Page Nine

Hunters Reducing Hunger

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing. But it does frequently refer to the benign life-saving wonderful efforts of environmentally sensitive animal lovers in PETA. Read more about their wonderful exploits in item #6 later.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

"NEWTOWN, Conn. -- When you're feasting on holiday meals and leftovers, here's a story to tell -- one that would not be possible without the thoughtfulness and generosity of hunters.

"A new study commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and conducted by Mile Creek Communications reveals that last year 11 million meals were provided to the less fortunate through donations of venison by hunters. Nearly 2.8 million pounds of game meat made its way to shelters, food banks and church kitchens and onto the plates of those in need.

" 'Given our challenging economic times, hunters' donations of venison have never been more important to so many people,' said Stephen L. Sanetti, president and CEO of NSSF, the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry. 'These contributions are just one way hunting and hunters are important to our way of life in America. Learning about these impressive figures makes me proud to be a hunter. I have donated game meat during the past year, and I urge my fellow hunters to strongly consider sharing their harvest.' "

"'These figures are from confirmed sources, but annual donations could easily be double this amount if direct donations from hunters to friends and family are included,' said Jim Curcuruto, NSSF's director of statistics and research."

Often overlooked by animal "rights" radicals is the fact that laws typically make it illegal to let any edible portion of harvested game go to waste. Urban dwellers are often unaware that meat does not come from a foam tray covered in plastic wrap.

Internet Taxation Promised

The lamestream media told you:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q8TV3O1.htm

Connecticut officials are not giving up on requiring Internet sellers to collect state sales taxes, despite signs from online retailer Amazon.com that it has no immediate plans to abide by the state's new Internet tax law.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) estimates that all states are losing $23 billion each year ($152 million in Conn.), a figure that climbs annually as more people shop on the Internet instead of their local stores, according to Neil Osten, director of NCSL's Washington, D.C., office.

"All we have to do is get in the door. Once we get in the door, there are some more opportunities that come," Dept. of Revenue Services Commissioner Kevin Sullivan said.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Associated Press, working closely with the state governments for a change, is campaigning to suck more money out of the economy and into government hands, according to a recent report released by AP itself. Freedom from such taxes has contributed to astronomic economic growth in the Internet sales sector.

AP reporter Susan Haigh says, "states are losing $23 billion each year, a figure that climbs each year..." She fails to note that otherwise, the working people who earned that money would be the ones losing it. This way, we the people get to to keep the $23 billion of hard-earned cash, instead of forking it over to ever more hungry government tax czars, and in this case, to states where we don't even live. "If bureaucrats succeed in adding a gigantic new tax on the only vibrant star in the economic universe, the Internet, they will have again succeeded in making everyone poorer, in the name of government growth."

This is how government kills jobs. Economists and morons have long known that if taxes increase, people have less of their own money to spend and are poorer, and that's not rocket science.

The phrase "capture the sales tax revenue that goes uncollected" is how the states frame it, and the reporter parrots. "Keep huge piles of our earned cash in the economy, out of government hands, and let it work for us," is how increasingly disgruntled taxpayers generally see the effort to seize the funds. Reporters appear incapable of seeing this distinction and its huge bias.

Rewrite: "The public is saving $23 billion annually, a figure that climbs each year, by shopping on the Internet, according to information released by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), a lobbying group representing state governments. Government agents, with NCSL backing, are now drawing up plans to take that money by creating a new tax, claiming they are "losing" revenue without the new tax.

According to leading bipartisan experts, increasing taxes at a time when government is already too large and needs to shrink, is exactly the direction you do NOT want to go, according to leading bipartisan experts."

Tidbits

Smith & Wesson Firearm Sales Up 18 Percent
Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (NASDAQ:SWHC) reported first-quarter firearm sales of $91.7 million, up 18 percent compared to the same period last year. "Orders for our firearms remained strong in the quarter, evidenced by increased sales of our Smith & Wesson brand pistols and modern sporting rifles," said CEO Michael Golden. The company expects its firearm division to grow between 11 and 13 percent in fiscal 2012. Thanks to NSSF.org for the tip. Many firearm firms are traded on the markets.

Are Poor Rich?

The lamestream media told you:

Mr. Obama's plan to soak the rich, as a way to solve our financial problems, might actually work. Right-wing radicals are incorrect when they suggest this is just class warfare stirred up by a desperate man who has little understanding of economics and whose approach to financial matters has been straight marxist-socialist redistribution of wealth, and has failed.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY8LKII_MNA

Watch that short video. Please let me hear if you agree. This short clip is about as good as it gets. Explains our financial crisis and so-called rich-poor schism brilliantly, in an easy, fun way.

Also note that class-warfare notions about a few people with lots of money harming the economy and the working proletariat don't even pass the smell test. A person with a billion dollars doesn't "have" the billion, it exists as property, companies, jobs, vehicles, blueprints and stuff the person controls. The economy "has" the money, regardless of whose name it is in. A $1MM tiara and a yacht puts a lot of people to work, even if the tiara adorns the rich person's head aboard a fine yacht as it makes port in your home town to pick up supplies.

Tidbits

The media headlines: "The government is likely to lose more than $1 billion"
The truth is: "The public is likely to get a $1 billion savings"

The media headlines: "The government has already lost more than $200 million"
The truth is: "The public has already gained more than $200 million"

The media reports: "Poverty rate hits 17-year high" (front page, above the fold, yesterday)

The truth is: Poverty in this nation means you have a TV, refrigerator, air conditioning, stove, clothes washer, and if you want the most uplifting look at what poverty in America is, you need to watch this wonderful Bill Whittle episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OkebmhTQN-4

 

Jobs, Jobs, Not

The lamestream media told you:

The president plans to unveil a new jobs program under development all summer. The president will reveal his jobs program this week. The president will reveal his jobs program Thursday. The president will reveal his jobs program tomorrow night. President to reveal his jobs program tonight. These are actual headlines.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Not a single reporter had the insight or nerve to ask why a president would reveal a jobs program, when jobs don't come from government. They simply trumpeted, for a week or more, that the government plans to save the nation, according to government sources.

Even the most basic understanding of business, wealth development, productivity, profit and loss, entrepreneurship, business ownership, accounting, market dynamics, product development, marketing, inventory control, sales and supply and demand shows that jobs come from businesses, not the president or government. The only way government can put people to work is by taking money from people who earn it, and giving it to other people for temporary work the officials think is a good idea. This is the opposite of jobs. It is a brake on the economy, and redistribution of wealth under central control.

Mr. Obama's eventual "job" plan is to spend $447 billion he doesn't have. It's a laughable fraud, laughed at by none in the "news" media, who are not calling it Stimulus III, since the first two stimulus schemes were disastrous and fraud laden. They should be ashamed. They're not. Let me be more fair -- commentators laughed out loud, reporters simply reported what they were told, like lapdogs.

Jobs are created by risking capital and sweat equity to create products or services that people want. Demand for the goods and services is built using marketing and sales techniques. Obama's plans to give away money he doesn't have fail on these measures, but this is predictable from a person whose mentors were Marxists with no understanding of business or wealth creation.

Government Shutdown Baloney

The lamestream media told you:

The government may have to shut down if republicans and democrats can't reach agreement on a budget. At issue are 31 billion in cuts democrats want to make that republcans say are not enough.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Just when you thought the "news" media could not treat us any more stupidly, they out do themselves with a repeat of a story that was total hogwash last time, and even more baloney this time.

The federal government does not shut down during a media-hyped shutdown.

You cannot shut down a national forest, and the tress and animals are laughing at you.

The troops overseas continue to reload and fire.

Everyone who is supposed to get a paycheck gets it, perhaps a little late.

Many get their paychecks with bonuses and compensation for their discomfort.

Homeland Security, the FBI, CIA, IRS, ATF, FAA, FCC, DEA, and the rest of the alphabet soup bureaucrats and enforcers go to work same as usual. Those who are put on leave get paid time off, which will show up in their next paychecks.

No one loses any money, except the taxpayers who pay for the time off and get no service in return (if you can call some of what they do service).

