New Romney Ad Ties Obama to Pelosi and Middle Class Tax Hikes

   Bookmark and Share                A new 30 second commercial being run by the Romney-Ryan ticket finally begins to interject a narrative into the presidential race that can effectively counter the Obama class warfare strategy being aimed at middle class Americans.  (see ad below this post)

While the ad is far from groundbreaking what it does do is cast a large shadow of doubt over President Obama’s policies by pointing out that not only will they lead to higher taxes on the middle class… they ‘already have’ raised taxes on the middle class.

The ad which is aptly titled “Already Has” bases the claim on a very reliable and non-partisan report issued by the Congressional Budget Office back in July.  The report essentially concludes that between Obamacare and Obama economic policies the federal government will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit by much less than the President claims.

According to the C.B.O. revenue increases built into in the Obamacare law would essentially lead to a trillion dollars in higher taxes.  These taxes include revenues from Obamacare-driven individual and employer mandates, combined with a so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost benefits and additional taxes on drugmakers, medical device manufacturers and insurers.   All of which in addition to raising medical costs will also place direct and indirect tax increases on middle class taxpayers and their families.  The report also concludes that this would all result in  a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period.

All of this spells disaster for taxpayers and the American economy and none of it should provide thinking Americans with  good reason to reelect President Obama but to really drive the point home, the ad goes a step further by featuring a picture of the President with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  The image is a politically damaging reminder of just how ideologically close Obama and Pelosi.  It is a point that can only help to turn the stomachs of any fiscally responsible voter.

Unfortunately, most casual observers will not want to get into the nuts and bolts that explain the charges in Romney’s new ad.  However, by just bringing it to the attention of the 6% or so of the independent voters out there in the six swing states that will determine who the next President is, Romney is finally on track to establishing a narrative in this campaign that could provide him with the momentum he needs to turn those currently uncommitted voters in to committed Romney voters.

Bookmark and Share

Be Afraid – Be Very Afraid

Bookmark and Share  We now know Obama-tax is the law of the land. It’s a big-ass beast that’s here to stay unless the people kill it. Whether you’re Republican or Democrat, you’re probably not digging the idea of a big tax hike during a “recession”. Americans For Tax Reform estimates some $500 billion over 10 years and further, it includes 20 new or increased taxes already in effect or right around the corner. And not all but lots of these are applicable to wage earners at the $250,000 a year level or below. A level Obama swore he wouldn’t exploit. Worse, just yesterday CNBC reported the house ways and means committee says there are “21 tax increases costing more than $675 billion over the next ten years” and “75% of the costs could fall on the backs of those making less than $120,000 a year.” Geez, what happened to the $250,000 mark?

And as a result of Thursday’s ruling, The American Action Forum (AAF), says, because states now know they can cut their Medicaid rolls back to the federally designated minimums, that tax payers will get hammered further. AAF chief Douglas Holtz-Eakinand said,”It seems safe to say that the [health law] will leave the taxpayer on the hook for “an additional $500 billion or so in federal costs over the first 10 years.” Not good.

Recall in March, the Congressional Budget Office released an ‘official’ government adjustment for the cost of Obama-care over a decade from $940 billion to — here we go — $1.76 trillion. Now, according to AAF, we can throw another $500 billion or so on to that. Super.

Let’s be honest, whether it’s $940 billion or $1.76 trillion or over $2 trillion (if you add in AAF’s new $500 billion) this is absurd. This isn’t a 2-cent increase on everyone’s phone bill, you know, an unpleasant little creature hiding under the stairs. This is a colossal beast — dirty, drooling, dim and dangerously destructive. Doctors don’t like it, businesses don’t like it and the majority of people (about 60%) don’t like it. Who does? The supreme ruler, San Fran Nan and other liberal-socialist politicians and their followers. But they represent the minority.

You’re going to hear lots of speeches that include personal stories of how Obama-care helps Joe. You’ll see lots of television commercials about how Sally was saved by Obama-care. These are designed to tug on your heart. Don’t be swayed. Unrolling benefits before costs was an intentional move by Democrats. Everyone knows the bill always comes after the meal. Pay close attention. It will be interesting to see how many seniors are paraded out as examples of success and how many times the phrase cost-utility analysis is used.

Cost-utility analysis is used to estimate the ratio between the cost of treatment and any benefit in terms of the number of years lived in full health by the patient. Basically, it’s a financial calculation to determine whether a medical procedure is worth it. For example, does an Obama-care bureaucrat authorize heart surgery for a 74-year old? Does a government bureaucrat authorize a life long, expensive prescription to a 15-year old? And what if, say, the prescription doesn’t really bring “full health” but rather just maintains the 15-year old at his or her current level of impairment. This is the Obama-care you won’t see on television or hear in rah-rah speeches — a bureaucrat running cost-utility analysis on a spreadsheet in a cubicle in Washington. Are these death panels? You tell me.

You’ll also be presented with the false choice of Obama-care or back to the old ways. I’d wager virtually everyone in America would be receptive to re-working healthcare. The argument is that this particular healthcare proposal sucks. Sure there are some strong concepts, but the rest just blows — big time. It wasn’t thoughtful legislation. It arose from emotional and fanatical, liberal-socialist ideology — it’s been a wet-dream for the Left for a 100 years — quick we’re in power, rush, rush, sign, sign. It wasn’t even written when it was passed.

All I’m saying is deranged Doc Barack, his loony lab assistant San Fran Nan and the other liberal-socialist scientists had their shot at mixing the test tubes and they concocted this monstrosity. And now it’s on the loose. We need to destroy this monster now, before it destroys us. There are other ways to approach healthcare that don’t need massive government, outrageous taxes and costs or bureaucratic death panels — pardon me, cost-utility calculations.Bookmark and Share

Obama-tax Is Law, What Now?

It’s time for a vote. Don’t you think? A vote on Obama-care, sorry, Obama-tax. A recorded vote. A roll call. Let’s hear some good old fashioned Yeas and Nays. It’s time for politicians from both parties to go on the record regarding the Obama-tax. It should happen as soon as they return from recess. Playtime is over, kids, it’s time to answer to the American people. The Republicans will vote. In fact, there’s mumblings they’re scheduling one. I’ll try and confirm that. If so, great. Let’s make sure votes are recorded because we need Democrats on record as to where they stand on this massive tax.

Democrats shouldn’t have a problem with this. After all, they’ve have made it clear over the last three years they want to raise taxes — remember — to get people to pay their fair share. Well, now they can go on record and declare where they stand on Obama-tax. Most likely Democrats will resist this any way possible. But that’s why we pay the Republicans the big bucks. They need to figure out how to make this happen. We want names. Television coverage would be good, too. If we chant, if we rant and if we rave loud enough, there will be a recorded vote.

Consider that some Democrats up for re-election, as you read this, are distancing themselves from Obama’s policies. Some, I think we were up to 14 or so at last count, have bailed on the national convention. Some don’t want Obama any where near them or their state. To these politicians, Obama and all he represents, is toxic. Sort of the old, ‘thanks, but no thanks’. And now we can add Obama-tax as more radioactive fallout. Now is the time.

The Left knows this is a big problem. Already we are back to the word games. On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the “fine” is really still just a “penalty.” It’s a penalty or fine when they need it to be — like when talking to the American people. But it’s a tax when they need it to be a tax — like when they argued in front of SCOTUS. San Fran Nan said tax or penalty, heck, it’s Washington-speak. I heard David Axelrod on television, perhaps it was Friday, call it a punishment on free-riders or free-loaders — it’s a punishment on somebody. Ain’t that a peach — Democrats now calling the “needy”, those they supposedly protect, free-riders.

Democrats are the entitlement party, they promote hand-outs and free-rides as a way to buy votes. Suddenly, they’re willing to admit they’re into punishing the peasants? Ax-man, you crazy cat, tell us something we don’t know.

And it’s going to be pricey. That’s a winning bet for sure. Jump back to March, the Congressional Budget Office released an ‘official’ adjustment for the cost of Obama-care over a decade from $940 billion to — ready — $1.76 trillion. And if you bet that the middle class will bear the brunt of Obama-care, you’d have a winner, too. And just as certain is this, no matter what word games Democrats play — they can call it a fee or a penalty or punishment for freeloading — the truth is, the Supreme Court, the law of the land, calls it a tax.

