San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, December 7, 2012

Are You Undertaxed?

As career politicians scramble to justify their desire to raise taxes they are producing a stream of propaganda designed to convince us that we are actually under taxed. John Schoen of NBC news has bought into the lies and written an article about how the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of America are desperately under taxed. He writes, "The problem with the budget is that Americans don't pay enough taxes.  The case isn't hard to make.  The U.S. federal tax burden, relative to gross domestic product, is lower than its been in half a century.  Americans pay lower taxes in relation to the size of their economy than all but a handful of developed countries, including Chile and Mexico....As a percentage of their total income, though, Americans are paying less than they have in more than half a century.  Since 1960, the government's total take has been remarkably steady at about 18.3 percent of gross domestic product, give or take a percentage point."  Naturally, I had to check and see if Mr. Schoen's facts square with reality.  Here is what I found.
Mr. Schoen is correct that the amount paid by all citizens and corporations in the SDA in the past year is somewhat lower than the average amount paid for the previous sixty two years.  Since 1950 the average total federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product has been 17.6%. Over the past year total federal tax receipts have made up 15.8% of gross domestic product.  That means this past year the total federal tax receipts have been about 10% less than the sixty two year average.  In that sense we are "under taxed".  However, there is a question that Mr. Schoen fails to ask.  Who determined that 18% of revenues is the "proper" tax percentage?  If there is some moral principle that dictates that the federal government has a moral right to 18% of the GDP of the country's citizens, then we are clearly under taxed.  But if there is no moral principle that states the federal government has a right to 18% of the GDP of its citizens, then it necessarily follows that the term "under taxed" is meaningless.
I also did some checking into the assertion that SDA citizens pay less in taxes than citizens in other developed countries around the world.  To conduct this survey I wrote down twenty four developed countries that I selected at random.  I selected countries from every continent except Africa. In other words, this is not an exhaustive survey; although it should be generally representative of conditions around the developed world.   I then gathered data on the total taxes paid by citizens in those countries as a percentage of their GDP as well as GDP growth rates for each country.  Here is what I found.
The most heavily taxed countries on my list were Denmark, France, Austria, Germany and Italy (and we wonder why Europe is in trouble?).  The average rate of total taxation in those five countries came to 44% of GDP.  The average rate of GDP growth in the past year for those five countries was +2.0%.  On the other hand, the least heavily taxed countries on my list were China, Ecuador, Egypt, Hong Kong and Peru.  The average rate of total taxation in those five countries came to 15% of GDP.  The average rate of GDP growth in the past year for those five countries was +5.7%.  In other words, the rate of economic growth in the least taxed countries was 185% higher than the rate of economic growth in the highest taxed countries.  For comparison purposes, the SDA has a total tax rate of 27% of GDP and our most recent annual rate of economic growth was 2.5%.  That puts the SDA almost exactly in the middle in terms of total taxes paid and somewhat below the middle in terms of economic growth.  So Mr. Schoen is correct when he says we are presently paying somewhat less in taxes than we have in the past but he is wrong when he asserts that we pay less in taxes than most other developed countries in the world.
I reworked the data I was examining with the goal of determining the average tax rate for the fastest growing countries in the world.  The five fastest growing countries in my survey were China, Argentina, India, Peru and Hong Kong.  The average rate of economic growth in these five countries was +7.7%.  I was not surprised to discover that the average rate of total taxation for these five countries is 20% of GDP.  There is an unquestionable direct correlation between the rate of taxation and the rate of economic growth.  As investment guru Ken Fisher likes to say, "when you tax something you get less of it."  When governments tax wealth and income, they get less wealth and income.  The way to get out of a fiscal mess is not to increase taxes, it is to lower taxes and encourage economic growth.  That last sentence, of course, is the flash point of the debate.  Most career politicians disagree with what I wrote.  They believe some combination of tax increases (which will most certainly happen) and budget cuts (which most certainly will not happen...see yesterday's post) are the solution to the problem.  They believe this because they are notoriously short-sighted in their time horizons.  Allow me to point out some facts.
Let's assume that the GDP of two countries is $1000.  In one case a country will have a total tax rate of 44% while also experiencing a 2.0% annual rate of growth.  This is consistent with the data I listed above for the heavily taxed nations.  The second country will have a total tax rate of 20% while experiencing a 7.7% rate of annual growth.  This is also consistent with the data I listed above for the lowest taxed countries.  Now, when a politician looks at these numbers he argues that taxes need to be increased on those who are dangerously under taxed.  He points out that 20% of $1000 is only $200 in annual revenue.  The higher taxed country is generating $440 in annual revenue for the state.  What the politician ignores is a long term perspective on the impact of economic growth upon tax revenues. 
If both countries keep their tax and growth rates intact, in ten years things will look a bit different.  The high taxed country would have grown to have a GDP of $1220 whereas the low taxed country would have grown to $2100.  Tax revenues from each country are now $537 from the high taxed country and $420 from the low taxed country.  Add another five years to the equation (fifteen years from the start eternity in political time) and the situation has reversed.  Due to higher rates of economic growth the low taxed country now has a GDP of $3120 and is generating $624 in annual tax revenues.  The high taxed country has a GDP of only $1350 and is producing $594 in annual revenue.  In fifteen years total government revenue has increased by a whopping 212% in the low taxed country and by a miserly 35% in the high taxed country.  You can see that the higher taxed country is now generating less tax revenue for the state than the lower taxed country.  This illustration gives us the solution to our fiscal woes.  Politicians need to reduce taxes and reduce regulatory burdens on business so GDP can grow quickly.  In time the government will get more revenue than it will under present policies.  Will that happen?  Of course not.  Politicians are not in the business of thinking long term.  They only think as far as the next election cycle.
If you do not like numbers and hypothetical illustrations your eyes have probably glazed over by now.  I get that response from a lot of folks when I write this way.  So let me give you another item to consider in regards to the issue about our allegedly being under taxed.  As I wrote at first, nobody that I know of has ever come up with a moral answer to the question about the proper level of government taxation.  In fact, the only answers to that question that I have ever seen are always utilitarian in nature.  Tax analysts do ask the question about the "proper" tax rate but they do it in the exclusive framework of maximizing state revenues in the next year.  They are pure utilitarians in their ethical systems.  They do not care if something is right or wrong.  They only care if it will maximize the revenues for the next budget year.  In this sense they are all basically playing the same game.  Political budget makers are all involved in plucking the golden goose.  They want to extract the maximum number of feathers while incurring the minimum amount of fuss out of the goose.
Allow me to suggest that there is a moral answer to the question of taxation percentages.  My argument is a simple one.  I begin with the belief that the Church is a more important and significant institution in this world than the State.  I do not have space to argue for this belief so I will simply posit it here.  God demands that His followers deliver up 10% of their income to the Church.  It is called the tithe and God states that any of His followers who does not give Him the tithe is guilty of theft (Malachi 3).  If the most important institution in the world is able to operate on 10% of its member's income, then the State should be able to do the same.  I would therefore argue that the moral limitation for state taxation is 10%.  Anything the state takes in excess of 10% constitutes theft on the part of the state against its citizens. Any politician who advocates taxation in excess of 10% is behaving immorally and will be judged for his acts of theft and robbery.
The above paragraph may read like the wild ravings of a lunatic until you consider history.  History tells us that citizens of the SDA never paid more than 10% of their incomes to the taxman until WWII came about.  Check it out for yourself if you do not believe me.  The government did just fine on receipts that were less than 10% of GDP until WWII came along.  It was only the creation of the modern welfare/warfare state that caused government revenues to be dramatically increased.  It costs a lot of money to play Robin Hood.  It costs a lot of money to be the world's policeman.  It costs even more to pay for every citizen's health care and retirement income.  Welcome to the Socialist Democracy of America, where everyone has his hand in his neighbor's pocket. 


Thursday, December 6, 2012

Obama Pays Off Christie For His Endorsement

I was reading my Denver Post this morning when I came across a short article in the national news section of the paper.  The headline said, "Obama seeks $50 billion more in hurricane aid".  Get the joke?
Obama has been haranguing congressional Republicans for their allegedly stubborn refusal to enact legislation that would significantly raise taxes on those politically defenseless people who, due to their higher productivity,  have greater than $250k in adjusted gross income.  He has been indefatigable in his crusade against the looming fiscal cliff.  Like all career politicians he is loath to actually reduce government spending so the only way he can conceive of to get out of a budget mess is by increasing taxes.  The actual budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 come to $109 billion in 2013.  So here we are, on the edge of the fiscal cliff, desperately in need of finding $109 billion in budgetary fat to cut, incessantly debating the relative merits of raising taxes on "the rich", and Obama has the unmitigated gall to go down to Congress and ask for new, un-budgeted government handouts in the amount of $50 billion!  His hypocrisy is astounding.
As written in the article, "Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the administration is working on a request for a supplemental spending bill to provide the aid and expects to send it to Congress this week."  Secretary Donovan is quoted as saying, "The president isn't going to leave New York, New Jersey or the entire region to fight for itself."  Am I the only one who sees what is going on here?  Why is there no popular outrage against this request?  Why is Fox News not offering round-the-clock negative commentary on this issue?  Why does it seem perfectly normal to the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of America that Congress and Obama would attempt to trim $109 billion dollars from next year's budget while, at the same time, spend $50 billion that it does not have today?  Has everybody gone insane?
If Congress approves the additional funds for New York and New Jersey then an additional $50 billion has just been added to the budget.  That means Congress will have to cut $159 billion from the budget next year.  Or, it means Congress will have to raise taxes enough to generate an additional $50 billion next year just to cover this particular shortfall.  The money that is likely to be taken from the taxpayers of the SDA and given to the big-shot politicians in the states of New York and New Jersey (to be distributed to their politically favored and connected partners, in exchange for a vote of course) does not exist.  There is no money in the budget to give.  In fact, the federal budget is already billions of dollars in the negative.  How can Obama possibly justify giving away $50 billion he does not have under these circumstances?
I think we all know the answer to the last question.  Obama reflects the will of the majority in this country.  The majority of the citizens of the SDA want to do something that will make them feel good about themselves that also allows them to convince themselves that they are morally superior beings.  Giving $50 billion in aid to the state governments of people who experienced hurricane Sandy is a way to bring about this warm-fuzzy condition.  Of course, that same majority has no desire whatsoever to actually part with any of its money.  No, no, that will not do.  The individual members within the majority of the folks who believe government money should be sent to NY and NJ have no intention of actually parting with any of their hard earned cash.  They see themselves as being the "working families" that all politicians constantly pander to.  No, the money must come from the evil "rich" people who live next door.  They are "undertaxed" and don't need all of that money anyway.  Take it from them and give it to NY and NJ.  Indeed, these poor, sinfully deluded souls believe in the myth of Robin Hood. They believe it is a morally proper thing to steal from the rich to give to the poor.  Or, in this case, the not so poor who just happened to be lucky enough to be living in an area where a hurricane came through so their state government can get some federal funds to spend on whatever it wants.
So Obama will preach his tax the rich sermon over and over again.  He will, no doubt, get his wish and taxes will be raised on "the rich".  Meanwhile, he has continued to increase federal spending with no attempt being made to reign in the practice of stealing from one group to give to another.  That is the American way because that is the way the majority wants it to be.  The property of the wealthy minority is never safe.  Anytime some politician wants to rally the troops of envy filled citizens against the wealth and income of the most prosperous minority, we know how things will turn out.  This time will be no different.
The folks who live in the areas where hurricane Sandy struck have no moral claim on the money of the taxpayers of the SDA.  Read my posting from 11-1-12 for the argument against taking my money and giving it to those people.  This has nothing to do with being hard-hearted and everything to do with being moral.  The Constitution of the United States (an ancient document universally ignored by all modern politicians) clearly states that the rights of the minority to their life, freedom and property must not be infringed.  It does not matter that the majority believes it can steal from the minority with impunity.  It is wrong and it is immoral when the state plays Robin Hood.  There is never any moral justification for the type of action that Obama has just proposed.  Obama should be removed from office for this blatant act of theft.
Stepping back and considering the big picture involved here shows us just how bad things have become.  Politicians are posturing and doing everything they possibly can to look like fiscal conservatives.  They are blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the fiscal mess we find ourselves in.  They are talking tough and trying to garner the adulation and respect of the voting populace by creating an image of themselves as hard-nosed budget makers who will stick to the financial realities of the budget no matter what.  Then, when a simple request for a new, un-budgeted spending item that makes up half of what they are trying to save comes along, they fall all over themselves trying to approve it.  What hypocrisy!  Shout it from the highest hills.  These men and women we have elected are all hypocrites.  Political hypocrisy has reached an all time high....and just in time for the holidays.
Oh, by the way, did I hear someone say, "This is nothing more than political payola to Gov. Christie for his de facto endorsement of Obama in the last election."?  Hummm...interesting theory.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Happily, The End Of The World Approaches

By now almost everyone is aware that the world as we know it is going to come to an end on December 21st.  I, for one, think that is a good idea.  The world as it presently exists is not a very nice place.  I can think of nothing better than blowing it all up and starting over.  Quite honestly, I can't think of anything that presently exists that is worth saving.  The quicker the end comes, the better.  Consider the following:
  • Perhaps the greatest benefit of the end of the world is the eradication of politicians and the governments they create.  I am not alone in this belief.  If the polls are correct, 90% of Americans believe that politicians are lying thieves.  There is a reason why audiences watching a movie in which the destruction of the White House was portrayed (I forget the name of the was a summer blockbuster several years ago) stood up and cheered that destruction. more speeches, no more political wrangling, no more elections, no more scandals, no more promising one thing and delivering another, no more taxes, no more government spending, no political class and no political privilege.  Bring on the end. 
  • The end of the world means that governments will no longer be able to kill their own citizens.  I am not writing about governments that kill the citizens of other countries in what they call "war".  Let's make the preposterous assumption that all wars ever entered into throughout human history were just and all people who were killed in war were justly killed.  Did governments kill anyone else?  The answer to that question is a resounding Yes!  According to The Black Book of Communism, during the 20th century alone governments were responsible for the killing of about 100 million of their own citizens, more than the combined total of all those killed during those just wars fought throughout history. The end of the world will prevent further killing.  How could that be a bad thing?
  • Let's admit it, shall we?  Everybody hates everybody else.  Our lives are generally characterized by the fact that we can't stand our fellow human beings. We murder each other at alarming rates.  We steal from each other regularly.  We slander and defame each other's character as a part of our daily conversation.  We stick our noses into the business of our neighbors with the expressed intention of letting them know they are stupid and we are brilliant.  When our neighbors stick their noses into our business, we hate them.   Over fifty percent of marriages end in divorce.  If a marriage can't survive, what can?  Everyone is a selfish jerk.  Selfish jerks do not get along well, at least not for long.  It is only a matter of time until selfish jerks find a reason to hate each other.  Our lives are a long and tragic litany of broken relationships.  Why should this continue?  The end of the world will end all of this tragedy.
  • Most people believe we are doomed anyway.  Some folks believe global warming is going to kill us all.  Some old folks like me were taught that global cooling is going to freeze all of us.  Some folks believe some combination of air and water pollution is going to kill all of us. Some folks believe that genetically modified foods are going to rise up and slay us.  Some folks believe that pesticides are going to turn us all into raging zombies. Some folks believe some anti-biotic resistant bug is going to pull a bubonic plague on us and wipe out humanity.  Some believe some avian carried virus will destroy us all.   Other folks believe Obama's socialism is going to reduce us all to begging paupers who would be better off dead.  Other folks believe Republican war-mongering is going to bring about a nuclear holocaust that will destroy the world.  Still others believe that global terrorism is going to bring about the end of humanity via slow torture.  I am told that millions of children are unable to sleep at night because they believe that something is going to bring about the end of the world as they know it before they awaken the next day.  Well, bring it on.  End the world.  Then we can all stop fretting.
  • Does it take anything more than a brief drive on any of this nation's roads to realize what the real nature of man is like?  People love to make a big deal out of how people "pull together" during times of natural disaster.  Supposedly that gives us a clear indication of the nature of man.  Hogwash.  The real nature of man is best seen when he is not under unnatural circumstances.  If you want to know what a man is like, catch him when he is behaving normally.  I believe that driving is when most people are at their normal worst.  We all hate everyone else on the road.  I am the only good driver, everyone else is an idiot.  I typically commit one of driving's unforgivable sins....I drive the speed limit. When I take to the roadways it usually takes no more than 10 or 15 minutes before I am receiving the middle finger salute. I just returned from a trip to the store (to buy a doughnut) and I got "raged" by a man in a big pickup truck because I did not make my left turn fast enough for his tastes.  This happens multiple times a day because at the very foundation of our being we desperately hate one another.  The end of the world will bring on the end of roadway rage.  I see that as a good thing, don't you?
I have been reading news reports about how people are starting to panic about our impending doom.  Various governments around the world have issued pronouncements that the world is not really going to end on December 21st.  One Russian "minister of science" informed the citizens of his country that all concern about December 21st was misplaced.  I was watching a television news program yesterday in which a representative of the taxpayer funded NASA came on to assure me that there were no planets about to smash into the earth.  Man was I relieved to hear that!  I wonder how much I paid him to come to that conclusion?  One country, I believe it is France but I am not sure about that, has a geographical area where folks who believe in our immediate demise on December 21st think there will be relative safety.  Apparently people were starting to migrate to that Armageddon free neutral zone.  The local authorities have been forced to establish a perimeter around the area and prohibit access.  I guess the politicians and their police forces in that area don't want anyone to avoid the end.
Just like an old dog that is on its last legs and near to death, the earth needs a good mercy killing.  There is nothing here worth saving.  Everyone has turned astray.  Everyone.  There is none who is good.  Not one.  If we are truly compassionate and caring we have to admit that the best thing for all of us would be for the world to come to an end.  With an end to the world comes an end to the pain and suffering associated with living in it.  What could possibly be wrong with that?  The end of the world is coming and I, for one, am glad.  See you on the other side.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Mind Your Own Business!

Last week (11-26-12 post) I mentioned my Thanksgiving trip to the Big Ditch (aka Grand Canyon).  Not mentioned in that report were several altercations that took place between members of our party and other people in the canyon on Thanksgiving day.  Two members of our group almost got into a fist fight with a belligerent and profane man who accused them of lying about what they had just done.  We completed a serious loop hike involving 16 miles of hiking and 4800 feet of climbing.  The fastest in our group had managed to do the ascent from the Phantom Ranch to the south rim in under three hours.  The jerk who was eavesdropping into the conversation of the first two members of our party to reach the south rim had hiked up after spending the night at Phantom Ranch.  He considered his time of slightly under seven hours to be spectacular and claimed to be in "excellent physical condition".  Hearing that the first two of our group had done the same section in around three hours was too much for him.  He lashed out, with a loud voice, and told them that they had to be mistaken about what they had just done since nobody, even a "Kenyan", was capable of doing it that fast.  His verbal assault was loaded with profanities and F-bombs.  They almost came to blows when the first person to the rim told him that she was not talking to him and he should mind his own business.
Earlier that day these same two members of our group had been stopped by a do-gooder, know-it-all woman who informed them that what they were doing (the loop hike) was too dangerous.  She interrogated them about what they were eating and exhorted them to consume more salt.  She then queried them about the other members of the party.  In particular, she wanted to know if there were any medical professionals in the group since, in her opinion, attempting to do what we were doing required the services of a medical professional.  They assured her that we had qualified medical personnel in our group and continued on their way.  As far as I was concerned, that woman should have been instructed to mind her own business.
Anthony Accetta of Denver wrote a letter to the Denver Post today. He believes that it is the business of King Obama to tell the citizens of Egypt how to run their country.  He asks, "how in the world can the president of the United States not condemn an Islamist constitution in Egypt which would deny women's rights, curtail free speech, limit the right of association, and not allow the free practice of religion?"  He continues his irrational tirade against King Obama by saying, "We allowed the Islamic Brotherhood to take power....The president needs to be accountable for this travesty."  How "we" are somehow responsible for the form of government adopted in Egypt is not explained.  How King Obama is somehow "accountable" for the type of government found in Egypt is not described.  Still, Anthony believes that the form of government that exists in Egypt is his business. Anthony needs to mind his own business.
Another article in the Denver Post today described how King Obama and King's Mouthpiece Hillary Clinton threatened the leaders of the Syrian government with military action if they make the decision to use chemical and biological weapons against their own people.  Now I recognize that our King has a responsibility to protect the subjects of his kingdom.  If the Syrians were threatening to use chemical and biological weapons against citizens of the SDA I would expect King Obama to threaten them with military action.  What I do not understand is why it is any of our business what the Syrian leaders choose to do to their own people.  I know, I know.  Some bleeding hearts and war-hawks believe that we should declare war against any "regime" (translation:  any government we do not like because they do not fall down at our feet when we pass by) that is doing things we do not want them to do.  That idea is ridiculous.  There are dozens of governments around the world that are killing their own citizens on a daily basis that we completely ignore (Sudan, Nigeria, North Korea, for example).  If we are the policemen to the world we have to be the policemen to the entire world, not just those countries that we feel like beating up today.  We desperately need to mind our own business.
Minding the business of others is a normal activity for sinful people.  Sinful men and women quite naturally believe that they are more wise, more intelligent and more able to provide life-guiding advice to others than those people are able to do for themselves.  Simply put, everybody thinks he is the smartest person in the world.  Sadly, many of those folks also believe it is their job to enlighten those who are around them.  I have long thought that people attempt to control the behavior of others because they realize they are totally inept when it comes to controlling their own behavior.  Attempting to control the behavior of others also has the positive benefit of so dominating the mental energy of the controller that he ends up having no time left to consider the massive shortcomings that characterize his own life.  It is the best of all possible worlds.  The business-minder reinforces his own belief that he is superior, deflects criticism from his own sinfulness and tells himself that he is being a philanthropist all at the same time. 
The truth of the matter is that there is very little of what goes on in the world that is my business.  It is also true that the great majority of what makes up my business has to do with dealing with my own behavior and not the behavior of others.  Imagine how great the world would be if we all purposed to leave each other alone and tend to our own affairs.  Do you really want to do something good for the world?  Do you really want to help your fellow man?  Then mind your own business.  Minding your own business is the greatest gift you can give.

Monday, December 3, 2012

It Is OK To Be A Racist Against Chinese Artists

Kathie Dolce of Longmont Colorado is very upset.  She was attending the "Becoming van Gogh" exhibit at the Denver Art Museum (DAM) last week when something happened to her that disturbed her greatly.  In fact, what happened disturbed her so much she felt compelled to write a letter to the editor of the Denver Post.  Her letter was in the November 30th edition of the newspaper.  Her letter was short so I will reprint all of it below.
"My husband and I enjoyed our visit to 'Becoming van Gogh' at the Denver Art Museum earlier this week.  While there, we browsed the gift shop and fell in love with a beautiful large art glass bowl.  Even though it was quite expensive, we were prepared to purchase it---until we spotted the 'Made in China' label on the bottom.  We checked several other pieces, and they were all from China.  Really, DAM, we have so many talented artists in this state and the rest of the U.S.---why do you need to sell art glass from China?  I could understand if the pieces were in conjunction with a specific exhibit, but that was not the case."
Am I the only person in the world who sees what is going on here?  Crazy Kathie believes she is doing her patriotic duty by writing to the Denver Post to complain about the fact that the DAM gift shop sells artwork made in China.  Apparently there is something decidedly un-American about buying artwork made by a Chinese citizen.  Kooky Kathie is so enraged she is willing to cut off her own nose to spite her face.  She admits that she "fell in love" with the glass bowl. She admits that she was willing to pay a large sum of money for the glass bowl, thus indicating that she was willing to make a financial sacrifice to own that bowl.  Then, despite her deep attraction to that particular piece of art, she walks away from the transaction because a Chinese person made the bowl!  What is her behavior motivated by, if not racism?  She refuses to buy something she loves and can afford simply because the person who made it is Chinese.  Amazing!
Kathie Dolce is confusing her racism for patriotism.  What did that Chinese person ever do to her?  In fact, that Chinese artist did a lot for her.  That Chinese artist designed and produced a work of art that was so beautiful Kathie fell in love with it and was willing to make a financial sacrifice in order to own it.  Under normal circumstances the producer of that piece of art would have been rewarded with a sale.  Under normal circumstances the transaction would have taken place and both the artist and the art owner would have departed happy with the results of the transaction.  But these are not normal circumstances.  No, in this case the artist is a Chinese person.  Both Mitt Romney and Barak Obama informed Kathie that Chinese people are evil because they make things that they would like to sell to citizens of the Socialist Democracy of America.  According to Mitt, Barak and an entire host of politicians, when Chinese people want to sell what they have made to citizens of the SDA they become evil.  Surprisingly, when citizens of the SDA try to sell things to Chinese people they are considered to be heroic entrepreneurs.  It is funny how the sword only cuts one direction when it comes to trade across random geo-political borders.
Racist Kathie made the decision to punish the Chinese artist for trying to sell his/her artwork in the good old SDA.  She made the decision to forgo her own personal psychic pleasure, derived from owning a piece of art she loved, in order to punish an evil member of the Chinese empire who had the audacity to make something for her that she loved at a price she was willing to pay.  Off with that Chinese artist's head!
But, to make things worse, Kathie decided that the DAM was also complicit in this unpatriotic and economically harmful act.  Kathie is outraged that "with so many talented artists" in the SDA, none of whom, by the way, made a piece of art Kathie was interested in purchasing, why would the DAM gift shop stoop so low as to sell art produced by those sub-human Chinese?  I don't know for sure but I would not be surprised if Kathie would now support a declaration of war against China.  Of course, these days Congress no longer declares war.  Still, I bet she would be in favor of King Obama sending troops to China to punish them for making artwork that citizens of the SDA fall in love with.  How dare them!  They should all be killed.  Then, and only then, could we ensure that the shelves of the gift shop at the DAM would be filled with American made artwork.  Of course, the gift shop might end up having to go out business since art-loving people like Kathie seem to be attracted to artwork made by Chinese people.  Kathie left the gift shop without making a purchase.  I wonder.....would she have purchased something that she did not "fall in love" with for a price that was "quite high" simply because it was made by a citizen of the SDA?  Me thinks not.