Obama Plays Class Warfare With Bush Era Tax Cuts and Proposes a Litany of Loose Ends, Contradictions and Lies

 Bookmark and Share  In an announcement from the East Room of the White House, President Obama masterfully meshed his campaign strategy with economic policy by reapplying his class warfare tactics to the now annual debate on whether or not to extend the so-called Bush era tax cuts.  The President’s carefully crafted approach to the debate tries to paint the picture of a leader who is being logical, reasoned, and bi-partisan but beneath the superficial rhetoric of the President’s wording lies a litany of loose ends, contradictions, and lies.

According to the President;

“The Republicans say they don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, and I don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, so we should all agree to extend the tax cut for the middle class. Let’s agree to do what we agree on,”

On the surface, the statement sounds quite rational.  In a nation of voters who usually protest  against the lack of compromise in Washington, and the seeming lack of willingness by Republicans and Democrats to work together, President Obama’s appeal  sounds like a step in the right direction.  His wording sets the stage for the President to portray himself as willing to work with both sides, while casting an image of Republicans as rigidly inflexible, uncooperative, extremists who are out of touch with mainstream Americans as they protect the interests of wealthy Americans.

The President’s approach also dovetails quite well with his campaign’s overriding goal of trying to paint Republican standard bearer Mitt Romney as an out of touch, rich businessman.

If left unchallenged, the framework which the President has created for this debate will work well for him and his Party, but if challenged properly, Americans should easily be able to understand that the President’s framework is little more than a tangled web of contradictions and incongruent thoughts.

To begin, it is glaringly obvious that the President and his Party initiate this whole debate by conceding to Republicans that higher taxes are not good, especially during times of national economic hardship.  But at the same time that the President admits that taxes depress our economy, he also tries to argue that they only hurt when the middle class pay them.  It is a contradiction he makes when he argues that those making less than $250,000 a year will be hurt by a failure to extend the Bush tax cuts but that the same will not apply to those who make more than $250,000 a year.  He then further adds that extending the same tax cuts extensions for the rich are “least likely to promote growth”.

Now if logic plays a part here, even the most lobotomized liberal should be able to see how illogical the President’s claim is.

Why would taxing those who spend the most, invest the most and create the most jobs not have an adverse effect on the economy?  Is the President trying to contend that by increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 a year or more, we will be creating incentives for those same people to spend more, hire more, and invest more?  Where is the logic in that?

The point is that there is no logic in the President’s argument.  Unless of course you are a liberal living in a world that denies the laws of nature and defies everything from gravity, to the free market principles that were a part of the founding of this nation.

For decades now, liberals have mocked the Reagan-Kemp-Laffer economic theory of trickle down economics.  Despite evidence to the contrary, the left contends that wealth does not trickle down.  Instead they exist in a parallel universe where according to them,  the laws of gravity are reversed and that what goes down must come up.  In the alternative reality of a utopian liberal universe, the poor do not accumulate wealth from the rich, the rich become wealthier off of the poor.   But I have yet to see how that actually works.  In the reality I am forced to live in, the Warren Buffetts of the world do not go to poor and ask them for a loans or investments.   In my world, it is just the opposite.

But  for the President and his fellow leftists, admitting that wealth trickles down would be lethal to their political viability.  Such an admission would undercut the potency of the liberal mission to apply the socialist belief that it is the job of the government  is to spread the wealth.

Yet in a day and age when rhetoric trumps reality and facts are merely a set of words which individuals choose to believe or not, President Obama has set himself up on a political stage that he hopes will portray himself as a bipartisan leader who is looking out for the average working American.  But he does so by contradicting himself every step of the way.

In 2008 he promised to be a unifying force in politics.  But ever since taking office in 2009 he has been trying to conquer Republicans by dividing Americans along lines of class.  Despite the fact that The top 2 percent of taxpayers provide approximately 46 percent of all federal income and the that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers—representing nearly 70 million tax returns—provided 3 percent of all federal income taxes, President Obama and his liberal minions continue to run with the phrase that the rich must pay their share.    Yet with the wealthiest 2% of Americans paying nearly half of the taxes in America, the facts indicate that the rich are paying much more than their share.  But again, those numbers undermine the liberal thought process and it takes the legs out from under the President’s class warfare strategy.

Still, the President’s capacity for framing the debate on the Bush tax cuts was a good attempt to continue to frame the 2012 election in a way that is most favorable to him.  It is easy to exploit the less noble aspects of human nature, especially during tough times.  It is easier to convince people that others are to blame for their lot in life than it is to convince those same people that they have to take responsibility for their own lot life.  And that is the type of campaign President Obama is running.  In his campaign and in his Administration the President tries to claim the high ground.  He tries to claim a willingness to work with Republicans.  Yet such things as his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, was hardly an example of bipartisanship.  Our President tires to claim that he wants to work with Republicans on creating jobs, yet more than 30 House Republicans jobs bills remain dead because of the President’s refusal to force the liberal led senate to act upon them.

Now based upon the ludicrous belief that those making more than $250,000 have  no impact on the economy, the President attempts to frame his proposal to increase taxes on only those who he deems to be rich, as a compromise.

Well if the President really wants to compromise, I suggest that he do so in a meaningful.  A way that actually uses numbers and facts as a basis for compromise.  So how about we do this?

By refusing to extend the Bush era tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 a year, the President will save what amounts to the cost of operating the federal government for 8 days.  So I suggest that we base our compromise on the fact that even Democrats agree that raising taxes are bad and instead of raising them on anyone, we close all non-essential services of the federal government down for 8 days every year.  No foul no harm.  Now that’s a compromise.

