Obama’s Class Warfare Targets Middle Class

By now, the country is used to the rich being the easy target of the left.  When a tiny percentage of the country pays the vast majority of the tax burden, it is easy to target that tiny majority as the evil villains who only have what they have because the government paved the roads between their dorm and class room.  This allows Democrats to come out in favor of massive tax increases while not losing elections.  The only people who are affected by taxes on the rich, other than the rich, are those bitter clinger Americans who still believe in the American dream and foolishly think they could also earn more than $200,000 some day.

So what does Obama do when the Supreme Court reveals that the Obamacare tax hike is in fact a tax hike?  What does he do when the numbers are tabulated and we discover that the majority of people affected by Obamacare are not the evil rich, but in fact are the angelic middle class?  Well, it’s time to do some re-branding.

Meet the evil middle class.  While making more than 400% of the poverty level, they still would rather pay an annual $695 per person tax than shell out $695+ per month for health insurance.  These are the “free-loaders”.  They are the people who supposedly can afford to spend 10% or more of their income on health insurance but choose not to.  As a result, when they get sick we all foot the bill.

The problem is that Obamacare is designed to vastly expand the evil, free-loading middle class.  First, the Obamacare tax is $695 per adult, making it far cheaper than overly taxed Obamacare approved insurance.  Second, the $2,000 and $3,000 taxes on businesses for not insuring their employees is far cheaper than the overly taxed Obamacare approved corporate insurance plans.  Third, you don’t have to have insurance.  Under Obamacare, you can skip getting insurance right up until the doctor hands you the bill for the expensive operation you just had.

The CBO predicts that 20 million people will lose their insurance because of the Obamacare tax.  I’m proposing that it will be more than that.  Ask any American if they would like to save upwards of $8,000 a year, minus $695, by simply dropping their already frustrating insurance plan and just buying insurance as needed when they get sick.  Obama is about to discover just how evil, and smart, the middle class really is.

All of this may end up being an academic exercise.  The evil middle class free-loaders, like the rich free-loaders, will find pay the Obamacare penalty tax in order to avoid paying the more hefty Obamacare tax embedded in insurance rates.  But the real crippler for Obamacare taxes will be states who refuse to pay the Medicaid tax mandate involved with fully implementing Obamacare.  Obamacare is, as Kagan described it, a boatload of federal money to increase state Medicaid programs.  But that boatload isn’t nearly sufficient to meet the needs of expanded Obamacare Medicaid state programs.  States like Florida who refuse to partner with Obama on the vast Medicaid expansion now have no threat of losing their current Medicaid dollars.  Losing the cooperation of the states will make Obamacare even more unworkable.

Obama promised no new taxes for people making less than $200,000.  He lied.  Obamacare is a tax on the middle class.  Now that this has been made supremely official, Obama must figure out how to continue to wage his war on the middle class and somehow still get the middle class to vote for him.  Misinformation seems to be his best bet.  That’s why many Americans still think Obamacare has anything to do with being free or universal.

Obama: For Tax And Spend…Before He Was Against It

Obama the penny pincher?

Obama has been exposed in yet another blatant campaign lie.  This one wasn’t even really his fault.  Rex Nutting, a writer for the mainstream/yet left leaning Marketwatch prepared a chart that shows Obama hasn’t really grown spending all that much.  The administration quickly ran with it, putting the chart on their facebook page, and announcing that Obama was a model of fiscal restraint.

So how does this economist at Marketwatch, and now Obama and media reporters who can barely add two and two, come to figure out that Obama is so thrifty?  Simple.  Their percentages make one major assumption that makes the percentages meaningless.  Every dollar of spending in the first year of a President’s term is directly a result of the budget the previous President wrote.

To put it simply, the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill that Obama ran on, lobbied for, pushed through the Democrat super majorities in the House and Senate, and signed was actually spending that should be attributed to Bush.  Of course once you do that you have majorly inflated Bush’s spending and deflated Obama’s spending so that percentages make Obama look like a champ.  I’m not making this up.  This is actually what Rex Nutter did.  He also included 2013 in Obama’s figures even though Obama’s budget lost in the Senate something like 99-0.

The footnote is misleading. Nutter means only $140 billion of the Stimulus (the portion passed in October) is attributed to Obama.

Nutter should be fired, but who is going to fire him?  Journalists rely on people like Nutter to be the “experts”.  That way they don’t have to actually do any work.

“I was for tax and spend, before I was against it!”

Obama’s budget cuts the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years.  Of course, like Clinton’s last budget in office, it is simply words on a page that have absolutely no bearing on reality.  But nevermind the fact that $4 trillion over the next ten years wouldn’t cover Obama’s deficits for his first four years or that his numbers are probably about as accurate as the CBOs estimate of the costs of Obamacare.  Since when did Obama decide he was against tax and spend??

Obama, on the one year anniversary of what Nutter seems to think was Bush’s stimulus, praised the stimulus package as having saved us from another great depression.  So shouldn’t we be thanking Bush?  While Obama has been running as a tax cutting President who pinches pennies on his facebook page, just a couple weeks ago he re-affirmed his tax and spend stance in the upcoming debt ceiling debate.  Obama went from tax and spend, to proud tax cutting President when he was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts, to tax and spend when the debt ceiling debate rolled around again, and back to tax cutting for the 2012 election.  Even John Kerry was more consistent.

Biting the hand that feeds them

It is not coming up all roses for the Obama propaganda machine.  Obama is betting the farm on a populist attack against Bain Capital where Romney used to work.  But the Left has been heavily funded by private equity, and most private equity companies didn’t get the memo about Obama just saying whatever it takes to get elected.  Some of them are actually getting offended by the attacks.

Democrats are getting nervous too.  Apparently not every Democrat feels comfortable biting the hand that feeds them.  But what else does Obama have to attack Romney on other than the fact that he is successful and the “independent” liberal voting base is anti-success?

The attack on Bain is dubious anyway.  As a venture capital company, they may have had lots of layoffs on their watch in order to fix businesses, but Obama has seen 2.5 million net jobs lost on his watch.  Actually, let me borrow some Obama math and accuracy and adjust that number to 6.7 million jobs lost.  After all, if the net loss is 2.5 million, but Obama claims he added 4.2 million, then shouldn’t we be using the total jobs lost figure instead of the net?  Just trying to be consistent, Mr. President.

Obama is running as a conservative while acting like a liberal.  When conservatives force his hand, he is happy to take credit for the results.  When liberalism fails, he is happy to pass the buck to Congress or the previous administration.  He will say or do whatever it takes to win re-election and cannot be trusted.

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: