Posts Tagged ‘stalemate’

What I’d Do To Resolve Stalemate Between Republicans And Democrats On Taxes Targeting The Rich

November 16, 2012

We seem to be in a real fix.  Obama won reelection and seems to think he had a mandate.  In reality, Obama is the first president in American history who got reelected with a SMALLER percentage of the vote and electoral college majority than he did in 2008.  Very much like hated Republican boogeymen such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who were both reelected with larger majorities than they first got into office with.

And yes, the same electorate that gave Obama a “mandate” also reelected an overwhelmingly Republican House of Representatives and gave THEM a mandate.  If Obama has a damn mandate, then the Republican House has every damn much as big of a mandate as Obama has.

For the record, if you want to see what an actual “mandate” really looks like, click here.  Because Ronald Reagan had a mandate.

That versus Obama’s “food stamp mandate” is all you should need to know which side has had a plan to truly build an America that can increase in size and power and which side has a plan to bring America to its knees and ultimately to extinction via unsustainable welfare spending to buy off voters as jobs are destroyed.

So if Obama wants, he can have a pissing contest and insist that Republicans betray their most deeply held convictions about what creates job growth and what STYMIES job growth.  And the only people who will lose are the American people.

The simple, repeatedly historically-proven fact is this: Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.  It is a simple fact of history that when Calvin Coolidge cut the income tax rates, we got an economic boom and increased our tax revenue by increasing economic growth.  When John F. Kennedy cut the tax rates, voilà, we got more revenue.  When Ronald Regan cut the income tax rates, we got a twenty-year trajectory of economic growth.  And yes, when George W. Bush cut the tax rates, guess what?  We got significantly higher tax revenues than we had had before Bush cut taxes.  And to this day the highest year of tax revenues was NOT in the early 1960s when the top marginal rate was 92% and we had a godawful tax revenue problem, but in 2007 under George W. Bush.

Bill Clinton increased taxes in 1993.  And the economy responded with such weakness that the American people decided to elect the largest Republican majorities that took over both the House AND the Senate in history just to show you how well the Clinton tax hike worked.  Do you want to know when Clinton got real economic growth?  After the Republicans were elected, after Clinton said “The era of big government is over” and after he signed the Republican-originated and Republican-passed Taxpayer Relief Act in 1997 which massively cut the capital gains tax rate.

Obama simply does not have the instinct to compromise that Bill Clinton did.  Which is why we have this exchange with ABC anchor Charles Gibson:

MR. GIBSON: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”

It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

In that exchange, Obama officially admitted, “I will not collect as much revenue by attacking the rich.  But I don’t care.”

Obama wants to target the rich, demagogue them, punish them, gin up the kind of class warfare rage that Karl Marx ginned up in his day.  And we just saw, as morally depraved as it is, it’s apparently goooood politics with an amoral American people.  The problem is that what will happen if Obama gets his way is that we’ll see LESS revenue, NOT more.  The rich will increase their rate of withdrawing money from the economy, from investment and from job creation, and instead shelter it and spend it on tax attorneys to keep as much of their money as they can.  We’ve seen this over and over again.

If you actually wanted more tax revenue, i.e., money that could actually help the poor, the smartest thing you could do would be to cut the tax rates and allow investment and business growth to increase the size of the economy and the tax base.  And the very stupidest thing you can do would be to listen to Obama.

Well, the American people are stuck on stupid.  And here’s the fix the Republicans are in: Obama will keep demagoguing and claiming that the answers to America’s prosperity are found in Marxist class warfare.  The implicit message is that the communists got it right; and the means to prosperity is to seize the wealth and redistribute it.  I mean, you can take out the words like “socialist” and “Marxist” and “communist,” but what you can’t do is describe what Obama wants to do and not realize that it’s fundamentally Marxist in approach.  Both want to seize the wealth and redistribute that wealth.  Period.  And so if the Republicans don’t give Obama his tax attack on the rich, we’ll go off the fiscal cliff and Obama – even though the fiscal cliff was HIS idea – will blame the Republicans for it.  And he will succeed, because the mainstream media is nothing more than leftist propaganda these days.  And as we fall off the cliff and into recession, Obama will keep explaining “why”: because Republicans are obstructing and protecting the rich at the expense of the rest of the people.

