He and his fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill are trying to find a way to avoid the “fiscal cliff” without raising taxes. Unfortunately, their counterparts — President Obama and the Democrats — seem to using the negotiations not so much as a way to avoid the cliff, but as a pretense for trying to bully Republican lawmakers into alienating their base by raising taxes.
Obama, who talked about the need for a “balanced” approach during the campaign, now has shifted back to his “raise taxes first” mode. The latest proposal from the White House encompasses $1.6 million in higher taxes and a new $50 billion “stimulus” program. Five major tax hikes slated to start Jan. 1 on things like flexible savings accounts and medical devices would become permanent. Obama has taken Social Security reforms off the table and offered little detail on how he would cut Medicare or other entitlement programs. And of course, the centerpiece of his strategy continues to be a class warfare demand that Republicans agree to higher taxes on “the wealthy,” who he defines as those earning more than $250,000 a year.
“Soak the rich” slogans are a poor substitute for competent governance. Even if the government was to confiscate everything that wealthy Americans own (as opposed to merely raising their taxes), it would only cover the cost of running the government for a few days.
House GOP leaders responded this week with a debt-reduction plan that would boost tax collections by $800 billion over the next decade by overhauling the tax code to reduce deductions, but without raising tax rates on anyone. They also would trim federal health programs by $600 billion, in part by increasing the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65; and would employ a less generous indexing proposal for entitlement benefits.
Obama is insisting that because he won the election, that the Republicans must cave on their core issue and raise taxes. In short, he’s trying to rub Republicans’ noses in it. As in past Democrat-driven budget deals, he’s pushing for higher taxes now, with the promise of spending cuts down the road. The current stand-off is not about money. It’s about politics, and about Obama’s all-out effort to neuter the Republican Party.
If it gives in to Obama’s bullying it would severely alienate its base, gain next to nothing in return and be tarred with a reputation for being easily pushed around. That’s a win-win strategy for liberals, but not conservatives.
As Sen. Chambliss put it in a guest column he authored on Sunday’s Marietta Daily Journal oped page, “Until we cut spending, control entitlements and enact meaningful tax reform our country will continue to morph into a European-type economy and our freedoms will continue to erode. …The answer is not to raise taxes and keep spending like there is no tomorrow.”
Obama has given every indication he intends to keep raising taxes and increasing spending. If we go “over the cliff,” it will be because he pushed us.
Follow us on Twitter!
Wonderful response! So full of thoughtful and well-researched counterpoints. What a pleasure it must be to be in your household and to disagree with anything that you ascribe to (with no rationale)!!
Silly socialist nonsense deserves an equally silly response.
The Walton's net worth is $103 billion at this time and is the equivalent net worth of the lower 41.5% of the population of the United States. One of the several heinous aspects of this obscene center of gravity of wealth is the disproportionate influence that this power has in our government,in our commerce, and in our society. This is not "Class Warfare" and I am not a jealous socialist. This is 6th grade common sense and I hope that somehow this Cornelius Vanderbilt wealth/power accumulation can be reduced. Walmart pays workers so badly that the federal government subsidizes Walmart because many "associates" are forced into food stamps and other government assistance.
I used my 6th grade math to determine that the Waltons, at the current rate, will earn the equivalent of $7.4 billion per year. We should also tax this income at a higher rate. In addition, we should tax at a very high rate--all the individuals and corporations who ship our jobs and hide their money overseas and we should stop subsidizing oil companies (ie, more taxes). Companies who practice "Made in USA" should be taxed less than the other companies.
Lastly, taxes will rise from 35% to 39.5% (on over $250k), if President Obama prevails. This is substantially less than historical rates. LOOK IT UP! This segment of our population has NO room to complain about the tax rate.
Corporate profits are at ALL-TIME record highs.
Wages are stagnant and are at ALL-TIME lows.
Wake-up.
After you wake up from the fantasy of your Occupy camp site, explain to us how Obama built America. It always makes for great fiction. How long have you been a devoted reader of The Daily Kos?
Given your numbers for the Waltons (wasn't that a TV show?), they are going to earn a rate of return of 7.2%. If that is the "current rate" as you say, please tell me where I can get that sort of return on my dough!
I hope this doesn't cause anyone's brain to explode, but, y'all do realize, that for all intents and purposes, corporations do not pay taxes. Yes, you read that right.
The cost of any taxes paid by corporations is simply passed on to consumers.
So, tax corporations; and consumers pay more.
Tax corporations; and they'll spend untold amounts to minimize their tax burden. If corporations didn't have to worry about taxes, just try to imagine what sort of productive things all those smart accountants could be doing instead of gaming the tax code.
Tax corporations; and you bet they'll ship jobs. They'll ship jobs to a more tax-friendly country and, yes, jobs are lost, but consumers win because their stuff will be less expensive. You want jobs to come back? Then ease the tax burden.
If the U.S. abolished corporate taxes, can you imagine the tsunami of corporations from all over the world that would be seeking to relocate to this country?
Think about it and get back to us.
If it is true that profits are at an all-time high, is it because of record revenue or cutting expenses?
Let say it's because of record revenue. Well, guess what; if you sell a lot, then you earn a lot.
Profit is NOT the appropriate metric. One should look at PROFIT MARGIN. That is, how much profit is earned for each dollar of sales.
A real world example that everyone is familiar with is the oil companies. Folks love to screech about how they are experiencing - Heavens to Besty! - RECORD PROFITS. Yes, their profits may be at all-time highs, but it is because sales are at an all time high. Sell a lot; make a lot.
It is more meaningful to look at the oil company profit margin. Look at profit margin across time and see if it is increasing, decreasing, or relatively stable. I bet you'll find it is pretty stable, across time.
Look at profit margin across industries. I bet you'll find the margin is higher in some industries and lower in others.
Make sense?
Progressives screech about the oil companies shameful and obscene record profits. Then some Einstein says, "I have an idea! We'll TAX those "WINDFALL" profits." And the crowds cheer, "Yeah! Tax the bums!"
So, the politicians tax the oil companies more, and the oil companies respond by raising the price of gas and, guess what? It hurts the poor and middle class most.
And it not only hurts at the pump, it hurts everywhere.
How does your loaf of bread get to the grocery store? Trucks.
What do trucks run on? Gas.
And that ain't all. I heard some genius on TV talking about raising gas taxes. Not the corporate taxes paid by the oil companies, but the gasoline tax paid at the pump. Who is this gonna hurt most?
Ok, I'm done for the evening. My pizza is ready.
Your fuzzy math has one huge problem, like every socialist fantasy tried before it in the history of the world. Eventually, socialism runs out of other people's money, and it fails miserably, as it always has wherever it has been tried before. Redistribution schemes will always fail. 89 million working Americans cannot forever support 110 million (and growing) non working Americans. The money runs out at some point. What then? Look to Europe and the riots in the streets. Their money ran out. Very shortly, California's money is about to run out. Watch what happens out there. Several other states and cities are not far behind California. Rhode Island and Detroit are but two more examples.
Are you another low information voter?
The deficit for the fiscal year just ended was $1.1 trillion, and $1.1 trillion divided by $90 billion equals about 12. So, the Waltons could fund the U.S. for about one month.
The article is correct; confiscating all the wealth would get us nowhere; and you need to go back to 6th grade.
Your turn.