The Mark Levin Show
 
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receive your free newsletter
  • Receive updates from your favorite WHK news station.
  • Receive the latest Political Cartoons.
  • Receive the latest News & Opinion.
  • Receive the latest news on Finance.
 
  • Sunday, March 14, 2010
    Tax simplification is a major issue in many quarters of the conservative movement. Taxes are, and should be, regarded as a necessary evil. And now, in tax season, they're at the forefront of everyone's minds. Filling out the necessary IRS forms can be an incredibly painful process. Wouldn't it be nice if everything could fit on one nice, easy, simple and clean form?

    Well, yes. But the thing about tax simplification is that it would allow for governments to collect a higher share of taxes from the populace. Ryan Sager has a must-read op-ed describing this conflict.

    Dating back to John Stuart Mill’s 1848 Principles of Political Economy, there has been an understanding that a less visible tax system may have a tendency to fuel the growth of government. The less the goose feels the plucking, after all, the more feathers the pluckers can collect.

    Government officials know this quite well. In 1942, discussing proposed changes to how the federal government collected taxes at a Senate hearing, treasury official Randolph Paul wondered aloud, regarding income tax withholding, whether “if we cut down the squawking under this method we could raise the individual tax rates?” Withholding was instituted, the squawking was cut down, and taxes indeed have risen as a share of GDP.

    Sager goes on to examine the EZ-Pass system and California's ReturnReady program while warning about the possible dangers of tax simplification. While tax simplification is and should be a major issue within the conservative movement, those advocating for it should be prepared for the ability of governments to collect higher revenues, possibly fueling bigger government.

  • Saturday, March 13, 2010
    David Frum, in a series of blog posts regarding Mitt Romney's No Apology, describes and compares Romney's health care reforms in Massachusetts to the Obamacare plan making its way (forcing its way?) through Congress.

    The public option has now vanished from the Obama plan. Which means that the federal plan bears a closer family resemblance than ever to Romney’s idea: regulated health insurance exchanges, mandates to buy insurance for those who can afford it, subsidies for those who cannot. Romney’s preference would be to omit the mandate for those who “can demonstrate their ability to pay their own health-care bills.” (176) That would be precious few of us. And he wants to allow states ample leeway to innovate without hindrance by the federal government.

    Romney frames the distinction between his preferences and President Obama’s as “free enterprise and consumer-driven markets or government management and regulation.” (193)

    It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that these two technocrats have more in common with each other on this issue than either does with his party’s more fervent supporters.

    David shares far too much admiration for this so-called "technocrat" approach to health care reform than I, but he's right: Obamacare does bear a striking resemblance to Romneycare.

    Admiration for Romneycare is a rare thing, however. While the Massachusetts plan has focused on expanded coverage, both health costs and insurance premiums have risen, outpacing the national average.

    Obamacare and Romneycare do share key philosophical similarities. This is something that requires skepticism, not admiration.


  • Saturday, March 13, 2010
    Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is reportedly being hospitalized in South Korea after experiencing abdominal pains.  According to a spokesperson, Kissinger's condition has quickly improved and he is expected to leave the hospital Sunday. 

    Mr. Kissinger arrived in Seoul on Wednesday.  On Thursday, he delivered a speech at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a private think tank and on Friday, he met with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.  He was reportedly scheduled to leave Seoul on Saturday.

  • Saturday, March 13, 2010
    Rep. Patrick Kennedy motivational speaker:





  • Friday, March 12, 2010
    Regardless of her feelings of disconnect and the subsequent surgical, psychological, and pharmaceutical procedures of transformation, her DNA will forever scream, female.


  • Friday, March 12, 2010

     
    Not that hungry for change

    Washington has misread the public. People want problem-solving, not political whiplash.

    By Michael Medved

    According to the all-but-unchallenged conventional wisdom, the American people feel angry at the status quo and demand dramatic change.

    Why, then, do recent polls show public sentiment tilting toward the GOP — the very party that's stubbornly resisting change? And why should so many voters express increasing distrust, and even resentment, of the ruling Democrats who've tried to deliver just the sort of sweeping transformations they thought the people craved? Hope and change, it seems, morphed quickly into fear and retrenchment.

    This anomalous shift has less to do with the fickleness of public attitudes, or some sudden and unprecedented ideological awakening, than it does with chronic misinterpretation of popular dissatisfaction during periods of discomfort and depression. The fact that citizens feel worried about the future of the nation doesn't mean they've lost confidence in themselves. By 3 to 1, Americans believe that the nation is headed in the wrong direction, but similarly big majorities express satisfaction with their personal situations and optimism over their prospects.

    Private lives not that bad

    The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, which has surveyed 1,000 adults almost every day for more than two years, shows that even in the midst of high unemployment and bitter political turmoil, people are pleased with their private progress. From 2008 through 2009, participants' "life evaluations" of their current situation and future expectations rose by more than 5 percentage points. Without exception, every racial group, income level and age cohort showed brightening attitudes, with particularly big improvements among blacks, young adults (18-29) and people of modest means ($24,000 to $48,000 in annual income).

