San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, April 1, 2016

Trump Is Right On Abortion

By now everyone has heard about the alleged gaffe Donald Trump committed while being set up by a liberal reporter with a question about abortion.  Everyone in the universe is against Donald Trump.  The politically correct hate him because he is not politically correct.  Women hate him because he talks about women in the same fashion most men, when they are off the record, talk about women.  Socialists hate him because he is a billionaire.  The Republican party hates him because he is anti-establishment.  Minorities hate him because he wants to keep them from coming to this country.  Millennials hate him because he does not promise to forgive all of their student loan debt. Democrats hate him because they fear he might unseat Hillary.  About the only group that does not hate Donald Trump is evangelical Christians.  A day or two ago he gave them a reason to love him even more but, ironically, they turned on him as well.  Let's consider what happened.
Trump was being interviewed by Chris Mathews of MSNBC.  Matthew, like all of the good folks at MSNBC, is a committed worshiper of civil government.  He also hates the moral law of the God of the Bible and takes any opportunity he can to mock it.  He also hates Christians.  And he thinks murdering an unborn baby is just dandy.  He set Trump up by positing a world in which abortion has been outlawed, like it was in the good old days of back-alley abortions prior to 1973.  He then asked Trump what should happen if a woman sought out an abortion.  According to this quote from the New York Times, Trump declared, "You go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places.  But you have to ban it. There has to be some form of punishment.”  Matthews, who had been doing a sophisticated song and dance of his own when Trump asked him if he, as a Catholic, agreed with the Pope's position on abortion, asked Trump if the punishment would apply to the women seeking an abortion.  Trump answered in the affirmative.  That is when all irrational lunacy broke out.
Before discussing Trump's position as related to Matthews, let's consider Matthew's position on abortion for a moment.  He said that he accepts the position of the Pope that abortion is immoral but denies that it necessarily follows that it should be illegal because, in his twisted mind, something can be immoral and legal at the same time.  Clearly Chris did not want to get on the wrong side of the Catholic Church so he said what he had to in order to dodge the issue and his actual support for the practice of abortion.  He then has the audacity to accuse Trump of double-speak when Trump's campaign advisers come out with a revised statement about his position on abortion after the interview went berserk.  I call that hypocrisy.
Sadly, Trump's camp did change his official position from what he told Matthews to the more socially acceptable view that the pregnant woman who conspires with a government approved doctor to kill her baby is a victim of the act of abortion.  I am more interested in his first answer, when he said what he really believes.  
I did not know this fact but apparently both pro-abortion and anti-abortion camps are in agreement that the pregnant woman who solicits a doctor to kill her baby should be deemed to be a victim of the abortion process.  That is an outlandish and contradictory position but I can see the utility of it.  The number of women who get abortions is much greater than the number of doctors who perform them.  It follows from that truth that there are many more potential votes to be solicited from women who have had abortions than the doctors who perform them.  Since all the career politicians and businessmen who are seeking the office of King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika desperately need the women's vote, even the Trump camp had to change his position to vainly avoid losing even more of the XX chromosome political support.  Two terrible truths follow from what we have learned thus far.
First, women should never have been given the right to vote.  This country started its inexorable march towards socialism the moment women were permitted to vote.  As women vote primarily by following their emotions, while men vote primarily by following rational thought processes, it is a foregone conclusion that soft-headed and emotional women will want to expand the welfare state exponentially.  And that, of course, is precisely what has happened since they began flocking to the voting booths to express their emotional opinions on things they would have been better off leaving alone.
Second, it is impossible to conceive of a more morally incorrect position than the one apparently adopted by Evangelicals in regards to abortion.  In a similar fashion to politicians who need more voters, Evangelicals desperately need more church members as they seek to fund their mega-church mortgages and pay their pastors outlandish salaries.  Alienating half of the population, by casting women as perpetrators of murder when they get abortions, is not going to cut it.  On the contrary, casting women as victims, a class status everybody likes to be labeled with, makes them far more likely to have a favorable opinion of the evangelical Church when the practice of abortion is considered.
It is the woman who gets pregnant.  It is the woman who decides to kill the baby that is growing within her.  It is the woman who sets the appointment with the abortion doctor.  It is the woman who drives to the abortion mill.  It is the woman who gets up on to the operating table.  It is the woman who says "thank you" to the government approved doctor after he kills her baby.   And it is the taxpayers who pay for all of this.  As you can see, the great majority of the blame for killing a baby via abortion is directly attributable to the woman.  
Donald Trump was right.  A woman who gets an abortion is guilty of murder.  According to biblical law a murderer should be put to death by the civil government.  That was the only thing Trump did not get right.  Matthews suggested that maybe a woman should get 10 years in prison for getting an abortion and Donald said he would not commit to a punishment at that time.  He should have followed through and alienated everyone but the theonomists.  He should have declared that a woman who gets an abortion should be executed for her crime. Oh what fun we could be having today if only Trump had followed through on his opinion properly. 

