Seeing an opportunity to take profits, it has proposed a 10% tax on the industry. Seriously!

Some will say the tax will discourage tanning use and that is a good thing. If government wants to discourage indoor tanning it can either outlaw it or put a 97% tax on the industry. Both would be far more efficient in reducing use. Just like tobacco taxes, it’s about the money, not the social ill.

So tanning salons have to absorb this tax . . . or pass it off to its customers. Cha-ching!

Customers will pay 17% to the government for the privilege to sit inside under heat lamps. Precious.

Think this will stimulate business here?

That tax began today. Browning ones boobs indoors now has the government grabbing 17% on the price of the service. How does this help anyone/thing other than government coffers?

Is this the role of government?

Jan Brewer is governor of Arizona. She is up for election; not re-election as she took over when President Obama selected the former Arizona governor to be Secretary of Homeland Security. Brewer is running a wonderful campaign. She keeps attacking President Obama for Arizona’s ills. I commented back in May on her powerful message.

Brewer has not sat idle since. She has a new commercial that hits Obama hard. Again, whether you agree or disagree with her position, one has to appreciate how she’s politicking. That a governor is putting POTUS in such a position that he is going to have to respond demonstrates who is politically more savvy on this issue. I guess his response is the impending lawsuit.

Watch and enjoy.

Having said that, I am not buying into the seeming campaign to paint him responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

President Obama is not responsible for the oil rig blowing up and 50 days of oil spewing into the gulf. Furthermore, I don’t expect him or the federal government to have in place “the fix” for such a catastrophe. It simply is not the responsibility for the feds to be able to fix this.

That leaves all the talk of whether Obama is displaying the right tone, is sufficiently moved, etc. He is in a no-win position. If he acts calmly, he is excoriated for not be passionate. If he shows passion, he is raked for being salty.

It’s all made up. It is not his Katrina. The federal government can deliver supplies, shelter, etc. after a natural disaster. Those are not needed with an oil spill. What do we really expect a president to do in such a situation?

I read Thayer’s poem yearly to my students and my children. There needs to be a shared culture for us to understand references. If one is unfamiliar with Casey at the Bat, this may be considered merely partisan. Make no doubt, it is partisan, but my interest in this is how wonderfully this remained true to the original while changing the subject.

Fabulous!

Enjoy.

Too much of everything is just enough.
John Perry Barlow and Bob Weir

And who gets to decide?

According to pro-life politicians, ObamaCare provides for public funding of abortions.

Well, today President Obama took care of that. He has promised an executive order that states that no public dollars will be spent on abortions. With that, Stupak and his bloc agreed to ObamaCare.

It seems too easy. If that is all it took, why wasn’t this done months ago? Seriously. If Stupak et al. were willing to sign off on this with only a promise that President Obama will sign an executive order, then Stupak has not been credible. He held out, drew attention to himself, and arguably drove a larger divide among all Americans because he said he wouldn’t cave until a guarantee was had. There is no reason to think this could not have been had at Christmas.

Waterloo, the battle that ended Napoleon’s reign. Carville, a partisan for sure, but one who is supposedly on President Obama’s side of the issues, has clearly stated what the importance of healthcare really is . . . and it is not about the constituents.

Of course, there is a limit as to how much government can tax something before it backfires. Here in New Jersey politicos have raised the tobacco tax so much that the “revenue” it produces has decreased over the years. You would think that a lesson would be learned through such actions.

I tried a tanning bed once when I was in college. I had a membership to a neat gym that had all sorts of facilities. In addition to the tanning bed there were sensory deprivation tanks and a Eucalyptus room. I really liked the Eucalyptus room. Anyhow, lying down in a tube with lights shining on me while I crisp is not my idea of fun or recreation.

Some folks like to tan themselves, however. That’s fine with me. Obviously, in order to tan, someone needs to be in business providing the equipment. That’s good for the economy. It is also a source for the politicos.

Here in New Jersey, we tax tanning salons seven-percent. Yup, to tan oneself indoors, Trenton grabs 7% of the deal. Why? Who cares? Few of us use tanning salons, right? They’re usually those little stores wedged into a strip mall with the “big hairs” running in and out. It doesn’t affect me, why should I care?

Since that tax was instituted, businesses have closed up. Sure, a poor economy contributed too. The tanning salon industry is fading in the Garden State. Soon it will be gone altogether.

Congress and the Obama Administration have targeted tanning salons too. Seeing an opportunity to take profits, it has proposed a 10% tax on the industry. Seriously!

Some will say the tax will discourage tanning use and that is a good thing. If government wants to discourage indoor tanning it can either outlaw it or put a 97% tax on the industry. Both would be far more efficient in reducing use. Just like tobacco taxes, it’s about the money, not the social ill.

So tanning salons have to absorb this tax . . . or pass it off to its customers. Cha-ching!

Customers will pay 17% to the government for the privilege to sit inside under heat lamps. Precious.

Think this will stimulate business here?