addition to normal broadcasts on C-SPAN and other outlets. By adhering to the will of the American people and committing to transparency, Mr. Boehner is the type of leader leader that can help make the United States an even greater country than it is today. It is a shame that during the last four years soon-to-be former Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not embrace the principles that Mr. Boehner does.

Note: The website that bills are currently being posted on is http://rules-republicans.house.gov/

Monday, January 3, 2011

Scalia's Wrong On Discrimination

The Huffington Post, FOX News, and even Perez Hilton (a major liberal) today took notice of an interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in which the Justice alleges that it would be Constitutional for laws to be made that directly discriminate against women (or men):
Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about.
Unfortunately, Justice Scalia is wrong. This is not the first time he has proclaimed that gender discrimination is legal. In 1996, he was the lone member of the Supreme Court in United States v. Virginia who voted against stricking down the Virginia Military Institute's policy that did not allow the admission of women. A majority of the court believed that the policy violated the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment.

In suggesting that discrimination against a gender is Constitutional, what Justice Scalia suggests is not only complete inconsistent with the Constitution itself, but also inconsistent with the views of the American people. Justice Scalia's suggestion goes against true conservative values, which follow the belief that all Americans are equal and reject discrimination or bigotry.

At the end of his post about Mr. Scalia, Perez Hilton asks the question "He's retiring soon, right?" after noting that it was "troubling that all of this is coming from a current Supreme Court Justice." Given his inability to properly interpret he Constitution and ensure equal protection is provided to the American people, Justice Scalia's retirement would likely be beneficial to the country. However, if he were to retire while President Obama is in office, it could lead to the appointment of a far-left, liberal activist justice with even more disdain for the Constitution. A best-case scenario would be for a conservative to be elected President, and for Justice Scalia to resign once a more conservative leader is in office who can ensure that someone is appointed to the Supreme Court who will respect the Constitution.

Breaking Our Addiction

The United States could potentially face a major energy crisis this year. Gas prices could hit $5/gallon by 2012, or more conservatively approach the $4/gallon mark. Additionally, the cost of electricity and heating would rise. The price of goods would rise as well, due to a need by suppliers to recoup increased costs of production and transportation or shipping. The economy would be severely hit, as was the case after the energy price spikes caused by the Iranian Revolution and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

A situation could arise next winter where millions are unable to afford home heating bills. The colder the winter, the worse this situation will be. People unable to afford heating oil might resort to trying to use other means of heating their home, which can often lead to dangerous or deadly consequences. Families planning to take vacations would have to cancel due to higher costs to drive, higher costs to fly, and less money available due to having to pay more for gas, energy, and other normal day-to-day goods. As a result, industries that rely on tourism would see earnings fall. They might be forced to reduce the size of their workforce, resulting in greater levels of unemployment, and even more American families who can't spend as much. The vicious cycle could truly bring the current recession from bad to worse.

The reason the American people risk facing $5/gallon gas is because of the lack of a sound energy policy. Indeed, as President George W. Bush said, "Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy... We have a serious problem -- America is addicted to oil." Like a junkie addicted to crack cocaine, the United States continues to simply pay the market price for the substance it is addicted to, rather than seeking means of eliminating the addiction. Under the administrations of President Barack H. Obama, President George W. Bush, President William J. Clinton, President George H. W. Bush, President Ronald W. Reagan, President James E. Carter, and even before, no sound energy policy has not been developed. The United States needs an energy policy that is sound and realistic. While any energy policy will have a very limited immediate effect on the economy, the long-run effect of a sound energy policy will be greater prosperity for the country.

A major effort of an energy policy must be for the United States to reduce its dependency on foreign oil and energy. The United States should not be subject to the OPEC cartel's manipulation of the market, because the country should be engaging in more drilling, both on land and off-shore. A large resource of oil exists in the Gulf of Mexico. If the United States declines to tap into that resource, then it will miss out while Cuba and Russia tap it. Additionally, the use of ethanol and development of bio-fuels can take place in order to produce more fuel domestically.

Coal, while still a "dirty" way to produce energy, has become much cleaner with modern technology than past coal use. For energy production today, coal remains a good option. Additionally, nuclear power is a great option for energy production. It is extremely clean compared to oil, gas, or coal. The United States hasn't built a new nuclear power plant since 1996. More nuclear plants should be built. Realistically, however, the supply of coal will eventually run out, as will the supply of oil, gas, and possibly uranium. More nuclear plants only provides a short-term solution. Thus, for long-term energy production, the United States must focus on sources of energy that are renewable, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydrogen. Before these sources of energy run out, the Earth as a planet that can sustain life will no longer exist.