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Teaching Pre-Schoolers To Love Trannies

The Denver Post is an outrageously immoral newspaper.  As such it is the perfect instrument of propaganda for our times.  Until the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Jokers to give homosexuals most preferred status in this country the paper would run almost daily stories featuring homosexuals in a favorable light and ridiculously claiming that they were being persecuted by people like me.  Since the homosexuals have now procured their politically protected status the Post has decided to push the agenda of transvestites.  Stories appear almost daily featuring trannies who are allegedly being persecuted by people like me.  Trannies are portrayed as good and decent people who are in desperate need of special government protection.  That brings me to today's story.
The front page of the Denver Post today contained a story, complete with photograph, detailing how government pre-schools in the Denver metropolitan area are indoctrinating children into the beliefs and practices of transvestism.  The photo pictured a couple of 4 year old kids reading a story to each other that, according to the caption, is designed to be a "creative way to incorporate gender and sexual diversity in their schools."  Now let me get this straight.  These kids are 3 and 4 years old.  All of them are either boys or girls.  Just what sort of gender diversity do the clowns teaching these classes expect to find in a group of 3 and 4 year olds?
The teachers of these classes all agree that the theological doctrine of original sin is in error.  They also all agree that children are born with a morally neutral view of life and whether they turn into good or bad people primarily depends upon the teaching they receive from their government hired and taxpayer financed propaganda ministers.  A director at the Boulder Valley School District said, "Biases start as kids get older and start to see differences as negative.  At a young age, kids are exploring all different kinds of things.  It's about just providing them with all these experiences."  The director believes it is her sworn duty to put pre-school children into immoral situations to desensitize their innate moral sensibilities and make them into good future citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  I you think the teachers would think it would be a good idea to expose these kids to pedophiles?  I suspect not.  But why not?  Pedophiles are people too, and they are filled with love!  Do you think these teachers would allow a person like me to come to class and expose these children to the historic doctrines of the Christian faith?  Neither do I.  It seems pretty clear that the things these teachers decide to expose these kids to are consistent with whatever is hot at the moment, and right now being a trannie is hot.
The story that follows the photograph describes a very interesting situation that illustrates the extreme hypocrisy found in this group of teachers.  It says, "A 4 year old Aurora girl was kicked out of a preschool last month when her parents raised questions about books read in her class, including ones that told the stories about same sex couples and worms unsure about their gender....School officials explained that the stories were part of the school's anti-bias curriculum, and because the discussions are embedded through the day, they told her that opting out was not possible."  The mother of the 4 year old had asked permission to simply opt her child out of those parts of the day when she was being indoctrinated into the moral virtues of homosexuality and transvestism.  Rather than accommodating her request, they exercised an extreme form of bias against her moral and ethical views and kicked her daughter out of school.  Ironically, the moral justification for their decision to kick the kid out of school was to behave in such a way as to show no bias against anyone.  Oops....I guess they do show bias against some groups; namely, those groups that disagree with their immoral and God-hating agenda.
The story went on to describe how the "anti-bias curriculum" is "part of a growing push in public school classrooms where educators use more diverse depictions of families and gender roles to expose students to differences before children have a chance to form" an opinion of those roles based upon what their parents teach them.  We are talking about 3 and 4 year old kids here.  Are these people insane?  They should be reading Dr. Seuss and playing on the playground.  They should not be forced to talk about the intensely adult and personal issues of homosexuality and transvestism at that tender age.  And they most certainly should never be forced or required to discuss those issues outside the moral context of their own homes where they can be guided by their parent's moral sensibilities.  The anti-bias curriculum is extraordinarily biased.  It is biased against all Christian morality.  It is biased against all Christian behavior and teaching.  It is biased against anyone who opposes the radical trannie agenda.
Expect more of this.  The militant trannies are not going away.  Their supporters in the media are becoming more shrill.  Their moles in the government schools are becoming more efficient at spreading their soul-destroying propaganda.  Bernie Sanders wants to fund universal pre-school for all SDA citizens with children.  Perish the thought that parents should actually be expected to raise their children when the federal government is willing, with taxpayer funding, to babysit all of them for free.  And what will they be taught while they are being babysat?  They will be taught to love trannies.  Wonderful. 

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Colorado Citizens Desperately Need More Laws

I don't know about you but I am feeling very insecure.  The reason for my insecurity, besides the legion of voices in my head that keep telling me to do crazy things, is the fact that I live in a state in which I find myself dangerously under regulated.  Things take place around me all the time that the government has not previously approved.  Why just two days ago I learned from a local news broadcast that the things my wife carries around in her purse could kill her.  Yesterday I learned that I could get killed by an avalanche in the mountains if I dared to venture up there during the winter.  Every news program I watch informs me of at least two new things that can harm, maim or kill me.  I need government protection.  I need somebody to watch over me.  I need more rules and regulations.  Won't somebody please help me?
Occupational licensing is one way government can protect me from myself and others.  By forcing people to pay a fee to the government for permission to operate a particular business the career politicians who rule over me can ensure nobody will ever take advantage of me.  On average, each of the states in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika requires a government license for 92 separate occupations.  Not surprisingly, California leads the list with 177 occupations needing government permission to perform.  The most free state is Missouri, which only requires the practitioners of 41 different occupations to first obtain government permission to engage in those business activities.  Go here for the complete list.  Colorado is in the lower half of the states, with just 69 occupations requiring government permission and licensure.  No wonder I feel so unsafe.  Why just yesterday I saw a neighborhood child operating a lemonade stand without the requisite government license conspicuously posted on her table.  I could not sleep last night as I thought about how many people must have contracted diseases when they purchased a cup of lemonade from her.
Every state in the union agrees that there are 33 occupations that are so potentially dangerous to the public welfare that licensing is required nationwide for anyone who wishes to practices these trades.  These occupations include, in addition to the expected doctors, lawyers and dentists;  accountants (they might miss a decimal point), architects (they might design a room addition to your home that would collapse), barbers (they might cut off your ear), chiropractors (they might strain your back), hair dressers (they might give a woman a bad haircut), funeral directors (they might do something harmful to a corpse that I can't think of at this point in time), the Orkin man (he might kill your pets), real estate agents (they might perform a "bait and switch" maneuver when you buy a home), truck drivers (they might run you over)  and veterinarians (they might cause your dog to become a drug addict).
In addition to the 33 occupations each state has in common, some states do a better job protecting their citizens with licensure requirements than others.  For example, most states require athletic trainers to be licensed since they might give you a muscle strain when they tell you to shake those gigantic ropes up and down.  Maine requires both beekeepers and maple syrup dealers to be licensed.  I can only begin to imagine what sticky situations might result when bees and syrup get together.  Rhode Island licenses lightning rod installers, thankfully.  Manure applicators must be licensed in Iowa, finally.  Renegade turtle farmers have finally been reined in as Louisiana now requires them to have a license.
Since Colorado citizens are dangerously under regulated the Colorado legislature is considering a new law to protect us from ourselves and the depredations of profit seeking businessmen.  In a bi-partisan proposal, the career politicians within the state of Colorado want to create a new bureau to oversee the operation of fantasy sports companies.  Fantasy sports companies like FanDuel and DraftKings would be required to obtain a government license and pay annual fees and taxes to the state prior to being permitted to operate in the state.  Since these companies are internet based I am not sure how the new laws will be enforced but that does not keep the state from making them.
In a rare moment of political candor, Gov. John Hickenlooper stated that he wanted the new laws on the books because these freely operating, profit seeking businesses might be cutting into the state government's share of the gambling revenues.  When he made that assertion he admitted two things that politicians are typically loath to admit.  First, gambling is not a morally bad thing to do since the state is one of the biggest sponsors of organized gambling by means of the various state lotteries.  The problem is not with gambling, it is with who is making the profits from gambling activities.  The state will not tolerate the competition.  Second, the good governor tacitly admitted that state licensing requirements restrict competition and grant monopoly power and profits to the government protected businesses.  Both DraftKings and FanDuel are on board with the new proposals.  They publicly announced that they are in favor of the new regulations, ostensibly so that the public can be protected from unscrupulous businessmen seeking to rip them off, but the bottom line for them is the fact that once they are licensed they can restrict entry to new and upstart competitors, thus increasing their profits by means of the government granted monopoly.
I have not polled them but I suspect most Evangelicals are in favor of the proposed regulations.  Evangelicals generally oppose gambling in all of its forms and using government regulations to restrict what they consider to be sinful gambling activities would no doubt be something they would look on with favor.  I find the entire situation quite ironic.  Let me tell you why.
For the most part Evangelicals are also Dispensationalists.  As Dispensationalists they believe the day is coming, during a future period of time they call the "Great Tribulation," when the personal anti-Christ embeds computer chips into the foreheads of all the citizens of the world in order to regulate all of their business activities.  This prophecy is found in Revelation 13: 17 which says, "...and he provides that no one should be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name."  I have news for the Evangelicals in this sad land.  The Beast is already here.  Government occupational licensing laws have already brought about the state of affairs described in Revelation 13.  Too bad most biblical interpreters are too blinded by love for civil government to see it.  As for me, I feel safer every day when I think of the tireless efforts my rulers are performing on my behalf as they create more and more rules restricting that horrific thing called personal and professional freedom. 

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Georgia Governor Discriminates Against Christians

 'Discrimination' is an interesting word.  Prior to the start of this generation and the creation of laws denying the First Amendment, as well as the suppression of various forms of speech, the word was morally neutral.  Everybody recognized that everybody discriminated all the time.  When I choose apple pie over cherry pie I am discriminating.  When you choose Ford over Toyota you are discriminating.  When you vacation in Minnesota rather than Wyoming you are discriminating.  All of us make thousands of discriminatory decisions every single day.  I do not think it is too much of a stretch to say that most of the things we do every day involve the act of discrimination in one fashion or another.  That is what makes everything so strange when we come to the way the word is used today.
Today the word 'discrimination' is only used in a negative context.  When someone is accused of using discrimination while forming an opinion or rendering a decision that person is allegedly guilty of a civil tort or a criminal violation of the law.  Let me give you some examples.  If a couple hires a Hindu photographer for their wedding and then serves beef at the wedding, is the Hindu photographer guilty of a tort when he refuses to eat the beef?  What if he discriminates against the meat eaters to the point that he decides he would rather not attend the wedding at all?  If a group of vegans are invited to attend a rattlesnake roundup and they refuse to attend, are they behaving with immoral discrimination against those who like to kill and eat rattlesnakes by refusing to support their lifestyle choices?  If you are a Muslim and I come into your Kwik-E-Mart  and demand, based upon the sales practices of every other Kwik-E-Mart in the neighborhood,  that you sell me pipe tobacco, are you illegally discriminating against me for refusing to even carry pipe tobacco in your store?  If a church of Quakers has decided to sponsor a "movie night" for the general public as a means of introducing themselves to the community but they refuse to show any movies that glorify the various wars conducted by the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, do I, as a veteran, have the right to say that they are discriminating against me by refusing to affirm my military service as a good thing?   All of the scenarios listed above are examples of discrimination and yet I believe even the most flaming liberals among us would agree that no real criminal discrimination is taking place in any of the examples.   That is what makes what happened in Georgia yesterday so fascinating.
In this story on yesterday, the career politician sitting in the governor's chair in Georgia announced that he hates Christians and Christianity and will do everything within his power to persecute them.  The Governor of Georgia proudly and arrogantly proclaimed that the only form of discrimination that shall ever take place in his state and under his rule is discrimination against Christians.  Discrimination against other groups, especially sexual perverts, is strictly forbidden.  Here are the primary elements of the story:
"Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal on Monday vetoed legislation shielding opponents of same-sex marriage, after a groundswell of opposition from companies threatening to boycott the state if it became law.  The Republican announced his decision during a news conference in his office at the Georgia Capitol, saying, 'I have examined the protections that this bill proposes to provide to the faith based community and I can find no examples of any of those circumstances occurring in our state.'  Deal added, 'I do not think that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia.'  Republican majorities passed the bill to broadly protect people whose actions were rooted in their religion. It also would have protected clergy who won't perform gay marriages and people who won't attend a wedding for religious reasons.  Churches and affiliated religious groups could have used their faith as an argument for refusing to serve or hire someone.  The bill's opponents said it excused discrimination and could trample local ordinances protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.  Coca-cola and other big-name Georgia companies joined the NFL, prominent Hollywood figures and film studios urging Deal to reject the proposal. Some threatened to boycott the state if Deal didn't veto. Deal, in his second and final term, heatedly said that those threats and questions about 'my convictions and my character' from some in the religious community were misguided.  'I do not respond very well to insults or to threats,' he said. 'The people of Georgia deserve a leader who will make sound judgments based on solid reasons that are not inflamed by emotion.'"
The bill had been passed by Republican majorities in both branches of the Georgia state government.  Gov. Deal is a Republican as well.  The bill was crafted for the obvious purpose of trying to protect Christians from being discriminated against.  As the law of the land stands today, thanks to last year's decision by the Supreme Court of Jokers, a militant heterophobic couple can go into a church and demand that the pastor of that church perform a marriage service for them.  If the pastor refuses to do so on the grounds that he believes homosexual behavior to be a sin worthy of death, he is accused of illegal discrimination and subject to fines and imprisonment.  Furthermore, as the law stands today, a Christian school can be forced to hire a heterophobe to teach the Christian students the doctrinal content of the Bible.  If it can be shown that a Christian school board refused to hire a heterophobe to teach biblical doctrine to the students in their school on the grounds that they disagree that God is just dandy with the idea of homosexual behavior they are guilty of illegal discrimination and can face fines and imprisonment.  Not only that, if a Christian businessman makes the rational and biblical decision to refuse to serve a heterophobe, that heterophobe can have the Christian businessman arrested, fined and imprisoned simply because the Christian's conscience would not allow him to serve a person he deemed to be a sexual pervert deserving of God's wrath.  In other words, the law of the land as it stands today declares that it is illegal to discriminate against anyone except Christians.  When it comes to Christians, you are free to do anything you want to them.  They have no civil rights.
Gov. Deal had the audacity to declare that, "I have examined the protections that this bill proposes to provide to the faith based community and I can find no examples of any of those circumstances occurring in our state."  Really!?  Is this ignoramus so stupidly blind that he does not realize that militant heterophobes are already making plans to force Christian churches to marry, hire and affirm them?  How could any person be so dumb as to believe that a class of immoral perverts recently granted special government protection and privilege will not then go out into society and exercise those privileges?  The good governor clearly understands nothing about incentives.
Deal went on to make one of the most blatantly contradictory statements ever made by a publicity seeking career politician.  He said, "I do not think that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia."  So let me get this straight.  A Christian pastor believes it is a violation of the Law of God to marry a heterophobic couple but the Georgia government now says that if he refuses to do so he is a criminal subject to fines and imprisonment.  What is that if it is not discrimination?  Deal is protecting the faith-based religion of homosexuality by discriminating against Christianity and nobody is apparently able to see what is taking place.
In one of the most bizarre statements made in recent times, the article went on to say that the law, "would have protected clergy who won't perform gay marriages and people who won't attend a wedding for religious reasons."  Did you catch that?  The law, now vetoed, would have protected people who would make the decision to not attend a wedding because they believe the two people getting married should not be getting married.  Since when do we need to make laws to protect people from things they do not do?  Isn't law supposed to be about protecting people from things people actually do?  This is how far the militant heterophobic agenda has advanced in this immoral land.  By recognizing that the now vetoed law would protect people who decided to not attend a homosexual wedding it also recognizes that the law as it now stands criminalizes the behavior of people who decide to not attend a homosexual wedding service.  In other words, the law of this disgusting country today would allow a homosexual couple to fine and imprison anyone they invited to attend their wedding who decided not to attend if they could show the reason they did not attend was a firm conviction that God does not approve of homosexual behavior.
The article also informed me that, "Churches and affiliated religious groups could have used their faith as an argument for refusing to serve or hire someone."  According to the law of the land, a Church can now be forced to hire a homosexual pastor even if the doctrinal tenets of the church strictly forbid homosexual behavior.  Anyone who declares that the Bible forbids homosexual behavior is no longer permitted to speak or have a public opinion on the matter.  Now,  just for purposes of illustration, let's put the shoe on the other foot.  What do you think would happen if I applied for a job at the local LGBT political action group?  If I stated my opposition to homosexuality up front and they refused to hire me because of that, are they guilty of illegal discrimination?  What if I hid my convictions from them until after I was hired?  Would they be guilty of illegal discrimination if they fired me because every day I came to work I told them to repent of their sins?  I believe we all know how my imaginary scenario would work itself out.  I would either never be hired or fired after being hired.  In both cases I would have no civil standing if I decided to bring either a civil or a criminal charge against the homosexuals.  Indeed, if I even tried to do so I would be accused of discrimination. 
Deal concluded his comments by saying that he did not appreciate being bullied by Christians who wanted him to sign the bill.  Are you kidding me?  Who is bullying whom?  All the Christians wanted was some semblance of protection from the militant homosexual lobby.  The bullying that Deal experienced came from Coca-cola, Disney, Delta Airlines, the NBA, the NFL and a whole host of other companies, all of which threatened to enact some sort of economic boycott against Georgia if he did not veto the bill.  Predictably, he responded to the bullying and vetoed the bill.  Deal showed that he is quick to cave into public pressure, but only when that public pressure is coming from a group other than the Christian minority.  Once again, the Christians lose.  Expect more of it. 

