| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Lies, Durn Lies, and Obama's Tax Proposal |
| 2008-09-23 |
| During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on "damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own plan. Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism, Team Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought. The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more. That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist. American voters don't buy Team Obama's arguments. A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Mr. Obama would raise their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy. Energy prices have pounded the U.S. economy. The recent woes on Wall Street have further shaken our weakened economy. Certain pillars of our economy, such as productivity gains and American ingenuity, continue to be powerful economic assets. But the current debt situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism, along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly precarious position. Most credible economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn only makes the situation worse. Given our current economic situation, Mr. Obama's tax plan is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire. Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Dividend and capital gains taxes will take money from all those. Those Americans on Main Street who own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase. Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; we do. Businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in the closet that they simply turn over to government when taxes increase. For every dollar that you increase taxes on a business, they simply increase their prices by a dollar. Who then pays the tax? We do. We do, when the product that we bought last week for $20 suddenly costs $21. Mr. Obama's plan for universal health care and increased spending on just about everything costs hundreds of billions of dollars. To keep his promises to provide those things while eliminating the deficit and giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off. Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent already carry more of the burden. The ancient Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder once said, "In wine there is truth." It means that people tell you what they really think once they have a couple of drinks. I don't think Mr. Biden was drinking on the campaign trail last week, but it was a rare moment of complete candor when he told ABC News that people who are well-off have a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. That perfectly states the liberal Democratic philosophy that those who do the right things in their personal life to make more money have an obligation not only to pay more taxes (which they do even under a flat tax because 17 percent of higher-income is more than 17 percent of lower-income), but that they should pay an ever-higher additional percentage on top of that. Liberal Democrats consider it patriotic to pay more taxes, and have a consistent record of voting to help nurture our patriotism for us. That reveals what is really going on here. The statistics don't lie. Team Obama's plan is not economically prudent, and it's not a patriotic tonic for what ails our economy. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #14 Double ditto Ptah. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-09-23 21:07 |
| #13 Don't leave out the CDC: they're the medical DEW line for the entire planet. We give them way too little money for what they do. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2008-09-23 21:06 |
| #12 We can save a ton of money just by getting rid of HUD and Education - there's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes them at the federal level anyway. Not that that stops the politicians.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-09-23 18:37 |
| #11 When you allow kids in the candy store they're bound to make a mess. Congress on both sides of the aisle is exactly that and has been for a long time. There are programs in this country that I think are vital (the military, NASA, maybe the Dept of Energy which funds a LOT of long-term research which has direct benefits, maybe a few others). A 10% across-the-board budget cut would kill NASA and lot of DOE programs, but you could easily eliminate a few dozen other government departments and programs - the IRS, the Dept of Education, HUD, and others just to start. Getting rid of the nearly 2-dozen government police agencies and forcing the FBI to do its job would be another. Restructuring the Dept of State and the CIA would also be a start. Inevitably, you're going to have to force the tes of thousands of government workers and lawyers out of their comfy do-nothing government jobs out into a labor force where a lot of them will have the skills only to dig ditches (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). One can dream, but as long as it's kids minding the candy store there's going to be a mess. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-09-23 18:08 |
| #10 Every once in awhile in the US a third party replaces one of the existing parties. I think that time is overdue. If Obama loses it's likely the Greens will gain in strength. If Obama wins the Libertarians (or the Libertarian wing of the Republicans) will gain strength. I just think too many people are pissed off right now. I mean Bush's numbers are low. Congress is even lower. Both candidates are trying to campaign as outsiders and reformers. Everyone knows the system is screwed but the boys and girls in Congress just can't control themselves long enough anymore. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-23 16:43 |
| #9 Amen to that comment Jack, and with a wife to match Winnie Mandela. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-09-23 16:42 |
| #8 There won't be any money left to give to anyone. He is our Mugabe. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2008-09-23 16:07 |
| #7 I want to see Congress actually have some balls. Ain't going to happen. At least not the way you're hoping, Remoteman. The key problem here is that we have lawyers making our laws. They have a vested interest in creating complex, weasle worded wonders that they or their ilk can bypass at will. Until we fix that, we're not going to have law for the common man, and the legal profession will continue to screw us into the ground. |
| Posted by: DLR 2008-09-23 15:06 |
| #6 Word RJ. I want to see Congress actually have some balls. No way it is going to happen, at least on the Dem side. But it would be nice to see the Republicans actually step up and put forth a plan that would introduce fundamental change. Of course some groups would be pissed off. So what. They are going to be a whole lot more pissed off if the economy goes deep into the tank due to Obama/the dems mismanagement. If Obama does win, you know he is going to screw things up so badly that there won't be another democrat elected president for a generation. But that screw up is going to cost us all dearly. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-09-23 14:07 |
| #5 I'm waiting for a politician to say, okay, IRS is gone. Flat tax has worked wonders in Chile and the Baltic States so we'll start at 15% (or whatever the economists decide). We believe this will unclutter the economy and a year from now (or two) we'll further fine-tune. Also we're planning an across the board budget cut. Everything gets cut 10% except the military. Other programs are just gonna have to go because we can't pay off Social Security the way we're going and those cute little old people, well we promised them long before we promised the piss-Christ artist he'd get cash. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-23 10:30 |
| #4 Just because you are lowering taxes does not mean that you increase the amount of money returned. In Obama's plan it probably does, but it doesn't necessarily mean so. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-23 10:27 |
| #3 Both candidate's economic plans will be rendered moot by January 20th due to the current unfolding crisis. Obama's plans are already irrelevant & getting more so daily. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2008-09-23 09:20 |
| #2 giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off. More imperialist dogma. Comrade Obama will provide food, clothes, government mandated forgiveness from Discover Card and Amex debt. Free housing will also be provided seperately. The periodic $1000 cash payments will be provided for Escalade lease payments and gas. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-09-23 08:52 |
| #1 Posted for my friend, Edd, an occasional lurker. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-09-23 06:39 |