Should Hollywood Determine Public Policy?

As a country, we have more PhD's and Nobel laureates in almost every aspect of science than any other country in the world. Yet, when it comes to deciding public policy, who does our Congress seek for advice? Hollywood and TV stars and certain, select political personalities!

Last week, hearings on global warming were being conducted by a House subcommittee and those committee members sat quietly while the likes of Hollywood's Ashley Judd told them to enact legislation to fight Global Warming (See Full Story). Also in attendance was TV personality, Jeff Corwin who is not only a biologist but plays one on TV. And, lets not forget the guru of all global warming, Al Gore, who personally wastes more jet fuel in one week than any 100 average Americans do in ten years. Global warming is not the only reason for the parade of Hollywood types through Congress. Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox once gave "expert" testimony on stem cell research. It seems as if Hollywood's opinions are relished by every Democrat and on every subject from biofuels to animal attacks.

For our Congress to get its legislative advice from people who aren't even experts is almost criminal. What's next? Oprah's opinion on military spending? Jay Leno's advice on bailing out GM because he has a collection of rare cars and motorcycles? Please...!

Congress loves to use the Hollywood elite because they are good political puppets (for the Democrats) and they are easily recognizable by the American public. But, would you have some actor perform heart surgery on you because they played a cardiologist on TV, or just because they had their own triple bypass surgery? I don't think so. Then, why are we putting the destiny of this country in their hands?

In my opinion, the issue of global warming and any subsequent legislation is something that experts need to be reporting on; not "personalities". Politicos, such as Al Gore and the useful left-wing idiots in Hollywood, have no place in the discussion. Take Al for example. How can you trust someone who is a poli-sci major and, whose movie, Inconvenient Truth, has failed to give an accurate vision of the future. That movie was so much hype and not hardly any reality; especially since the earth's warming has been running flat to downward since the "Truth" was released. Where's all the "frequency and intensity" of hurricanes that Al predicted in the opening of that movie? Al won't admit it but the last few years of hurricane seasons have been getting quieter; not more intense!

If we fight global warming at the pace that Al Gore and most of the Hollywood Democrats want to fight it, some "real experts" believe it will cost every American as much as $14,000 per family. At the very least, you will see your energy bills double. So, if you are spending $600 a month for gasoline, natural gas and electricity, those costs will double and the additional annual expense to you will be something in excess of $7,000. But, those are the direct energy cost increases that you will see. The indirect costs will show up as inflation on almost every product that you use. That's because the energy cost to make those products will skyrocket and those added costs will be passed on to you and I as consumers. Additionally, our nation's businesses are going to be taxed at a higher rate so that Democrats can give energy-cost offsets to the less affluent of our society who can't afford the inflation. Especially hard hit will be the concrete, steel, and aluminum producers because they need high levels of energy to produce their final product. As a result, the prices for new homes, offices, roads, and autos will rise substantially.

So, now, our future lies in the hands of a few celebrities. How sad is that!

Why We Will All Be Paying For The Latest State Tax Hikes

I live in Las Vegas and we have no State income tax. Yet, when California raises it's taxes, I will probably pay for it too; someday. The same is true if New York raises its taxes. That's because, overall, the Federal tax revenues are being reduced with every increase in State income and sales taxes; and, eventually, the Federal government will have to make up for those losses by, somehow, taxing us all.

Under the current tax laws, you have a choice of taking the standard deduction against your income or, instead, itemizing your deductions. In most cases, small businesses or high salaried/income tax filers already itemize their deductions because they have an aggregate amount of income offsets that exceed the standard IRS deduction. As part of that itemized deduction process, you can either deduct your State income tax or your paid State sales taxes; but, not both.

So, if a State, like California or New York, raises their income tax rate by, say, 1 percent, the high salaried/income or small business residents of that State, who are able to itemize deductions on their Federal tax returns, will effectively reduce their Federally taxed income by 1 percent; and, as a result, the Federal taxes on that income would be totally lost. The same is true in States that have no income tax, like Nevada or Florida or Texas, but raise their sales taxes. Federal tax filers in those States who itemize will be able to reduce their taxable income by the effective increase in their State's sales tax rate.

In a country that increasingly depends on the so-called rich of our society to pay their taxes so that others won't have to, this is another tax law problem that will make it more difficult for Obama to pay for all his spending because it primarily affects the highest taxpayers of this country. This, too, is why I think the deficit will be greater than what the Obama Administration thinks; because, besides the loss of tax revenues from reduced business activity and lost jobs, they will be losing increased tax revenues as a result of the 10 or more States that are planning some massive tax hikes on sales and income taxes(See Full Story). That's not just my opinion but a fact!