Monday, March 28, 2016


Bernie Sanders is a democratic candidate for the next King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  I think he is the best qualified person for the job because he has committed himself completely to the socialist agenda.  He believes that all profit seeking businesses are evil.  He believes that everyone who works in and for government is a saint.  He believes that government is the source of all good in the world.  Bernie promises to dramatically increase government spending on a wide variety of welfare programs while, at the same time, enacting huge tax increases on businesses and the rich, whoever they are.  In a phrase, Bernie is the perfect socialist.
I would like to take some time today to do a brief economic analysis of Bernie's economics.  Since it is fashionable to create new words by combining the word 'economics' with some other word, I will call what follows below a classic example of Bernienomics.  Let me begin by giving you a series of economic truths.  I will apply these truths to Bernie a bit later. 
I begin with some information about the amount of money taken from the taxpayers by the federal government.  The chart below contains data about who pays how much of the federal tax bill.  Notice several things including: 1) the top 1% of the income population pays 38% of all federal income taxes despite only earning 20% of the income, 2) the top 10% of the income population pays 59% of all federal income taxes while only earning 35% of the total income, 3) the total amount of money earned by the top 10% of the income population comes to whopping $3.8 trillion and, 4) at a average effective tax rate of ~20% the top 10% of the income population ends up paying a grand total of $760 billion in federal income taxes.

Chart Of The Top Income Earners And Tax Contribution

Total federal revenues in fiscal year 2015 were $3.18 trillion. These revenues came from three major sources:
  1. Income taxes paid by individuals: $1.48 trillion, or 47% of all tax revenues.
  2. Payroll taxes paid jointly by workers and employers: $1.07 trillion, 34% of all tax revenues.
  3. Corporate income taxes paid by businesses: $341.7 billion, or 11% of all tax revenues.
King Obama has proposed a budget for this year totaling $4.1 trillion in spending.   With a shortfall of a little less than $1 trillion dollars the government will turn to the Fed and the Treasury to create that money out of thin air, thus allowing them to legally spend counterfeit money on their vote garnering socialist programs.  That annual deficit will be added to the total federal debt, raising it to around $20 trillion.  With a Gross Domestic Product of about $17 trillion the SDA now finds itself carrying a debt equal to about 118% of national income. 