And so now it is time to take action. Contact your representatives at the House and Senate. Phone them, email them, demand a recorded vote on Obama-tax. Someone more creative than I should come up with a catchy slogan the citizens can rally around. Maybe call it Phone Call – Roll Call or Pound the Politicians Day. Even better, we can make it a couple of days. Ring up their phones until their ears hurt. Pound away with emails. Prompt your family and friends and neighbors to do the same. Republican or Democrat, the people are in charge in America. We didn’t consent to Obama-tax. It was jammed down our throats. Let’s create such noise that we read headlines like “The people demand a vote”. Who knows, maybe we can take down Obama-tax in July. And if not, that’s all right, we know who to chase from office come November.

Loose Change you can believe in!

Bookmark and Share    Amid charges of “class warfare”, “betrayal” and calls to “tax the rich!” lies a very important question:

Just why are we having this debate?

Increasing taxes will not solve the problem, and what money it will bring in will amount to little more than loose change, because it will go into funding expanding government, not fixing the economy. The problem is that all the talk is about raising taxes, and not about cutting spending. The debate is about the burden on the economy, and adding to the burden, and not about generating growth.

President Obama obviously feels that what worked for Osama Bin Laden, a couple of bullets in the head, will work for the American economy too, or at least by holding a gun to its head. President Obama defies anyone to disagree with him on this one, so no change there. “This is not class warfare,” Obama said. “It’s math.” But his rhetoric is about as empty as the brains in the Fed. In case we don’t get it, Obama in his speech used all his favorite phrases: “I’m not going to allow,” “I’m not going to stand for,” “I will not support” and “I will veto.”

Um, this is America’s economy we’re talking about, not your kid’s end of year school report.

To provide support for his claims, the president turned to Warren Buffet. This is one of those maneuvers where you say, look here’s someone who knows, he’s rich! A little like, look, this program works, here’s a rehabilitated drug addict!

Yet, Mr. Buffet did not gain from his income tax deductions, but from his use of investment vehicles. And so did lots of other people. So, yes, the rich benefit greatly from the tax code. But so do the poor and middle class.

The reality is that higher earners do progressively pay more. The most recently available Congressional Budget Office statistics state that middle-class families in 2007, earning between $34,000 and $50,000, paid an effective rate of 14.3 percent of their income in all federal taxes. The top 5 percent of income earners paid 27.9 percent and the top 1 percent paid 29.5 percent. The highest earners, meaning Americans with an annual income above $2 million, paid on average 32 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2005. The very rich, the top 1 percent of earners in America, paid 38 percent of income taxes in 2008.

Meanwhile, nearly half American households pay no income taxes at all, because the Tax Code says they don’t earn enough. Middle-class taxpayers get a large tax break in home mortgage interest deductions. In all, according to government statistics, last year federal taxpayers received $1.08 trillion in credits, deductions and other perks and paid $1.09 trillion in income taxes, so that’s a massive difference of $0.01 trillion.

The real problem is that this is not just a tax on the rich. It is also a tax on wealth creation, a concept that Democrats have a hard time understanding at the best of times. People pursue their dreams, and work for the rewards and to pass them on to their families and loved ones. Some people don’t want to work so hard, and so settle for less. They have a choice in how they seek their rewards in a liberal society.

In our liberal society, however, a different kind of “liberal” comes along and says government needs to intervene and tell people that they, and the government, will decide what people should do with their wealth. They do this because they believe human nature is bad, and people do not want to give their wealth away for the good of the society “liberals” want to make in their own image, so they need government to do this for them.

Yet, as Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute notes, “The top 10 percent of households in income are responsible for at least a quarter of all the money contributed to charity, and households with total wealth exceeding $1 million give about half of all charitable donations.”

In a liberal society, people should be free to decide how to use their wealth, and they should have the decent human nature to give some of their wealth away philanthropically. This is the moral connection, not the facile moral argument that higher taxes mean more a moral society.

When it comes to the Democrats, they are trying to legislate for their own failure of understanding human nature.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: