Liberals Destroy Businesses In Nashville

Price-fixing. Outrageous over-regulation. Small businesses attacked. Artificially increasing the cost of doing business. You have it all in Nashville, Tennessee.

Have you ever wanted to start your own limo service? Figure you can charge less than the over-priced big limo service companies? Well, in Nashville, Tennessee, you no longer have that option. That’s right, Nashville has decided the minimum you are allowed to charge your clients. Nashville has decided you have to start from your base of operations before you can pick up a client. Nashville has decided you cannot pick up a client less than 15 minutes after you drop off a previous client. Nashville has decided how old your car is allowed to be.

Price fixing. Anti-Free-Market. Over-burdensome over-regulation. Micro-managing business. Central planning. None of this is good for the economy, for business in general, for employment, for anything but special interests. It’s Big Government in bed with Big Business. It’s not capitalism. It’s not Free Market. It’s not freedom, or liberty, or self-determination.

Ed Morrissey has the sordid details.

Until 2010, sedan and independent limo services were an affordable alternative to taxicabs. A trip to the airport only cost $25. But in June 2010, the Metropolitan County Council passed a series of anti-competitive regulations requested by the Tennessee Livery Association—a trade group formed by expensive limousine companies. These regulations force sedan and independent limo companies to increase their fares to $45 minimum.

The regulations also prohibit limo and sedan companies from using leased vehicles, require them to dispatch only from their place of business, require them to wait a minimum of 15 minutes before picking up a customer and forbid them from parking or waiting for customers at hotels or bars. And, in January 2012, companies will have to take all vehicles off the road if they are more than seven years old for a sedan or SUV or more than ten years old for a limousine.

These regulations have nothing to do with public safety. Nashville could have limited its requirements to those regulations that are designed to genuinely protect the public’s health and safety, such as requiring insured and inspected vehicles, and driver background checks, but instead, Nashville is stooping to economic protectionism to put affordable car services out of business in favor of more expensive services that happen to have more political power. Many Nashville residents who regularly use limos and sedans will be forced to spend twice as much money for exactly the same service and hard-working sedan drivers will be driven out of business.

This is Liberalism/Progressivism/Socialism/Big Government run amok. It’s unAmerican. It’s immoral. It’s destroying jobs. It’s driving small business owners into bankruptcy. And it’s artificially driving up the costs to the consumers. But it’s exactly how Big Government works. And it’s disgusting and indefensible.

Bush Tax Cuts Increased Wealthy’s Burden

This is something the Leftist Revisionists don’t want people to know. The share of taxes paid by the wealthy grew after the Bush tax cuts. The poor’s share fell. It’s a histo-fact that only liars and their sheeple can deny. The Leftist Revisionists want people to think the “rich” had a heavier burden under Clinton due to higher tax rates than under Bush. The facts show otherwise. Phillip Klein at the Washington Examiner has those pesky facts.

How could this happen after the Bush administration spent a decade heaping benefits on the rich while squeezing the middle class? Mark Robyn, who co-authored the analysis for the Tax Foundation, noted that the Bush tax cuts were across the board. So when Democrats speak in aggregate dollar terms, they can make it seem as though wealthier Americans are getting a better deal. But that’s only because they pay a lot more in taxes, so cutting taxes for all is going to result in a larger dollar figure for them. But if you analyze it as a share of taxes paid, the Bush tax cuts didn’t change the distribution.

Of course, this doesn’t tell the whole story. It doesn’t account for payroll taxes, for instance, which do hit middle and lower income levels. But much of the current debate has focused on the need to raise marginal income tax rates on higher earners while keeping them the same for everybody else. The question is, though, if a society in which the top 1 percent already pay nearly 40 percent of the nation’s income taxes (and when combined, the top 10 percent pay nearly 70 percent), then what would it take for liberals to be satisfied that the rich are paying their fair share? Should the top 10 percent pay 90 percent of the taxes? Should the bottom 50 percent pay zero income taxes? President Obama’s vision to subsidize the ballooning social safety net by shifting even more of the tax burden on the wealthy – while increasing the percentage of people who are net takers in society – is simply unsustainable.

“But if you analyze it as a share of taxes paid, the Bush tax cuts didn’t change the distribution.” Actually, the distribution was changed slightly. The top 1 percent, the 1-5 percent, and the 5-10 percent all have a heavier burden under Bush’s tax rates than under Clinton’s rates while the 10-25 percent, 25-50 percent, and bottom 50 percent all have a lighter burden under Bush’s tax rates than under Clinton’s rates. Them’s the facts. And the reason should be clear: If you lower the tax on an activity (such as income generation), you will encourage more of that activity. And since business owners and investors are in those top three brackets, their income generation would consist of a lot of business taking place — meaning more people being hired, more hours being worked, more product going out to market, more people having money to buy the product, a larger market for the product. In other words, a dynamic economic environment as opposed to the static economic environment which doesn’t exist except in the minds of the Left.

“The question is, though, if a society in which the top 1 percent already pay nearly 40 percent of the nation’s income taxes (and when combined, the top 10 percent pay nearly 70 percent), then what would it take for liberals to be satisfied that the rich are paying their fair share?” Agreed, that should be the question, but that’s never the question the Left asks. What the Left wants is to bring down the “rich” to the levels of the “poor” as if that would make the “poor” somehow not-poor. It doesn’t work that way. Warsaw Pact nations. Cuba. North Korea. It’s pure class-envy (which is a sin) that drives the Left, not actual economic growth. If someone has more than them, that someone needs the government to take it away and redistribute it, regardless of the actual harm it does to the economy and to the working poor themselves. (Some Leftists are even revisionist enough to redefine the term “redistribution” to mean its exact opposite, as has been seen multiple times on this site and likely will in the comments below.)

Let’s look at the burden as a share of GDP, shall we? And let’s look at a much wider spectrum. It’s something I already covered, something on which the Left has to use its revision because histo-facts don’t bear out the Left’s meme. As I wrote in August, 2010:

Art Laffer provides the history that the left don’t want to admit.

Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%. President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We’ve also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.

During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period. (See the nearby chart).

Even when Presidents Harding and Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, tax receipts from the rich rose. Between 1921 and 1928 the highest marginal personal income tax rate was lowered to 25% from 73% and tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners went to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP.

Clearly, the history of tax cuts for the wealthy has shown an increase in tax revenue from that very group. To deny such is to deny fact. And what of the tax increases on the wealthy?

President Roosevelt then debauched the dollar with the 1933 Bank Holiday Act and his soak-the-rich tax increase on Jan. 1, 1936. He raised the highest personal income tax rate to 79% from 63% along with a whole host of other corporate and personal tax rates as well. The U.S. economy went into a double dip depression, with unemployment rates rising again to 20% in 1938. Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.

Is it any wonder that the Great Depression was as long and deep as it was? Whoever heard of a country taxing itself into prosperity? Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928, but at what cost?

US historical record shows Keynesian statist economics to be the dismal failure it is, but Hayekian economics actually works.

Harding pulled us out of the Depression of 1920 by drastically cutting taxes. Coolidge continued that process, and the 1920s were boom years. All the while, the “rich” paid a higher percentage of the quickly growing GDP under the lower tax rates than under the higher tax rates of the Progressive Woodrow Wilson. The proof is in the numbers. You cannot get around the proof without lying or being a sheeple.

Then Herbert Hoover came in and pulled some bone-headed responses to the stock market crash of 1929, and sent the US into the Great Depression. David Weinberger over at the Foundry wrote a very strong article back in October, 2010, which should be required reading, because it covers a lot of territory, including how the US economy soared after WWII. (WWII did not end the Great Depression; it was ended by Truman’s fiscal policy.)

After the 1929 stock market crash, the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 raised import prices and more importantly threw a bucket of cold water on global trade flows, helping send the economy into deep depression. The economy had very little chance to recover. Along with gross and ongoing monetary policy mismanagement, President Hoover raised taxes in 1932. The consequences were devastating. As Alan Reynolds points out:

President Herbert Hoover asked for a temporary tax increase…in June 1932, raising the top income tax rate from 25% to 63% and quadrupling the lowest tax rate from 1.1% to 4%. That didn’t help confidence or the Treasury. Revenue from the individual income tax dropped from $834 million in 1931 to $427 million in 1932 and $353 million in 1933.

Smoot-Hawley devastated the US economy. Hoover’s huge tax increases continued the devastation and caused tax revenues to decrease. Traumatically.

Unfortunately, President Roosevelt made the same crucial mistake President Hoover made 5 years earlier, so the recovery didn’t last. FDR raised taxes sharply in 1937 in an attempt to balance the budget. Once tax increases took effect, the economy collapsed into another recession – the second stage of the double-dip which lasted into WWII.

“Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.” And what was the result? “Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928.” So, increasing the tax RATE on the “rich” reduced their SHARE of GDP while simultaneously reducing GDP. Pure Keynesian fail.

Like Weinberger said, “Late in 1945 under President Truman’s leadership, Congress cut marginal tax rates and rather than sliding back into recession as many had feared, the economy soared toward full-employment.” World War II did not break the Great Depression; it only paused it. Truman’s tax cuts broke the back of the Great Depression. What better way to conclude than with Weinberger’s conclusion? Take it away, Mr Weinberger.

The evidence is in: tax increases are damaging to economic growth and job creation no matter what point of the business cycle. In a weak economy, like ours today, tax increases are especially ill advised, as Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt discovered. But even in a bustling economy tax hikes hurt growth and prosperity, as they did in the 1990s under President Clinton. That we’re having a national debate about this from an economic standpoint at a time of instability and weakness is a sign of deliberate disregard of historical precedence and favor of ideological righteousness over economic concern.

Wonkette Is A

[Update and correction below]
vile, evil, disgusting, hate-filled, inhuman little creature. And her brain-dead hangers-on are no better.

For some time, many people have said a lot of Leftists hate Sarah Palin because she made the tough, courageous, and right decision not to abort Trig. While I agreed with the sentiment, I thought it may have possibly been a bit hyperbolic. Wonkette and her hangers-on disabused me of that charitable consideration. In a big way. A very big way. Her hate-filled article title:

Greatest Living American: A Children’s Treasury of Trig Crap On His Birthday

The very first thing you see there is a vile, disgusting, hate-filled GIF.

Wonkette's vile, evil hatred

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Wonkette had to add words to her post.

That strange man yelling unintelligibly at Sarah Palin? He’s merely a lowly shepherd proclaiming the birth of our savior. Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.) It doesn’t matter. What matters is that we are privileged to live in a time when we can witness the greatest prop in world political history.

The vile, evil Wonkette even went so far as to mock a woman who wrote a poem for Trig. I tried to go to the website that has the poem but was stopped by a registration window, so Wonkette, in her vileness, had to register on the site to seek out ways to be vile. The site: And the poem Lynda wrote:

Sweet Angel Boy…

Oh, little boy what are you dreaming about
Candy canes and mom’s sweet hugs

Oh, sweet baby boy what are you dreaming about
Play cars…trains…planes and a daddy’s strong hands as he lifts you high and makes you laugh…oh, how safe you feel in those hands

Oh, little boy what are dreaming about
Sisters who play with you…and teach you new words

Oh, as you sleep little boy what are you dreaming about
A big bother that carries you on his shoulders…as he shows you the blue sky

Oh, little boy what are you dreaming about
A mother’s soft lullaby…the soft touch of her hand…the soft sound of her voice as she says “I Love You”
Dream on little boy as the Angels stand guard

Her vile response?

What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded.

As Wesley J Smith said:

Even more than intimating incest. Vile. And the nonsense about Trig not dreaming: Have you noticed the undercurrent of bigoted eugenics and anti disability loathing among certain elements of the Left? I sure have.

Wonkette has proven herself to be one of the most vile, evil, disgusting Leftists around. But her hangers-on did their best to keep up with her in the comment section.

And the Left makes the utterly ridiculous claim that they are the tolerant ones!! Proof positive that is a lie!

Jack Stuef wrote that Wonkette pile of evil hatred, not Wonkette. Apparently, Gawker owns Wonkette the blog and “let go” Wonkette the writer some time ago. Therefore, I cannot stand by my description of Wonkette the writer. That description fits Jack Stuef. I do not read Wonkette the writer so I don’t know what sort of person she is, other than some liberal writer.

Dana Loesch has been all over this story, as have many other writers.

Wonkette Makes Fun of Trig Palin, Calls Him “Retarded”

They consider this satirical? This entire thing sounds like it was written by some guy, in this case, Jack Stuef who got tired of being bullied on the playground and, seeing his once chance to sound cool and impress people, decides to bully a child. You picked on a kid, dude. Yay for you.

What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded.


His mom went to a lot of trouble to leak amniotic fluid over 8 states to make sure that he arrived in this world somewhat alive,”


Enjoy yourself today, Trig. Have fun! Get drunk (on purpose this time)! We can hardly wait for 15 years from now, when you will finally be able to vote and will be sent off by your mother’s junta to fight the Union in the Great Alaska War. It’ll be quite a loss. You’re the smartest one in that family.

This is what happens when a little-known blogger who edits the literary equivalent of the bathroom wall in Walmart isn’t clever enough to either write satire or convey why he doesn’t like the Palins. And this is considered acceptable by progressives.

(We have our own resident radical Leftist who gave tacit approval by attempting to redirect and obfuscate in the comment section below.)

Papa Johns, Huggies Pulls Advertising From Wonkette After Trig Taunts *UPDATE Holland America Line Drops Wonkette *UPDATE #2: Nordstrom Drops Wonkette

As a result of this morning’s post condemning an outrageous post from Wonkette in which blogger Jack Stueff mocks Trig Palin over his Down Syndrome and suggests that Todd Palin slept with his daughter, outrage spread across Twitter and now Wonkette advertisers are pulling ads.

Mediaite to Wonkette Editor: It’s On UPDATE Slate: “Behold New Media” UPDATE #2: National Journal Misses the Mark *UPDATE #3: Ken Layne Lies About Attacking Trig

While we disagree with Mediaite from time to time in this space, there is one thing on which we do agree and that is children used as political targets: you shouldn’t.

Wonkette’s Half-Hearted Mea Culpa

Stueff didn’t “confuse the target.” He wrote a heinously awful in both form and tone piece attacking a child and mocking that child’s special needs. Don’t you confuse the target, Layne.

Wonkette Removes Writer’s Name From Trig Hit Piece UPDATE: Wonkette Deletes Comments

This is why we take screenshots.

[“before” and “after” screenshots]

This is somehow better than an apology?

They’re apparently deleting the offensive comments as well while pretending such comments never existed.

That’s the thing with these Leftist sites: they love throwing things down the memory hole but still can’t figure out people have already taken screencaps due to the fact Leftist sites (blog and news) love throwing things down the memory hole.

From PJ Salvatore
Wonkette’s Ken Layne, Blogger Jack Stuef’s History of Targeting Kids

Salvatore quotes Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

But more important, Layne has a very convenient memory. In 2009, as I documented in my post Wonkette Goes After Trig Palin Again, Layne mocked Trig, including running this photoshop which he took from a posting board:

[photo image]

In 2008, Wonkette ran a post by Jim Newell, who now works for Gawker, mocking Trig and joking:

“Little baby Trig must be so glad he wasn’t aborted for this, his first Halloween, because his parents dressed him up like a political party symbol to be carried around at snarling political events. Aww. Isn’t life just grand?”

Wonkette the blog and Gawker are evil blights on the world, as are Jack Stuef, Ken Layne, Jim Newell, and all those hangers-on who had their comments flushed down the memory hole (but likely not before they, too, were screencapped).

The First State might see more state revenue; what do you think they’ll do with it?

I’ve said it before, this simply being the most recent example:

We need to cut spending, and drastically, first, before we raise taxes. If we raise taxes either first or even simultaneously, you can count on history repeating itself: the tax increases will just get spent.

Well, our good friends at the Delaware Liberal have been kind enough to prove it!

More Money Less Problems

April 19th, 2011 •

By Delaware Dem

In another sign of the improving economy, tax revenue has increased an additional $165.1 million.

The Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council’s April revenue report mirrors continued positive growth seen last month when the panel projected a $155 million surplus for the current and 2012 fiscal years. DEFAC on Monday approved a $168.5 million revenue increase above earlier projections. Lawmakers can spend up to 98 percent of that sum, or $165.1 million. The Legislature’s budget-writing Joint Finance Committee will hammer out how to spend the extra cash during two weeks of meetings that begin May 16. […]

In the next few weeks, Markell will make recommendations to the JFC on how to spend the surplus on one-time economic stimulus projects, said Ann Visalli, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Several members of the JFC have indicated they want to use a surplus to restore some of Markell’s $100 million in cuts to the $3.4 billion operating budget.

May I suggest that Governor Markell and the General Assembly do precisely that, especially concerning cuts to programs that help the poor. Lt. Governor Matt Denn, in his meeting with the Progressive Democrats for Delaware earlier this month, indicated that this was the horrible nature of our budget process: that the Governor has to draft his proposal before knowing the revenue projections from DEFAC. And thus, they have to propose cuts or spending pursuant to last year’s revenue projections. Well, now some of those cuts can disappear. Further, this money must not be placed into the hands of the rich via new tax cuts. The rich in this state and this country have not been asked to sacrifice, while the poor and the middle class have borne the burnt of program and spending cuts, not to mention the fact that they pay a disproportionate share of taxes.

This, in small scale, proves what I have been saying about the federal budget. I’ve said that tax increases should not come until spending is under control, because the Democrats Congress wouldn’t use the increased revenues to cut the deficit, but to increase spending.

Fortunately, the increased revenue — assuming, of course, that the projections actually turn out to be reasonably correct — came from better than anticipated economic performance. But, regardless of the source of the increased revenue, our good friends at the Delaware Liberal want to do what liberals do: spend it! No thought of doing something really radical like, now that the hard spending cuts are in place, actually saving the money or paying down state debt, seems to have occurred.

Delaware is, according to this site, the fifth most debt-ridden state in the nation. It’s based on debt per resident, not total debt, and the First State bing such a small state, that kind of skews thing, but, with a state debt of $6,554.59 per resident¹, the sensible thing to do is use that unanticipated revenue to reduce the state’s debt.

But not according to our friends on the left! They’d rather spend up to — and beyond — the last farthing.
¹ – Total debt = $5,722,757,000, with a population of 873,092.

14 Year Old Speaker At Madison TEA Party

From Robert Stacy McCain:

When I saw this video at Ann Althouse’s blog (hat-tip, Instapundit), I did some quick searching and learned that Tricia Willoughby is a home-schooler and debate champion, one of three daughters of Wisconsin pro-life leaders Bret and Nancy Willoughby:

She did an outstanding job. She was strong, self-assured, and empowering. All that and she had to put up with all the crap from the loud-mouth knuckle-draggers.

She clearly won the debate with this man since he couldn’t even get on topic, much less stay on topic. He was completely incapable of refuting a single word she said. But he sure put that publik ejumakashun to good use. Just another video the lamestream media won’t widely disseminate. And nobody from the Left will be decrying the lack of civility out of mouth breathers like that crank. Doesn’t fit Teh Narrative.

It’s Now Patriotic to Call Paul Krugman a !@%$#%@ Hypocrite

From Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion:

Now I know the real reason for the paywall, to prevent those of us who do not want to feed the beast from getting the evidence to call Paul Krugman what he is, a complete and total phony, a hypocrite of the worst type, a has-been using his Nobel Prize as an excuse to call others names to cover up his lack of evidence.

Thank goodness Paul Krugman has taken off the mask, and it’s now patriotic to call Krugman a !@%$#% hypocrite.

Read the whole thing. Nuff said.

TEA Party vs “US Uncut”

Liberals do not get it. They just do not understand. At all. There are many Liberals who have bought the line that the TEA Party is astroturf. That belief and the truth are on opposite ends of the continuum. The TEA Party is genuine grass-roots.

Then there are the Liberals who know the TEA Party is grass-roots but think the TEA Party phenomenon is merely a massive group of Americans who are strongly discontent and somehow got shifted rightwards by some nebulous leadership somewhere. These Liberals believe they can step in and take over the grass-roots discontent and shift it leftwards. Again, these Liberals’ beliefs and the truth of the TEA Party are at opposite ends of the continuum.

The Liberals are using both wrong-headed ideas to try to move the protests over to their side. The absolute failures of the Liberals are completely unexpected — to the Liberals. But that’s because Liberals just don’t get it. Pajamas Media pretty much nails it.

Tea Party vs. US Uncut: A San Francisco Tax Day Showdown

When the Tea Party first emerged, the pro-big-government left at first tried to ignore it.

When that didn’t work, they tried to discredit it.

When that didn’t work, they tried insults.

When that didn’t work, they tried mockery.

When that didn’t work, they tried to undermine it.

When that didn’t work, they tried to discredit it again.

But after the Tea Party swept the 2010 elections, the left realized that none of these strategies had any effect. So they adopted a new one:

The big-government advocates are now trying to co-opt the Tea Party. Which seems patently absurd. Yet the progressives are operating on the naive assumption that “populist anger” is itself a politically neutral energy, and that the Tea Party was just lucky to catch the wave and funnel that anger rightward. The big-government advocates now imagine they can seize the reins and funnel that exact same populist uprising toward the left side of the spectrum.

In an effort to create a mass Leftist movement to infiltrate the TEA Party and discredit it via dishonest methods, a school teacher used school time and school equipment to create “Crash the Tea Party”. He got fired for doing that on school time with school property. Ironic that a man violated school regulations in an effort to promote something dishonest. Or not. But the “mass movement” fizzled.

Still, dishonest Liberals act as lone wolves to infiltrate and discredit TEA Parties. Such as the woman seen here. And TEA Partiers are wise to their games, as shown by the woman holding the sign pointing out the infiltrator. And what do we see but a member of the media interviewing the infiltrator — with the full knowledge she’s an infiltrator! Typical lamestream media tactic.

Of course, there are the Leftist Big Government folks creating top-down astroturf organizations to try to combat the TEA Party. Such as the Coffee Party, which is suffering from a near-complete lack of interest. And now US Uncut is trying to do the exact same thing the Coffee Party tried to do, and is meeting with the same (lack of) success.

Yes, folks, over in San Fransisco, US Uncut decided to do a “grass-roots” counter-rally to the TEA Party rally taking place in San Fransisco. 45 US Uncut people showed up to do their choreographed “flash-mob” band-and-dance routine while a far greater crowd of TEA Partiers showed up to their rally. In San Fransisco, the Big Government Liberals couldn’t muster a crowd but the TEA Party could. But US Uncut did create a false “interview”. Yes, US Uncut lied in their “interview” creation.

Not to be outdone (in futility), Chicago had their own US Uncut rally of 20 people.

Go on over to Pajamas Media to see the entire ball of wax. Loads of photos. Four videos. The wholly dishonest US Uncut “interview.” Oh, and the Libertarian Party and Republican Party set up tables to get registrations — tables which were mostly ignored.

Liberals just don’t get it. Statist Republicans just don’t get it. But We the People get it.