Bookmark and Share

Republicans Should Capitalize on Obama Budget to Nowhere

Class warfare has become a central theme of the Obama campaign.  In his 2013 budget released earlier this week, President Obama proposed major tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans – those making $200,000 per year or families making over $250,000.  Indeed, the “debt reduction” that the president claims is dependent largely on these tax increases alone. Class warfare and raising taxes on the rich may be beneficial to his political campaign, but it is bad for the economy as it merely redistributes wealth, not create it.  The Republican nominee needs to be committed to capitalism and battle the President’s class warfare, big government, Keynesian economic rhetoric using free-market principles, stressing economic growth, job creation, and wealth creation through lower taxes, less regulation, and smaller government.  Despite what the President claims, his budget does not promote growth and has the potential to be a weak spot that Republicans can capitalize on.

Included in the President’s proposal is around $1.5 trillion in new revenue coming from tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.  These tax raises take various forms; a 9% raise in capital gains tax rates, the dividends rate jumps 25% from 15-40%, the carried interest tax on investment partnerships rise from 15 to 39.6%, and the estate tax rises to 40%.  In addition, the budget calls for allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, raising the top-level income tax rates to 39.6%.  Then there’s the new “Warren Buffet Rule“, which requires all those making more than $1 million per year pay at least 30% of their gross income in taxes.

English: President Barack Obama signs the Tax ...

Obama signing The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010

Perhaps the most damning, however, is the tax hike on businesses; Obama has yet to announce his new corporate tax rates, but included in the budget is a “financial crisis responsibility fee” on large banks that amounts to $61 billion, taxing energy companies $30 billion over a decade by ending tax cuts, $148 billion in new taxes on multinational corporations, and another $87 billion by changing how businesses value their inventory. Continue reading

Obama the tax cutter…until 2013

I predicted a couple years ago that Barack Obama was going to run as a tax cutter in 2012.  When Obama extended the Bush tax cuts through 2012, my fears were confirmed.  Obama has cut taxes.  Consider this:

In 2010, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts.

In 2009, Obama turned the $7,500 interest free loan on first time homes into an $8,000 freebie.

In 2009 and 2010, Obama passed the $800 a year making work pay tax credit.

In 2011 Obama passed the Social Security tax cut of 2%.

In 2010, a tiny percentage of businesses were eligible for the healthcare tax credit.

Now, watch this:

In 2013, taxes will go up between 5% for the poor to 4.6% for the rich with the end of the Bush tax cuts.

In 2013, even if the extension is passed in 2012, Social Security taxes will be back to 6.2%.

In 2013, individuals with $200,000 or more of income ($250,000 for married) will get an additional .9% in Medicare taxes

In 2013, individuals with income over $200,000 ($250,000 for married) will get another 3.8% in taxes.

In 2013, taxes on dividends and capital gains will jump up to a maximum rate of 39.6%. Even if Obama keeps his promises, it will still jump 5% for everyone.

Democrats are pushing for a 5% surtax on millionaires, which would would mean that in 2013 taxes on people who make a million dollars a year would be 16.3 percentage points higher than they are today to effectively be nearly 50 cents out of every dollar of income.

And Obama has no future election to cause him to prevent any one of these 2013 tax hikes.  In fact, half of these will have been specifically passed by him with a 2013 due date.  At the end of 8 years, Obama’s tax hikes will have vastly outweighed any piddly cuts and politically expedient extensions he has signed in the first four years.

Don’t be fooled. Obama isn’t a tax cutter, he’s just a politically smart tax and spend liberal.

Newt vs. the CBO

You can tell the left is afraid of someone when they bring out the big guns.  Relying on his credentials as a former conservative, Bruce Bartlett has come out attacking Newt Gingrich for policies from over a decade and a half ago that Bartlett claims are responsible for today’s Congressional malaise.  Apparently, Ginrich’s reforms were not so terrible that Nancy Pelosi would want to change them when she had the chance.

One of Bartlett’s grips is that Gingrich consistently calls for an end to the CBO because of the way the CBO does projections.  Unfortunately for Bartlett, his faith in the CBO does not have a great track record to back it up.  After recalculating Obamacare costs and tax savings of all the various bi-partisan deals that have come out, the CBO has recently had to come out and admit they blew their projection of how much Obama’s stimulus was going to save the economy, and the number of jobs saved.

The problem with the CBO is that they don’t do dynamic budgeting.  They do projections.  In other words, Bartlett points out that the CBO figured the losses from the Bush tax cuts to be $3 trillion, but those losses are calculated based on the growth during Bush’s presidency and assumes that growth would have happened no matter what.  On the other hand, dynamic budgeting would look at this prolonged Obama recession and see that we have lost close to a trillion dollars a year in tax revenues because of stagnant growth and 9% unemployment.  The CBO, and Bartlett, are not smart enough to figure that out.

Bartlett thinks the CBO is smarter than Newt.  Actually, they just use different processes.  CBO processes are the perfect product of government bureaucracy economics that assume all things are equal and that policies will have no effect beyond the typed text of the bill.  On the other hand, Newt attempts to anticipate how ideas will affect other areas of the economy.  It’s more of a successful business approach where the results of the study mean more than giving one party ammo to sell a bill, like Obamacare.  For more info on the CBO’s recent record, there is a less than flattering article over at Biggovernment.com.

So which budgeting approach is better?  Depends on if you actually care about the results, or if you are a jaded former conservative writing for the New York Times.

%d bloggers like this: