Wednesday, August 27, 2014

You deserve a break today

You may have heard that Burger King is planning to merge with Tim Horton’s, a donut company that is the Canadian equivalent of Dunkin Donuts here in America. The merger would effectively relocate Burger King’s headquarters to Canada. Most of what we hear about Canada is runaway socialism. So, why would any corporation want to move to Canada. Although their income taxes — combined national and provincial — may be high, their corporate tax rate is considerably less than that of the United States. When all corporate taxes are considered it’s about half of the United States.

In fact, the U.S. has the highest corporate rate of any developed economy in the world. If Burger King relocates, just the corporate tax itself, not to mention other taxes related to running a corporation, would drop from 35% in the U.S. to about
That creepy Burger King mascot
 26.5% in Canada. Ireland’s corporate tax rate is 12.5% and for companies doing business in Europe it has become the country of choice.

The Obama administration calls companies like Burger King “corporate deserters.” Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is calling for a “new sense of economic patriotism.” They want congress to pass laws preventing American companies from relocating outside the country, a sort of corporate Berlin wall. Their approach demonstrates their gross misunderstanding of, or total disregard for, capitalism as we know it.

In the world of business you try to remain competitive by aligning your prices with the competition. Or, if you’re more expensive you make the case for why. With all of the emerging markets in the world it doesn’t make sense to have the highest corporate tax rate. There are a lot of people who have been arguing for a long time that it needs to be lowered.

I’ll go them one better. The corporate tax in America needs to be eliminated. That may be shocking to some of you who’ve become accustomed to believing that corporations should pay their “fair share,” but corporations don’t pay taxes. You do, as a consumer of their product.

Taxes are just another expense to a corporation. There’s not some rich fat-cat who’s getting hosed by the corporate tax. Some fear that’s the guy the corporation will give a raise to if the corporate tax rate is lowered. Chances are he’s already in the 39.6 tax bracket. That means if all the money the company saves went to him we’d be getting more in taxes than we do when the corporation pays it.

But, as I’ve stated, the corporation doesn’t pay it. They pass it along. Let’s say you own a fast food restaurant. There’s the cost of labor, electricity, advertising, uniforms, food product, etc. Taxes are simply factored in as another expense like those when the owners are deciding what to charge for that burger. Can you imagine how much less that burger would be if there were no corporate tax?

And don’t think they’d keep the prices high and pocket the money. Their competition surely wouldn’t and competition is what drives prices lower. Also imagine how many corporations around the world would be flocking to the United States if we eliminated the corporate tax. Imagine how many jobs that would create. Imagine the new taxes from income tax that would far surpass any money we’re getting from the corporate tax. Imagine how much better off we’d all be if we stopped with this class warfare and hating on corporations and realized that it’s the corporations that create the jobs and the tax revenue for the country.

Remember, corporations don’t pay taxes, consumers do. It’s time to give consumers a break.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Real hope and change for Ferguson and the country

The situation in Ferguson, Mo. is so sad and so unnecessary and so predictable. A black teen is killed by a white police officer and too many people won’t wait for an investigation. They have to act now. And act they did.

They burned and looted their own neighborhood. They punished people who had nothing to do with either Michael Brown or the officer who shot him. And then people say, “I don’t condone the looting but you have to understand their anger.” By saying that “you have to understand their anger” you’re condoning the looting. The killing of a black teen and the looting of convenient stores and shoe stores have absolutely no connection. The only link is that some thug opportunists took advantage of the situation.

In fact, we now know that rent-a-mob types from Oakland and who knows where else flocked to Ferguson to take advantage of the ugly atmosphere. Should we be at all surprised? This is the conduct that results from an entitlement
mentality. Black-on-black crime happens many times a day yet you never see Al Sharpton showing up to do something about it.

The reason so many black people in Ferguson and other American cities are angry is because, whether they realize it or not, their lives have been destroyed by liberalism. The American left thought it would help black folks by righting the wrongs of the past with free stuff from the government. Instead of freeing black people from the chains of racism it merely changed the lock to government dependence.

This is LBJ’s Great Society. It doesn’t look so great today, does it? And it’s all been by design.

Government housing projects are nothing more than petri dishes for crime. They certainly don’t make lives better. They destroy them. Most of us can’t imagine raising our kids in those conditions but for too many it’s a cyclical way of life that dates back 50 years.

Ask any cop in any major city where the crime is and he or she will tell you. Around the housing projects. So, what’s the solution? Destroy the housing projects. Yeah, I know. It’s as simple as that. It really is.

Of course, that’s not to say that you dump all the residents out on the street. First of all, you need to separate the needy from the greedy. Make sure we’re only giving shelter to those who can’t physically or mentally take care of themselves. The others need to go find employment and start putting their lives back together.

For those who truly need government assistance, whether it be a single mom or an elderly grandfather, we give them a voucher for a set amount. They take that voucher to any apartment complex and they get an apartment. We have to make sure we limit the number of units in any apartment complex to ten percent or we’re just going to relocate the housing project.

We give welfare recipients more flexibility, better living conditions, and more responsibility. If they’re running meth out of the apartment they lose their voucher. If they’re trashing the apartment and its surroundings they’re evicted. We have to start demanding that the government-dependent start acting like the rest of us or face the consequences like the rest of us.

That’s how you build productive citizens. That’s how you create hope. That’s how you save another generation from the gangs and the pimps and the pushers. That’s how you prevent people from burning down neighborhoods because they’re angry. That’s how you restore dignity. That’s how you solve problems.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

California's proposed 'yes means yes' law redefines rape

California, the state that pioneered co-ed dorm rooms, is now grappling with another on-campus problem. The state is now looking at legislation to define consensual sex among college students. Don’t tell me they’re surprised that more people are having sex now that they’re living in the same room.

Typical California, this new law would require universities that receive public funds to set standards for when yes actually means yes. As opposed to, I guess, when yes means no. Or, when no means yes. They’re calling this an “affirmative consent standard” and it’s defined as “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by both parties engaged in the sexual activity. By the way, silence or lack of resistance doesn’t constitute consent.

So, let me get this straight. They’re now expecting young adults whose hormones are crawling the wall to come to some
kind of verbal agreement on matters of whoopie? It’s not going to happen, and even if it does it’s still a matter of he said-she said.

Look, we all know what rape is. We all know what date rape is. This opens up a whole new world of litigation. Let’s say a girl at a frat party has a little too much to drink and goes for some guy she wouldn’t ordinarily go for. As the way things go, there was not much conversation between the two when she ended up in bed with him. The morning after she has regrets. Bingo. He didn’t follow the affirmative consent standard. He didn’t get her verbal permission. It’s not her fault. It’s his! He’s now under arrest.

Since the verbiage of the law makes it clear that it’s mutual consent, the ladies could find themselves in the very same situation when a guy wakes up sober with regrets.

No surprise here but this ‘yes means yes’ legislation is based on a White House task force’s recommendations. They claim that 1 in 5 female college students is a victim of sexual assault, which I find impossible to believe. When uber-libs are assigned to a task force there’s no telling what constitutes sexual assault in their minds. In fact, there was a feminist book from the ‘80s that argued that all heterosexual sex was rape because women were objectified in this “male supremacist society” of ours.

A writer for a couple of years ago made a case that the classic song Baby, It’s Cold Outside is a date rape anthem. No, I’m not kidding. Of course, this same writer has written articles saying Hall & Oates and the Eagles are absolutely awful and The Beatles’ I Want to Hold Your Hand was overrated. Still, this is the mantra with many on the left.

What it does is actually diminish the horrors of real rape. If Dean Martin singing about wanting a girl to stay is rape then it cheapens the very meaning of the word. But it’s all about the victim mentality. Women who are forcibly raped are victims in the truest sense of the word. Women who see every man as a predator are not. They’re just nuts. That’s what’s driving this California law.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Ebola - What's the real story?

I’m a bit perplexed. We’re told that Ebola can’t be contracted through casual contact yet the two missionaries in Africa who were flown back to the U.S. were wearing full hazmat suits when they contracted it and still got it. All of the health workers who assisted in their return to Atlanta were wearing hazmat suits.

We’re told you must come into contact with bodily fluids. It’s made to sound a lot like AIDS. No one treats AIDS victims in hazmat suits. What I’m learning is, yes, it’s transmitted through bodily fluids but, unlike AIDS, those bodily fluids include saliva and sweat. A simple handshake with someone infected with Ebola could spread the disease. That’s the very definition of casual contact!

The question now becomes why is the government not leveling with the American people? The very same CDC that tells
us Ebola is difficult to transmit is the same CDC that freaks out about the flu almost every year, urging everyone to take precautions and get a flu shot. Now one of the deadliest diseases on earth is loose and they tell us you can’t get it through casual contact. That, quite frankly, is a lie.

I was reading a piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer and they quoted a doctor as saying, “It is a disease that is very serious and can be fatal, but it’s very difficult to transmit.” Difficult to transmit? Newsweek and other outlets have reported how the two missionaries got it even though they were wearing hazmat suits. It doesn’t sound too difficult to transmit to me. Later in that same Inquirer article they stated that Ebola could be spread “through sweat, breast milk, saliva.” None of this adds up.

So, why so secretive about the fact that Ebola is extremely deadly and so easily transmitted? I think there are two big reasons. First, they don’t want to cause a panic. That seems to be the concern in every disaster movie like this. Well, what’s the worst that can happen if people panic? They take extreme precautions not to get the disease which is exactly what the health officials should hope for.

The second reason I think the government is lying to us about Ebola is because of political correctness. Let’s face facts. This is a disease that’s now pretty much isolated to Africa. I believe government officials think if Americans knew how easy it was to get Ebola they would take it out on all black folks. I know that sounds silly but that’s how bureaucratic minds work.

Certainly I wouldn’t be more cautious around black people but I would avoid African people or anyone who had recently been to Africa. In fact, I don’t understand why we haven’t instituted some kind of waiting period or quarantine for people coming from these infected countries. Again, I fear political correctness is the reason.

Speaking of which, I was almost amused if it weren’t so serious. News reports said all eyes were on the airports to make sure people with symptoms of Ebola weren’t getting off planes from Africa. First of all, isn’t this the very profiling the left tells us is racist? And how about all of the folks streaming across our unguarded border? There’s a new report out from Customs and Border Protection that reveals 71 individuals from Ebola-infected countries have been caught sneaking across our border. That’s how many have been caught. No telling how many have actually made it.

Our porous border is a ticking time bomb. The government watches the front door while the back door is left wide open. 

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.