As completely wrong as Obama is, it his course is by far and away the easiest to demagogue.  When you realize that if all the people who got food stamps voted for Obama, there’s 75% of all the people who voted for him right there with just that, you see how politically powerful Obama’s course is.  At least until America fiscally collapses under the sheer massive weight of its debt.

So what do I propose?  Let Obama have his way.  IF.

Obama says that attacking and devouring the rich is the path to American prosperity.  Prove it, Mister President.  Tell us how much your tax increase will increase tax revenue.  Put a specific number on that claim into the version of the bill that Obama must sign.  And if tax revenues do not go up by the amount you said that they would go up, THEN YOU ARE WRONG.  No excuses.

As an example, consider what the Bush Tax Cut did:

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Do you notice that not only did tax revenues massively increase, but in fact the percentage of taxes paid by the rich also massively increased?

Read what even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge about the FACT that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.” The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

You can say whatever the hell you want, liberal.  But the Bush tax cut resulted in a fifteen percent increase in tax revenue.  According even to the New York Times.

Allow me to interject here that liberal “intellectuals” are actually the stupidest people in the world.  Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”  And what makes Forrest Gump an authority here is that he was a mentally retarded man who listened to the common sense wisdom of a mother who was determined to teach her son to succeed in the real world.  And the story teaches us that Forrest listened to his mother’s wisdom and lived his life according to her proverbs – and he flourished while all the “smart” people around him either lived like fools or came to embrace Forrest Gump’s wisdom.  In the same manner, liberal intellectuals are profoundly stupid people because they hate the world as it actually is and are determined to replace reality with their various “-isms” – such as communism and fascism and existentialism and postmodernism and nihilism – instead.  They refuse to see the world as it is and constantly seek to impose morally idiotic theories that are utterly false.  And that is precisely what they are doing now with their tax demagoguery.  Because “redistributionism” is every bit as stupid and unrealistic of an “-ism” as all the other “-isms” I just listed.

Getting back to point, what numbers do YOU have to “put your money where your mouth is,” Obama???  Are you prepared to make specific guarantees that your tax plan will increase revenues and increase the size of the economy such that if those numbers don’t materialize, YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG AND YOUR TAX HIKE WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ENDED ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL?

Republicans should force Obama to produce hard numbers predicting the revenues his tax hikes will generate by a specific time.  And also demand to know up front exactly how much Obama’s tax warfare plan will reduce the debt.  And Republicans ought to demand that if those hard numbers and dates aren’t met, that Obama’s tax warfare will automatically end and the Bush tax cuts will automatically take their place.

At the very least, that would at least give some demagoguery to the Republicans for a change.  Because if Obama says, “Well, my Marxist tax war on the rich won’t actually have very much effect even in my best case scenario,” then Republicans can rightfully ask, “Then why the hell have you spent most of the last four years harping on it, you demagogue?”  And if Obama wants to make grandiose predictions, then those predictions can and should be hard-baked into the legislation which should also include triggers to kill it if those grandiose predictions aren’t actualized.

Republicans control one-third of the government.  But Democrats clearly have the ball.  The trick is to hold Democrats RESPONSIBLE for their grandiose claims such that if those claims aren’t fulfilled, they are disgraced officially and for the permanent historical record.

Give Obama what he wants – but make him and the Democrat Party pay dearly for it if what happens isn’t what they say will happen if they get their way.

And if Obama won’t agree to these terms, well, then, simply tell Obama’s supporters that if you people want tax increases, well, you should damn-well GET your tax increases.  And you will therefore get to pay the high taxes that you hypocritically and dishonestly wanted to force on somebody else now.  Because the people who ought to be paying the highest taxes in this country are the people who say that somebody ELSE ought to pay higher taxes while they get off scott free.  So to hell with it: let EVERYBODY pay high taxes and be done with it.

And we’ll be able to find out that way that Democrats are liars and that you can’t tax your way into prosperity, too.

I write this because the tactic of fighting over every mole hill shouldn’t be our tactic any longer.  We just lost that battle, I would argue.  If the Democrats demand something like these tax hikes and promise it will fix the economy, oppose it philosophically, demand language within the legislation itself that will officially make the Democrats completely responsible for their false promises, and then let them destroy themselves and as much of America as it takes to finally realize that Democrats are a bunch of pied pipers who are leading us to our national extinction.

Advertisements