    In other words, the endlessly discussed desire for "change" always applied to Washington, or Wall Street, or other far-away forces, but rarely to the daily lives and intimate arrangements of ordinary Americans. We seek change for institutions or for others, but not necessarily for ourselves. We remain overwhelmingly pleased with our jobs, families and neighborhoods, and we expect the best for our children. Big majorities — more than 60% — predict that today's young people will enjoy even better lives than their parents.

    This contradiction in public attitudes — with private satisfaction persistently co-existing with grim assumptions about the nation at large — produced the core miscalculation by the White House. President Obama might have pleased the public by transforming some of the big-picture problems so frequently decried in the news media, such as the bitter polarization in Washington, or America's tarnished image in the international community. But he has made little visible progress in altering these distant realities while frightening much of the public about potential change of a far more intimate sort: involving the health care arrangements or tax-and-debt burdens on every American.

    The biggest obstacle to public acceptance of the Democrats' plans to uproot and restructure the health care system involved the fact that most people felt pleased with their own medical care and insurance plans. As many as 85% of insured Americans say they like and value their current policies. As long as "ObamaCare" amounted to altering reality for someone else — providing for the uninsured, for instance — it drew strong support. When, however, the public came to suspect that the promised reform would change their own insurance situation, likely raising costs and limiting available treatment, opinion turned decisively against the plan.

    Not a green light for the GOP

    Republicans may be the immediate beneficiaries of the Democrats' clumsy misinterpretation of the supposed mandate for change, but they run a very real risk of making similar mistakes. Polls show disillusionment and distrust regarding the Obama agenda, but that hardly signals an impassioned appetite for a conservative counterrevolution. If the GOP pledges massive, wrenching, systemic change — cutting back, for instance, on cherished, widely popular government programs on which millions of Americans depend — it will meet the same resistance and skepticism that confronts Obama and his liberal colleagues.

    In other words, the people would welcome a concerted effort to "clean up the mess in Washington," but they don't want Washington cleaning up the mess in their private lives because they don't consider their personal status a mess.

    Yes, the Democrats miscalculated by underestimating the deeply conservative nature of the American people, but the Republicans may yet miscalculate themselves by interpreting that conservatism as ideological rather than temperamental.

    The public wants pragmatic, commonsense, problem-solving leadership more than purist dogmatism of the right or the left. Voters don't yearn for stirring 10-point programs, or radical readjustments of governmental institutions, or definitive demonization and defeat of opponents.

    We're conservative in a deeper sense —liking the lives we've built for ourselves and wanting to conserve them from unwelcome interference by overreaching change agents or ideologues. The party that connects with these wholesome, optimistic, emphatically practical instincts most effectively (and respectfully) will not only make big gains in November, but also may soon begin to build the durable governing majority that has been missing in our politics for nearly 30 years.

    Syndicated talk radio host Michael Medved is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors and author of The 5 Big Lies About American Business.

    (Change candidate: Then-Sen. Barack Obama campaigning for president in 2008./Alex Wong, Getty Images.)


  • Friday, March 12, 2010
    That's the directive from Rush Limbaugh, who is making a valiant stand against race identification on the Census.

    Can't wait to see if this goes anywhere....

  • Friday, March 12, 2010
    Dee Dee Myers warns President Obama that he is losing his connection with "the people" -- and points out, rightly, that without it, it's difficult to enjoy their support and trust.   (As I argued last night, perhaps the most damaging toll the entire health debate has taken on the President is the diminution in popular trust that now confronts him.)

    Myers' prescription is for Obama to become more like Bill Clinton -- warm, needy of the public embrace, empathetic, engaged, interested.  Sounds good.

    But the problem is that's not who the President is.  The Democrats are now finding that the "cool" temperament -- lauded in the campaign as evidence of his god-like superiority -- is a knife that cuts both ways.  But telling the President to solve his problems by changing his personality is, well, like having advised Bill Clinton to solve his problems by keeping himself to himself when it comes to the ladies, and exercising discipline in all facets of his life.  In theory, the advice is absolutely correct, but in practice, it's impossible for the particular individual.

    Certainly, Bill Clinton has a real feel for the "common touch" in large part because that's just who he is.  But, in addition, he actually dealt with real people -- retail politics -- in his numerous campaigns for Arkansas governor (and had the chastening experience of losing, early in his career, when he lost touch with his constituents and went too far left).

    In contrast, Obama has never had to seek election on anything but the friendliest political terrain.  Either he was running in liberal enclaves -- or in a year when the gravitational pull of events went as strongly in the Democrats' direction as one could possibly imagine. 

    He hasn't had to develop empathy with normal, moderate/independent/conservative voters, ever in his career.  He's been raised, from at least law school on, to believe that he is bright, beautiful and an asset to the world.  That's how he sees himself. 

    And the rest of us are paying the price.

 
 
WHK  | 4 Summit Park Drive | Suite 150 | Independence, Ohio 44131  | (216) 901-0921  | youropinioncounts@whkradio.com