Notice that, despite the many categories shown above, the federal budget can be divided into a handful of simple categories.  Government welfare programs constitute 60% of the federal budget.  With the growth of Obamacare this percentage is expected to rise, eventually consuming all discretionary spending which now accounts for 13% of total expenditures.  The warfare state consumes 20% of the budget and the remaining 7% is used to pay the interest on the federal debt. 
Bernie has proposed a series of welfare programs while on the campaign trail.  The Wall Street Journal took the time to analyze his proposals and come up with a cost analysis for all of the government goodies Bernie wants to hand out to his socialist supporters.  The graphic below shows just what Bernie wants to spend the money on and just how much it is going to cost the taxpayers.  Note that the figures are for a ten year period.  If we divide the total cost by ten years we arrive at an average annual increase in taxes of $1.8 trillion. 

Bernie has been quick to respond to his critics and their position that his programs are untenable because there is simply not enough money to pay for them.  On the contrary, Bernie argues, there are gazillions of rich people and businesses in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika that are not paying their fair share.  He would raise taxes on both groups and, when the number crunching is finished, Bernie claims he will actually run a budget surplus since his annual tax increases will come to almost $2.0 trillion per year, far outstripping his annual cost increase of $1.8 trillion per year.  Here are his figures:

Now that all of the facts are on the table, allow me to take a moment to interpret them for you.  What follows is my analysis of Bernienomics.
  • Bernie believes he can extract an addition $630 billion from businesses each year by forcing them to pay the Obamcare premiums for their employees.  Then he believes he can raise an addition $300 billion per year by cancelling the tax deduction businesses presently take for the amount they pay in health insurance premiums.  In other words Bernie believes he can tax profit seeking businesses an addition $900 billion per year with no deleterious impact upon their business operations.  Bernie believes that businesses will continue to hire more people, produce more products and continue to prosper despite this huge increase to the cost of doing business.  
  • Bernie believes he can extract an additional $300 billion per year by taxing business activities on Wall Street with something he calls a "speculation tax," whatever that is.  Bernie believes it is possible to place financial burdens upon the economic process of capital creation with no negative impact upon that process.  Bernie believes that when speculators use their own money to create and expand business activities, that is an activity that should be punished by additional taxes.  Bernie also believes that entrepreneurs will continue to engage in the same, or more, amount of speculation despite being required to pay a huge tax for doing so.  
  • Bernie is going to raise taxes on the "rich," an as yet undefined group, by increasing their marginal tax rate, taking away the capital gains tax and taxing their estates when they die.  He believes that these additional taxes will have no negative economic impact upon the most productive members in the SDA economy.
  • For purposes of illustration I will assume that the federal government will spend $4 trillion in the coming years.  If Bernie wanted to raise those funds by taxing away 100% of the income of the top 1% of the income population he would raise only $1.7 trillion.  If he taxed away 100% of the income of the top 10% of the income population he would raise $3.8 trillion, leaving him still 200 billion dollars short.  
  • For additional purposes of illustration I will assume that Bernie becomes our next King and he successfully passes his new spending programs.  Total federal spending will grow from $4 trillion/year to $6 trillion/year under Bernie's government giveaway government.  If Bernie taxed 100% of the incomes of the top 25% of the income population he would still come up $322 billion shy of his goal.  To pay for all of his programs Bernie would need to take 100% of the incomes of the top 33% of the income population.  The annual income of the person sitting on the margin of 33% is about $50,000/year.  According to Bernie, a person making $50,000 is a rich person who is not paying his fair share of the federal tax bill.
Bernie is the right man for our times.  He understands that the majority of the citizens of this envy filled country believe that they have a right to take the money of their richer neighbors.  He is willing to stand in the gap between the people who make money and the people who want to take that money from them.  He praises the common decency and outstanding moral values of people who want nothing more than to steal things from others.  In a phrase, he is the consummate career politician for our times.  Go Bernie!   I hope you win.  This country deserves a King like you.