Threatening the public with government shutdowns is a humiliating insult.

Cutting $100 billion from the budget (the original goal) is such a small amount it is laughable. We have nearly that much waste and fraud just in Medicare, according to the government's own figures.

To get an idea of how small $100 billion is these days to the government, look at this. This fellow uses a penny (one penny) to represent $2 billion dollars. Then he covers a huge table with stacks of five pennies to represent the U.S. budget. Then he takes one penny, cuts it in half, cuts the half in half, and puts three quarters of the penny back on its stack. That's how much money we're talking about removing from the budget. It's nothing.

And it shows you why government has gotten so powerful. By taking money from each of us, they amass an unfathomably large fortune, and then use it against us in innumerable ways, and cry that if they change anything the whole system will shut down.

Meanwhile, out here, we're hoping and praying for a shudown. A day or three without government would be a good thing, don't you think?

Whose Budget Is It Anyway?

The lamestream media told you:

Mr. Obama has released his fiscal year budget for 2012, a document of more than 2,000 pages, with an overall cost of $NNN. Congress has not yet commented.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Does anyone recall when the executive branch began releasing a budget to Congress? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I recall: "All bills for raising Revenue shall ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. (Article I, Section 7, emphasis added).

The office of the president is free to say whatever it wants of course. But the idea that vast monies and efforts are spent to produce 2,000 pages of spending plans, from a branch that lacks authority to act on such plans, strikes The Uninvited Ombudsman as bass ackwards. But what do I know. Finance is not my strong suit. I'm best at reading plain English.

According to the White House (a non-human that cannot make statements, no other author was identified): "The Presidents 2012 Budget is a responsible approach..."

A simple review of the main features as described by the non-human white building reveals that few of the items proposed are authorized by the U.S. Constitution, the olden document that no longer controls the nation's rulers. For example, "Reforms K-12 school funding by supporting high standards..." and "Builds a next-generation, wireless broadband network..." and "Establishes 20 new Economic Growth Zones..." and there's a lot more in 2,000 pages... http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview

By the numbers, the guy wants Congress to spend $3.7 trillion, but only plans to collect from us taxpayers $2.6 trillion, so he, without any remorse or regret, plans to go in broke tank for $1.1 trillion. A trillion dollars, a number too large for anyone -- even a person with an economics degree -- to comprehend, is a thousand billion dollar bills. A billion dollars, also too large to truly comprehend, is a thousand million dollar bills. In plain English, that's a lot of your money.

Oh, wait. This is about spending, not raising revenue. Do I have that right?

Government Manages Wages

The lamestream media told you:

It was good news for workers in several states at the beginning of this year, as state minimum wages went up by at least ten cents an hour in most places. That amounts to $200 extra per year in their paychecks, a wonderful development according to a public radio broadcast.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

It was bad news for business in several states at the beginning of this year, as government again meddled way beyond its legitimate delegated authority and forced companies to spend more money for the same amount of labor, without any concerns for market conditions or solvency of business they affected.

A small business with 50 employees will be forced to spend $10,000 more per year, without getting anything more for the money. By calling it only $200 per year, the "news" makes it sound like a small amount, to encourage sheeple to simply swallow. The change will likely push some marginal operations out of business, a bad thing. Officials are quick to point out that the salary increase will mean increased revenue for government in taxes, which they say is a good thing.

Confiscation Isn’t Revenue

The lamestream media told you:

“By closing a tax loophole, the city is boosting its own resources. The change, approved by the Town Council last week, is expected to generate at least $150,000 in revenue during the current fiscal year, and as much as $400,000 by 2013.” The town in this particular article was Glendale, but it could have been your town.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Newspapers unerringly take a statist view of your taxes, saying money is “generated” when it is actually “confiscated” by force. The money is not “revenue,” a term for money that is earned, it is “collections,” which in this case is taken at the point of a gun. This is not voluntary -- police are in the background prepared to enforce the takings if you don’t come across of your own accord.

The media doesn’t realize they do this, could not be reached for comment, and has never run a correction on this matter.