Let's put the idiotic "Tax Cuts for the Rich" bleat into context

The problem is NOT "too little revenue, we can't afford the tax cuts". the problem CLEARLY is too much spending, whether "progressives" like it or not.

.....from Daniel Mitchell at Cato, who adds:

"Amazing how the problem becomes obvious when you look at real numbers and don’t get trapped into using “baseline” math..."

Correcting Austan Goolsbee about the pending Obama tax increases

Read about it here:

"Despite the constant repeating of myths by Goolsbee and other Obama Administration officials, these myths remain just that. The American people recognize that higher tax rates on high-earners wouldn’t just hurt the rich but would hurt Americans at all income levels because they would destroy jobs, reduce wages, and limit prosperity for everyone."

"Night of the Living Debt"

(via Conservative NC)

Your Obama "stimulus" at work

"Unemployment Likely Increased to 9.7 Percent in September"

Imagine that!

Noteworthy:

"The amount of unemployment we’ve already got and the slowness of recovery lead to predictions that we could have 9-plus percent unemployment even through the next presidential election."




Things are not looking too peachy in Obamaland, are they?

The noxious effects of Obama's proposed tax hikes

And this stuff doesn't even consider the VAT he and his cronies are gleefully expecting to additionally impose.

Summary:

"Since 1996, Congress after Congress has voted to lighten the tax burden on Americans. The current Congress will decide this fall whether to continue this policy or to significantly raise personal income taxes. President Obama has advanced a plan that reverses the long-standing successful policy: The President and his supporters are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses— including small businesses, the primary job creators in the country.

Those who will be most burdened if this plan becomes law are the millions of Americans just starting their economic lives and the millions more trying to find work after the worst recession in 60 years. The rest, whose lives are affected by the investments and business decisions of those taxpayers in the high-income classes, will share the burden. No income earner will be unscathed.

Instead of extracting more income from the private economy, Congress should immediately reduce its spending and enact fundamental entitlement reform that supports strong economic growth. Heritage Foundation economists explain why employment and the economy cannot be made to grow through higher taxes—and how crucial it is for Congress to recognize this fact."

"Economic Malpractice"

Our current malaise is a great example of the price we pay for putting agenda-driven economic amateurs in charge.

Noteworthy:

"How did they get it so wrong? It is because they have an economic theory, which did not and does not work in practice. If Team Obama had known American economic history, it would have known there was no case where a big increase in government spending — correctly measured as a percentage of gross domestic product — led to both higher private consumption and significant job growth (including World War II, when private consumption by necessity was severely restricted).

....To fund the stimulus spending, Team Obama is forced to sell an extra trillion dollars or so in government bonds. To whom does the government sell these bonds? The buyers are U.S. businesses and individuals (often through funds), and foreigners. When businesses and individuals buy these government bonds, they have less money for productive investment (government bonds primarily fund transfer payments, not productive investment) or private consumption. Less productive investment and/or private consumption means fewer private-sector jobs. Government can create government-sector jobs at the expense of private-sector jobs, but not at a higher real wage — which is one reason why a growing welfare state and/or a socialist economy always fail. Team Obama seems to have missed these basic historical lessons.....


....Team Obama persists in passing and implementing legislation and regulations that are obvious job-killers, yet it seems to be surprised when other countries that are not engaged in self-flagellation and economic malpractice are growing more rapidly and creating many new jobs."

Is it November yet?

CATO@LIBERTY:"New York Times Seeks Higher Taxes on the ‘Rich’ as Prelude to Higher Taxes on the Middle Class"

Noteworthy:

"Most advocates of big government understand that it will be impossible to turn America into a European-style welfare state without a value-added tax, but they don’t want to publicly associate themselves with that view until the political environment is more conducive to success. Most important, they realize that it will be very difficult to impose a VAT without seducing some gullible Republicans into giving them political cover. And one way of getting GOPers to sign up for a VAT is by convincing them that they have to choose a VAT if they don’t want a return to the confiscatory 70 percent tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Any moves in that direction, such as raising the top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent next January, are part of this long-term strategy to pressure Republicans (as well as naive members of the business community) into a VAT trap.

Shifting to other assertions, the editorial claims that 'more revenue will be needed in years to come to keep rebuilding the economy.' That’s obviously a novel assertion, and the editors never bother to explain how and why more tax revenue will lead to a stronger economy. Are the folks at the New York Times not aware that both economic growth and living standards are lower in European nations that have imposed higher tax burdens? Heck, even the Keynesians agree (albeit for flawed reasons) that higher taxes stunt growth.

The editorial also asserts that, 'Since 2002, the federal budget has been chronically short of revenue.' I suppose if revenues are compared to the spending desires of politicians, then tax collections are – and always will be – inadequate. The same is true in Greece, France, and Sweden. It doesn’t matter whether revenues are 20 percent of GDP or 50 percent of GDP. The political class always wants more."

Let's see:

- VAT

- Cap 'n Trade

- Higher health care costs, poorer health care service

- More regulation that generally raises costs across the board in many other areas

- Perpetually high true un- and under-employment

- Continued depressed capital investment

- Recurring creation of new bubble economy sectors

- More and improved corruption to pay for the Agenda (tm)

....and it STILL won't be enough for the providers and enablers of bad government, bad policy, continued malaise.

The truth is that these.....people......have absolutely no intent to stop spending, and have no intent to reduce the deficit. They just want MORE MONEY, MORE SPENDING, MORE AGENDA FULFILLMENT.

Are we not smart enough to put a stranglehold on these problems nationally on November 2nd, to be followed up with other action to cure the cancer that's growing?

Economic Fish Stories

Michael J. Boskin:

"President Obama says 'every economist who's looked at it says that the Recovery Act has done its job'—i.e., the stimulus bill has turned the economy around. That's nonsense.

Opinions differ widely and many leading economists believe that its impact has been small. Why? The expectation of future spending and future tax hikes to pay for the stimulus and Mr. Obama's vast expansion of government are offsetting the direct short-run expansionary effect. That is standard in all macroeconomic theories.

So, as I and others warned in 2008, the permanent government expansion and higher tax rate agenda is a classic example of what not to do during bad economic times. Worse yet, all the subsidies, bailouts, regulations and mandates are forcing noncommercial decisions on the economy, which now awaits literally thousands of new diktats as a result of things like ObamaCare and the financial reform bill. The uncertainty is impeding investment and hiring."

More economic fish stories are found here and here

As well we know, that particular blog, and many of its commentators (some of whom actually profess "expertise" in the subject) are routinely at the top of the clueless list on the general subject of the economy, just like their big brother hero.

Illustrating the Obama "Recovery"

Hat tip: the Mark Levin Show

It's official: It's not really your money

......according to the Dems/Lefties/"Progressives", it's the government's income.

Jim DeMint:

“Sen. Dorgan just said a vote for tax cuts is a vote to ‘reduce this country’s income.' To Democrats, it’s the government’s money. Not yours.”


Erick Ericson:

"Really Senator Dorgan? Voting to give Americans back their own money was a vote to “reduce this country’s income with the biggest benefits going to the wealthiest Americans?”

Certainly cutting taxes reduces the governments’ income in a static calculation, but we also know that revenue into the treasury went up after those tax cuts.

The Democrats really do think it is their money."

Notice how Dipsquat Dorgan lies about the unemployment benefit extension?

As noted elsewhere, Republicans were more than willing to vote for the extension-- as long as funding from the failed stimulus paid for it, or funding from another program covered the cost.

Common sense prevails

Cap 'n Tax Trade fails, and Dingy Harry is forced to settle for a weak alternative that likely will not needlessly cost the American family thousands of dollars a year in support of a cherished Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" worldview agenda that promotes scientific fraud and bogus energy policies..

Noteworthy:

"Republicans rejected Mr. Reid's effort to blame them for the political failure of the cap and trade proposal. 'His own party doesn't support the idea,' said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska)."

Let's see if we can re-focus attention on making progress in using our coal and natural gas resources to provide for our energy needs.

The reality of health care "reform" keeps getting uglier each day

Robert Samuelson, on what we've learned from Massachusetts' fiasco:

"All this anticipates Obamacare. Even if its modest measures to restrain costs succeed -- which seems unlikely -- the effect on overall spending would be slight. The system's fundamental incentives won't change. The lesson from Massachusetts is that genuine cost control is avoided because it's so politically difficult. It means curbing the incomes of doctors, hospitals and other providers. They object. To encourage 'accountable care organizations' would limit consumer choice of doctors and hospitals. That's unpopular. Spending restrictions, whether imposed by regulation or 'global payments,' raise the specter of essential care denied. Also unpopular.

Obama dodged the tough issues in favor of grandstanding. Imitating Patrick, he's already denouncing insurers' rates, as if that would solve the spending problem. What's occurring in Massachusetts is the plausible future: Unchecked health spending determines government priorities and inflates budget deficits and taxes, with small health gains. And they call this 'reform'?

Actually, the Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" are now calling it what they refused to call it before the abomination became law....a tax:

"When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s 'power to lay and collect taxes.'


.....'For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,' the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program 'This Week.'

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, 'I absolutely reject that notion.'"

Meanwhile, back in Taxachusetts, what the "progressives" and Obama insisted would NOT happen under Obamacare is now happening in the Bay State. Companies are canceling their group health coverage. "But it's not a trend!" is the first thing out of the cheerleaders' mouths.

Excerpt:

"The state’s landmark 2006 health insurance overhaul included regulations designed to discourage low-wage employees from opting for state health insurance over their companies’ often more pricey coverage. It denied eligibility to any one whose employer had offered him or her coverage in the past six months and paid at least 33 percent toward the individual’s plan.

Most health care advocates and brokers had widely interpreted that to include even workers whose companies had dropped coverage. But recently, some companies that have terminated their group plans have tested those waters and found that their employees were accepted for state-subsidized coverage."

Here's more on the incentives for employers to drop their employees' health plan coverage:

"The National Federation of Independent Business has noted several serious problems the law will cause for small businesses and for employment.

For example, because the law requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage or pay a fine, small businesses will be discouraged from hiring more workers if it would push their staff above the threshold.

They also might be inclined to lay off employees to get under the threshold. The small-business tax credits that would offset the cost of providing employees health care last only six years. After that, small businesses will carry the entire load.

Employees of large companies also have reason for concern, according to Forbes magazine. This is because it would cost a large employer far more to provide employee health care than simply to pay the federal fine for failing to do so."

Hat tip: Laura Ingraham, who adds:

"After claiming that the overhaul would 'bend the cost curve down,' President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority barely managed to force the legislation through Congress, using political bribery and procedural sleight of hand in the face of hostile public opinion.

In fact, the legislation contains little that will moderate the increases in the cost of health care and much that will drive increases. "

The lies they told to get this thing through are legendary, but we can't say we weren't warned about this catastrophe.

We know that we can't expect the "regressive" "progressive" statists to change their zombie-mindedness on agenda issues like this. We will have to salvage what we can by re-taking Congress this November, getting rid of this outrage of a president in the '12 election, and praying to God we can limit the damage already caused.

Financial "reform" passes Senate, but Fannie and Freddie once again escape scrutiny

Imagine that!

Noteworthy:

"Today, after imploding and being seized by Washington, the GSEs ostensibly have unlimited access to taxpayer assistance. At the very least, their operations and liabilities should be incorporated into official U.S. budget calculations. This is not a matter of left-right politics; it’s a matter of fiscal candor. As
economist Doug Elmendorf, President Obama’s CBO director, told the Wall Street Journal back in September 2008 when he was a Brookings fellow,

'Trying to keep these entities off the government’s books, given the government’s financial commitment, would perpetuate the illusion that they aren’t the government’s problem, even when they are.'"

Vincent Reinhart sums up the financial "reform" nonsense in a nutshell:

"The Senate’s passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill is an event too discouraging to comment upon at length. What does it suggest we have learned as a nation from the past few years of financial turmoil?

• The failure of regulation requires more regulation.

• Multiple layers of official oversight would be made more effective if made more numerous.

• The financial system—in all the Byzantine complexity that thwarted official examination, market discipline, and effective internal controls—should be made more complex."

Such is the legacy of The Obamanation, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and the other conspirator members of the Vast Democrat Culture of Corruption.

The continuing misery of the Keynesians

.....as aided and abetted by buffoons like Obama, Krugman, and fellow lefty lunatics nationally and locally,as illustrated and discussed here, to jog the collective memories of those who brought this about, and to remind the rest of us about the utter failure in leadership shown by this most disastrous of presidential administrations.




Noteworthy:

* Dan DiMicco, CEO of steelmaker Nucor Corp, told the Wall Street Journal: “Companies large and small are saying, ‘I am not going to do anything until these things — health care, climate legislation — go away or are resolved.’”

* Porta-King CEO Steve Schulte told USA Today his company is not investing because “proposals in Congress to tackle climate change and overhaul health care would raise costs.”

* Stock analyst Peter Sidoti told The New York Post: “‘There hasn’t been one bankruptcy,’ he tells me. How did they survive the recession? By cutting costs and hoarding cash, not expanding their business and hiring more people, even as the economy now is starting to recover. During other recoveries, Sidoti says, firms like these would be hiring workers in droves as demand picks up for goods and services. This time around, they’re not — because ‘they don’t know what their costs are going to be.’”

More:

"In 1980, I had the privilege of advising Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ignore the demands of 360 British economists who made the outrageous claim that Britain would never (yes, never) recover from her decision to reduce government spending during a severe recession. They wanted more spending. She responded with a speech promising to stay with her tight budget. She kept a sustained focus on long-term problems. Expectations about the economy's future improved, and the recovery soon began.

That's what the U.S. needs now. Not major cuts in current spending, but a credible plan showing that authorities will not wait for a fiscal crisis but begin to act prudently and continue until deficits disappear, and the debt is below 60% of GDP. Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) offered a plan, but the administration and Congress ignored it.

The country does not need more of the same. Successful leaders give the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to bring a better tomorrow. Let's plan our way out of our explosive deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty and encouraging growth."

The hidden costs of Obama's failed economic policies

.....are likely to be much more destructive than what people like Krugman and his loyal band of "More_Useless_Stimulus_Now", and "Higher_Taxes_Solves_The_Problem" crowd of dimwits could ever conceive in their agenda -enabling minds.

Excerpt:

"Put all of this together, and you begin to get a sense of the importance of the employment reports. They are more than indicators of what has happened; they also shed light on what will likely happen going forward. The greater the persistence of high unemployment now, the higher the likelihood that it will drive future behavior of governments, companies and individuals....."

The Obama debt: It's worse than you think

Much worse:

Edmund Conway:

".... Exhibit A is the fact that under the Obama administration's current fiscal plans, the national debt in the US (on a gross basis) will climb to above 100pc of GDP by 2015 - a far steeper increase than almost any other country."

John Hinderaker:

"The Democrats in Washington are both too stupid and too ideologically committed to read the writing on the wall. They are leading the United States over a financial cliff, and they have no intention of turning back. On the contrary: if they can, they will hobble our economy further by enacting a carbon tax.

There is only one way to stop them, and to save our children--from whom greedy, selfish Washington liberals are borrowing trillions of dollars--from a lifetime of debt. The Democrats must be voted out in 2010, and Barack Obama must be denied a second opportunity to deconstruct the country that he doesn't much like."

Government "job creation": Just a myth, or is it an outright lie?

Kenneth Green: "Slapping Green Lipstick on the Job Creation Pig"

Noteworthy:

"President Obama is traveling around bragging about how his government is creating jobs, and will create more. But this is bunk: the myth of 'government job creation' has been busted more times than Tiger Woods’ pretensions to monogamy. In fact, in my area of study, energy and environmental policy, nearly everything that the president and his allies in Congress are doing is likely suppressing job growth, if not killing jobs outright."

"Jobs created or saved"!

What a sick joke played on the American people......

#

New source of funds for the Obama union bailout plan: Your 401k

Outraged?

Why?

Don't you know it's just to protect you?

Connie Hair:

"In February, the White House released its 'Annual Report on the Middle Class' containing new regulations favored by Big Labor including a bailout of critically underfunded union pension plans through 'retirement security' options.

The radical solution most favored by Big Labor is the seizure of private 401(k) plans for government disbursement — which lets them off the hook for their collapsing retirement scheme. And, of course, the Obama administration is eager to accommodate their buddies.

….the backdoor bulls-eye is on your 401(k) plan and the trillions of dollars the government would control through seizure, regulation and federal disbursement of mandatory retirement accounts.

Boehner and the group are sounding the alarm, warning bureaucrats to keep their hands off of America’s private retirement plans."

No, there's nothing to see here. Let's just move along.....

#

VAT: The answer to Dems' question about "How do we get more money to spend?"

Washington Examiner:

"And current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that 'to avoid large and ultimately unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.' Bernanke knows, of course, that politicians like Obama and Pelosi aren't about to cut spending, which leaves only higher taxes.

That's why the fundamental problem here is not that Americans pay too little in taxes, it's that Washington politicians can't stop spending more and more of our money every year. By 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending will equal 90 percent of the country's gross domestic product. So our politicians clearly have no intention of checking into spending rehab. They're counting on getting that euphoria with the VAT fix. If they do, the rest of us will be left with a dead economy."

Obama's Stimulus job creation scoreboard

Here's the results so far:

Promised: 2.5 million

Created: 30, 383

Additional Jobs lost on his watch: Untold millions, with more to come

Vincent Reinhart thinks that the Obama administration’s financial reform package hits the trifecta of bad policy making:

"The White House proposal misdiagnoses the problem, fails to recognize the inherent adverse dynamics of regulation, and treats the bulk of the industry unfairly.

....and:

"Our fundamental problem is not that institutions deemed too big to fail do not get sufficient scrutiny. Our problem is that some institutions are deemed too big to fail."

It's not Obama's fault. We "raaaaaaaaaaacists" are sabotaging him, obviously.

#