Yes folks, instead of enacting an actual tax cut and making it permanent, congress (both parties) has agreed to extend the so-called “payroll tax cut” another 10 months. And what amounts to a whopping $20.00 per paycheck for individual tax payers, will continue to grace our pockets.

$20.00 bucks…
Gas prices (at the time of this post) are nationally, on average, sitting at $3.50 a gallon.
Bread prices, ground beef prices, bacon prices…just about everything costs more these days, and has risen since Obama’s inauguration. How can that be? I mean, come on people? THIS man was supposed to ‘slow the rise of the oceans’, ‘heal the rain forests’, etc etc etc!!! Where’d the ‘magic’ go?!

And, to be completely honest, let’s not forget that this is NOT…NOT…an actual tax cut. Oh they’re billing it as such, because Obama wants to be seen, especially in an election year, as being a president who has offered some sort of tax cut for ‘middle class americans’.

No — this is simply a reduction in the amount government is withholding from your paycheck. Specifically, this amount would normally be going into the so-called “social security trust fund” (LOL!!)…If it were actually a fund.

This IS NOT a reduction in tax burden.
This IS NOT a cut in the amount of taxes government expects you to pay.

What this IS can be illustrated in the following example:

*According to government, you owe $300 out of each paycheck.
*The government stops collecting $20.00 of that amount, and only takes $280.
*According to government, you STILL owe that $300 bucks, every paycheck. They have NOT reduced the amount they expect you to pay.

Essentially…Government thinks you are stupid, and that you’ll bend over and grab your ankles for them, the next time they want a bit more money from you. All because they are allowing you to keep that $20 bucks…Which is YOUR MONEY to begin with.

Now don’t you feel better?
Yeah…Me neither.

A few days ago, I posted this piece, slaying Santorum for his most recent ‘socially minded’ comments regarding contraception and the role government plays.

While I stand by that post in its entirety, J.E. Dyer over at HotAir has written a brilliant piece on the same issue, which has given me a wider perspective on Santorum regarding his mindset on this.

I will post snips of Dyer’s piece, but I encourage you to read the whole thing, here:
(snips)

Why Rick Santorum doesn’t owe us a “contraception speech”
posted at 8:18 pm on February 15, 2012 by J.E. Dyer

… but could do a lot of good with a “nature of government” speech

Time has called out Rick Santorum for “wanting to ‘fight the dangers of contraception’.” Matt Lewis at The Daily Caller sees electoral danger for Santorum in his insistence on discussing social issues and registering committed opinions on them, rather than parrying such questions with a kind of unifying boilerplate.

Lewis isn’t necessarily wrong on the point about electability. But I see much more danger for America’s future in the fact that so many Americans are now apparently unable to make important distinctions about the operation and functions of government.

Consider the method by which Michael Scherer presents the video of Santorum’s interview with the evangelical blog Caffeinated Thoughts in October 2011. Scherer includes in his article a transcript of the comments he wants to discuss, and helpfully tells readers to start watching the video at the 17:55 mark.

I decided to watch from the beginning (in spite of the awful audio quality). Out of context, Santorum’s remarks sound like he might have a plan to “fight contraception” the way Democrats always want to fight something: that is, outlaw it, impose fees and penalties on it, sue the bejeebers out of it in court, sic the IRS and all the other federal agencies and commissions on it, demonize it in the media, teach children in the public schools that it is associated with hate, racism, violence, and fascism, and make movies in which the left’s point of view about it is validated by George Clooney.

But in context, it turns out that Santorum has no plan to do anything with federal law other than ensure that ObamaCare is repealed and that federal money is not used for contraception or abortion. (Federal money is currently used to fund both.) Santorum was speaking in October in the Caffeinated Thoughts video, before the contretemps over the ObamaCare insurance mandate for contraceptive services; otherwise, he would presumably have referred to that as well.

To appreciate the context in which his remarks were made, it is necessary to start no later than the 10:00 hack. The overall discussion is about various social issues (e.g., fatherlessness), and the theme Santorum emphasizes is that a president can shape a national debate on these topics, which profoundly affect the social health of our communities. He repeats the word “debate” quite a few times. His examples of positive intervention in such issues come from the local level and involve community groups and local governments.

He says explicitly in the 16:00-17:30 timeframe that laws in Congress are just a small part of what he’s talking about, and his examples of working through federal law – there are only two – are ensuring that no federal funds are going to abortion, and repealing ObamaCare. He is also explicit, if fleeting, about the federal government not being the right level at which to actually deal with social issues by adopting government policies.

Santorum isn’t coming after your contraception. He does consider it an issue that affects the health of society, and his hope is to foster a debate on that and other social topics, a rhetorical power he ascribes – along with millions of other observant Americans – to the president.

(…)

Ultimately, I don’t know how much social good a national debate on contraception would do, if it were promoted by the president. I view the federal government, including the presidency, as too compromised and suspect an entity to honestly broker such a debate under current conditions. (I am very happy for the churches to foster the debate, and indeed, to see the Catholics sticking to their guns.)

But what I do believe is that the government – and the federal government in particular – should have no policy on ensuring the distribution of contraception. Santorum is right that the federal government should neither fund contraception nor subsidize its advocates’ prowling the land in various guises, encouraging young women to resort to it. It should not be the policy of the state to subsidize or promote the avoidance of pregnancy, any more than it should be the policy of the state to prohibit contraception. A government that interests itself in this matter is too big. It needs to be slapped down hard.

(…)

I would like to hear from Rick Santorum what his philosophy of government is. I don’t disagree that the executive has a hortatory function, although I would define the scope of it pretty narrowly. The problem with wanting to engage the people from the Oval Office on the topic of contraception is that there is so much water under the bridge now: the mode in which government approaches social issues has been established as overweening “big-governmentism,” on the model exemplified by FDR, Lyndon Johnson’s social legislation, decades of judicial activism, and the geometrically expanding activism of the executive agencies created by both parties since 1952.

Again, I encourage you to read the whole thing. It is excellent commentary, providing much ‘food for thought’.

Ultimately, I agree with Dyer…Santorum could earn points from voters of all backgrounds if he gave a speech that made clear his understandings of how powerful government should and/or shouldn’t be, and how deeply government has authority (or should have authority) to reach into our private lives.

This blog has written, quite recently, on the issue of government regulated/mandated behavioral norms for our society…The idea that government knows best, and should have the power to enforce, a given set of behavioral norms our society should follow. From what we eat, to the products we buy — from relationships between two consenting adults, to being forced to discuss “end of life” decisions with our doctor,…Government continues to intrude into our lives, at a frightening pace. Read the pieces found here and here for our past commentary on this issue.

What folks need to remember is: Members of BOTH sides of party politics are in favor of governmental powers such as these. Obama’s most recent foray into this area is the still-festering issue of Obamacare forcing Christian businesses and organizations to offer health insurance which must include options for birth control and abortion…Which (obviously) goes against the tenants of Christianity and many other faiths.

But, to show you a good example of (sadly) what the other side…The conservative side…Has in mind when it comes to eventually regulating/mandating behavioral norms within our society, I direct you to this most excellent piece by Ace over at his blog. When it comes to the idea that government should be allowed to enforce such measures — there is NO LIGHT, NO CONTRAST between Obama and Santorum:

February 13, 2012
Would-Be President Rick Santorum: It’s Critically Important We “Talk About” The Great Moral Hazards of Contraception and Non-Procreative Sex

Perfect.

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Glad we’ve gotten all the Big Things squared away so we can now focus laser-like on the sin and moral emptiness of people having sex while avoiding pregnancy.

And if you say “gee he’s just talking about this stuff:” Um, if a plumber starts talking about the bad rap iron pipes have gotten over the years, and how they’re really pretty safe, I assume he’s open to the idea of using iron pipes in my house.

He is a plumber, speaking about what he considers to be his area of expertise.

So when a presidential candidate starts talking about the importance of the president taking the lead on the evils of birth control, yes, I assume he believes this to be within the proper functions of the executive.

And I do not think he wants to limit it to “just talking.” You know how people typically introduce ideas that are currently unpopular and outside the Overton Window? They first suggest “talking about” them. As we saw with Entitlement Reform.

Plus, he himself says these are important “public policy issues.”

Not personal morality issues. Public policy issues. In other words, the public, voting, or expressing its will through its chosen legislators, gets a say on these “issues.”

Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.

No, they’re not. They are not public issues — my neighbor should not have a vote on my contraception choices — and they are not policy questions, either. I do not want the government establishing a “policy” on birth control, either way.

No thank you.

I realize that you think you’ve gotten it All Figured Out and want to just help me See the Way, but I don’t like it when lefties show such perfect arrogance, and I’m not loving those on the right who have no modesty about the agenda they would inflict on the public by coercive law, either.

(There are a couple of Santorum videos in Ace’s piece, after this commentary. Click the link above to access those.)

Once again folks…If we go down this road, we are giving to government an entirely new set of powers to use against the citizenry, “for our own good”. And while you may find yourself agreeing with Santorum, or any other conservative candidate or politician who would use governmental powers in this way, you must ask yourself this: Should this be a function of federal government, and if so, upon what basis do you make your claim? Where in the Constitution or other founding documents is government granted such power? Should this be a “proper function of the executive” (as Ace puts it)? Do you want government to engage in this activity, on your dime? Do you want this power to be in the hands of the opposition when they are elected into a majority? Would you trust them with that power? Is government the best authority when it comes to mandating behavioral norms for our society? (And please keep in mind, I’m not speaking of any behavior which could currently be prosecuted under existing laws. Allowing folks to rob banks – for example – is NOT what I’m referring to when I imply that government shouldn’t regulate societal behaviors.)

Remember…You may agree with a certain set of behavioral norms because they pluck at your ‘heart strings’ and resonate with your own set of beliefs by which you live your life, but…Don’t be fooled. This issue is used, time and time again, in election after election. It is a “political football” tossed around by both sides, to their advantage, to hold or attain power.

As for such issues being raised at this time, during the GOP primary season, and during a campaign year…Again, don’t be fooled. Obama’s team clearly planned the release of this news about Obamacare’s mandates on contraception & faith-based businesses, in order to influence the GOP races. He (Obama) is once again tossing around this “political football”, and folks are buying into the distraction. We’re talking about granting government more power over our lives, when we should be talking about the excessive powers which already hamper our daily living. We’re deep in debt and getting deeper by the minute. Gas prices are at an all-time high, and projected to go even higher as the warmer months come around. I could go on and on…

Why in the hell are we allowing ourselves to be distracted with this BS?

Remember the days of Obama’s “Attack Watch”? If any citizen, any where, any time, dared to step out of line and speak ‘falsehoods’ about Obama or his policies, “Attack Watch” was there, to ‘set the record straight’,…And undoubtedly put the foul-mouthed misinformed miscreant on a ‘domestic watch list’. (And if you think that kind of thing doesn’t happen, you’re fooling yourself). Remember, in the eyes of this administration, “truth” is only “truth” if it comes from an official government spokesperson or political surrogate. Anything else is misinformation. And undoubtedly racist…Somehow.

Well, fast-forward to today…We have a new breed of “Brown Shirt”…And their official A.K.A is the “Truth Team”.

Yeah…Lip stick on a pig…

(Link courtesy of HotAir): Obama’s Attack Watch returns as … “Truth Team”
(snip)

posted at 11:35 am on February 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Allahpundit officially wins the Attack Watch Dead Pool, BuzzFeed informs us today, as the Obama re-election campaign rolls out yet another Snitch Central apparatus for its 2012 efforts. Last September, AP predicted that the much-derided Attack Watch would remain in place because, as Mary Katherine Ham tweeted at the time, “#AttackWatch is metaphor for Obama 08 vs. 12. Same product, subtract style, sprinkle desperation.” You can still smell the desperation in the new Truth Team effort, which incorporates Attack Watch as one of its components:

President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign announced early Monday that it is launching a new site to enable supporters to promote Obama’s successes and “hold Republicans accountable.”

The new site incorporates the AttackWatch brand, which was met by ridicule from the GOP when it was announced last year, and encourages Obama supporters to “report” attacks from Republicans.

“The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama’s record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives,” said Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter in a release.

The campaign is also setting up “truth teams” in swing states this week, receiving help from allied unions.

What a shock! I’m sure those “allied unions” include the SEIU, AFSCME, and the NEA, the three unions that have the most to lose if Republicans make good on their pledges to shrink the actual size and cost of government. Given their level of success (and honesty) in fighting Scott Walker in Wisconsin, at least so far, I’m not sure that this will do the Obama campaign much good anyway.

Let’s reflect once more on the observations of Victor Davis Hanson last September when Obama and his campaign rolled out Attack Watch to recall just how offensive and ridiculous this effort is:

Yet go onto the new (“Paid for by Obama for America”) AttackWatch.com website. It reads and looks like some sort of Stasi file (“file” is their vocabulary, not mine). It asks readers to inform them of criticism of Obama. The format is, I guess by intent, supposed to resemble a government intelligence dossier (“Attack files”), with its blaring black and red headers: “Attack” /”Attackers” (followed by names and pictures of the supposed bad guys)/”Attack Type” /(“public statements”) followed by check off boxes like “Have your seen or heard this attack?” “Yes/No”. It reminds me of of living in 1973 dictatorial Greece, when we all kept silent about the Colonels upon entering the apartment building, lest the government-paid concierge write something down not nice in her black book.

Apparently no one in the administration learned from the spooky tone of the now defunct Journolist. That obtuseness begs the question, what is it with these extra-journalistic efforts to intimidate critics, as if the 2012 campaign will be based around deterrence: e.g., as if: “Beware: if you criticize Barack Obama, your name and picture will appear on our “Attack File”. We are watching you, so you watch out!”

Read the rest at the HotAir link above…

Call it what you like, but understand one thing: American citizens will never be intimidated, via the press, a union, a dark-alley rough-up, a government thug or anything else. If we don’t like our President, we can say it. If we don’t like his policies, we can say it. And we can carry our distrust and disagreement to the voting booth, discharging our civic duties, as entrusted by the Founders.

Sadly, this administration seems hell bent,…Almost on a daily basis…To take away our Freedoms and Liberties, one by one, inch by inch. And for those of us who’ve been paying attention, it’s not surprising. But, what should alarm folks is the speed at which it’s happening. This is all part of the plan. Get people’s head’s spinning in 1000 different directions, all at once, day after day, so they can’t focus on any of it…And all the while, every step of the way, we lose more and more control over our own lives.

Do NOT get distracted. Stay focused. Stay alert. Stay confident, and never, never, never, never give up. Plan for the worst…Hope & pray for the best.

…But place your bets on the worst.
At least for the time being…

Only an Alinsky-ite, such as Obama, would mandate contraception at “no cost” to those who CHOOSE…Yes, I said CHOOSE…To use it:

(From Ed over at HotAir)
(snips)

Obama “accommodation”: Insurers must cover contraception at no cost to … anyone?
posted at 1:20 pm on February 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Today, the Obama administration hastily called a press conference to announce a change to its HHS mandate for employers to cover contraception at no cost, including religious organizations whose doctrines oppose contraception and abortifacients. Instead of religious organizations footing the bill directly, the revised “accommodation” now says that insurers must cover the costs, which changes … nothing:

The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.

Let’s just take this one step at a time. Where do insurers get money to pay claims? They collect premiums and co-pays from the insured group or risk pool. No matter what the Obama administration wants to say now, the money that will cover those contraception costs will come from the religious organizations that must now by law buy that insurance and pay those premiums. Their religious doctrines have long-standing prohibitions against participating in contraception and abortion, and nothing in this “accommodation” changes the fact that the government is now forcing them to both fund and facilitate access to products and services that offend their practice of religion.

Basically, the Obama administration told religious organizations to stop complaining and get in line.

I’m not sure if Obama and his administration thugs REALLY believe they can just wave their magic wand (which, for him, probably looks something similar to a Kool menthol) and just make this stuff law, ‘because he says so’…Or what. But, it’s for certain that he’s going that extra mile to piss off a good share of the Christian community in this country.

And if I’ve said it once, I’ve said it 1,000 times — When citizens (in this example, the left) believe the government should have the power to mandate behavioral societal norms (in this case, contraception for all females) in any way it sees fit…THIS IS WHAT CAN HAPPEN!! This is why I keep harping about “social conservatives” who want the government to dictate their favorite set of behavioral societal norms. If you go down that road, THIS is what can happen when the opposing ideology assumes control of that power!! Geez people…THINK!!!! Government (at all levels) has (as it should) the power to deal with criminal behavior. That’s NOT what I’m referring to here. I’m talking about a citizen’s right to live their lives as they see fit, within the existing legal parameters for our society, without government telling them they have to look a certain way, eat certain food, buy certain products and services,…The list goes on and on.

Individual & Religious Liberty should not and MUST NOT be infringed upon by government!! If we allow the government to play the role of “social behavioral police”, we allow government to assume the role once held by family, by church, by clergy, by conscience, and by God Himself.

If people can’t be responsible enough to preserve, protect and defend their Individual and Religious Liberty…Government WILL take it from them. And, all the while, just like every other bit of Freedom and Liberty it steals from us, Government will pat us on the head and tell us “it’s for your own good”.