To move the country forward towards eliminating its reliance on foreign oil and eventually eliminating reliance on sources of energy that will run out, the government's energy policy must incentivize advancement and research. The message must be sent to oil companies that oil is on the way out, and that in order to remain competitive in the long-run, they must diversify their business into other areas. Companies like Exxon Mobil would be wise to continue producing oil, while also investing heavily into renewable sources of energy. In the long-run, their businesses remain profitable by transforming from primarily selling oil to primarily selling energy from renewable sources. The way to send this message is not to hike taxes on oil producers, but to provide tax credits for investing in renewable energy, and allowing tax deductions for profits from renewable energy production.  Further, individuals and businesses large and small investing in renewable energy should be provided with incentives. Whether it is as small as a homeowner adding solar panels to their roof, or a company investing in a major research effort to developing a car that can be fueled up with water, there should be a tax credit for the money spent on it. Additionally, the government should have a policy that landowners may use the land they have purchased for any production of renewable energy without having to go through long approval processes. Often, people fight against the production of windmills in their areas. If someone owns a plot of land and wants to fill it with windmills, there should be no restriction on allowing them to do this. Likewise, if an existing business wants to place windmills or solar panels on its roof, there should not be a barrier of a long, costly process of approvals.

The United States' transformation away from it's addiction to oil and use of non-renewable sources of energy will not happen overnight, nor will it happen in a year or even in one President's administration. However, for long-run success and prosperity, the country needs sound, realistic energy policy that is adhered to.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Obama and Supply-Side Economics

It is speculated by many that when President Barack Hussein Obama returns to the White House from his Hawaii vacation that he might make a push for an overhaul of the tax code that would utilize supply-side economics in order to increase government revenue and address the national debt. The following was reported by the New York Times last month:
President Obama is considering whether to push early next year for an overhaul of the income tax code to lower rates and raise revenues in what would be his first major effort to begin addressing the long-term growth of the national debt.
What President Obama is considering is very much like the supply-side economics (given the nickname "Reaganomics") that former President Ronald Wilson Reagan utilized in  the 1980s in order to give the United States one of its greatest non-war time periods of economic growth and prosperity. Supply-side economics is based on the concept that by making it easier for producers to supply goods and services, more goods and services will be supplied at more competitive prices. To make it easier for goods and services to be supplied, tax rates are lowered and the government eliminates unnecessary regulation. Government revenue from taxes will increase in the long-run, as a stronger economy will result in there being more money to tax. Essentially, volume makes up for lower tax rates. Would you rather have 30% of $2,000 or 25% of $2,600? The smart answer is 25% of $2,600, which is $650. Taking the other option, while a higher percentage, gives you less money (only $600.)

The concept of supply-side economics increasing government revenue is mathematically sound through the use of the Extreme Value Theorm and the Laffer Curve (shown at left). The Extreme Value Theorm states that for any closed function on an interval from point A to point B, there must exist a minimum and maximum value. The Laffer Curve uses the basic mathematical principle that any real number multiplied by zero will equal zero and the idea that if the government took 100% of income there would be no incentive for anyone to earn money since the government would simply take it all. The Laffer Curve shows government revenue from a 0% tax rate (point A) to a 100% tax rate (point B). Applying the Extreme Value Theorm to the Laffer Curve, it can be concluded the minimum value is zero, and that there must exist a maximum value. t* is the tax rate at which government revenue is maximized. In order to reach maximum government revenue, tax rates must be decreased if they are to the right side of t*, which is where today's tax rates are.

Under President Reagan, the median family income in the United States rose by $4,000 from 1980 to 1988, government tax revenues increased more than 50 percent, and the number of jobs in the country rose, as did the GDP. The economic policies that some, including former President George H.W. Bush, labeled as "voodoo economics" actually worked. "Reaganomics" was a success, and if President Obama moves forward in 2011 with an embrace of supply-side economics, it will only strengthen our economy and bring greater prosperity to the American people. In fact, if President Obama embraces supply-side economics, in 30 years people may look back and credit "Obamanomics" for getting the United States out of one of it's worst recessions.