A window into liberal thought
Courtesy of Washington Post columnist and official Barack Obama Cheerleader E. J. Dionne…
Obama’s proposal is based on a sound intuition: Do we really believe it’s fair that when a married couple with a taxable income of $50,000 gives $1,000 to charity, they get a tax benefit of $150, while a couple earning $1 million making exactly the same contribution gets back $350? Is it fair that the higher-income couple also gets a bigger tax advantage on their mortgage payments?
Here’s the way charitable tax deductions work: the government treats the contribution as though the money was never yours and, thus, doesn’t tax you on it. You don’t “get back” anything. The government simply doesn’t treat that money, which you passed directly on to a charitable organization, as taxable income. In the liberal mind that money was never yours to begin with and therefore the government, in its most impressive benevolence, gives it back to you.
The crux of Dionne’s column is sound, though. Obama is calling for record deficits. As Milton Friedman said, “To spend is to tax.” Bush initiated the latest round of out-of-control spending and Obama is stepping on the gas. Something has to give. If Congress won’t drastically cut spending (yeah, that’ll happen) then taxes will have to go up eventually. I’d prefer serious, structural changes to entitlements to reduce spending, but I ain’t running the show.
That brings me to Obama’s establishment of a tax code overhaul panel. This seems to be something of an unproductive rite of passage for presidents – right up there with trying to negotiate Mideast peace. It is a noble gesture by Obama, but one that is doomed to failure due to his religiously repeated lie of not raising taxes on 95% of families.
[Budget Director Peter Orszag] said “the only constraint” on the task force review is that there be no tax increases during 2009 and 2010, and that the proposals shouldn’t raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.
Well, this will be a neat trick. Obama wants to “rebalance” the tax code, but he’s making one end of the teeter totter off limits lest he invite his own George H. W. “Read My Lips” Bush moment. How much of the weight can we shift to those evil rich people? Not enough even if we took all their income. I know! How about we punish businesses? But we already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. That doesn’t seem like a good idea to add to their load. What gives? I don’t see how Obama can keep his campaign promise AND come anywhere near balancing the budget.
The last thing Obama is concerned about is keeping his promises. As a matter of fact, he made over 500 promises on the campaign trail. This website is tracking them http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/.
The little Obama heads with the frown/talking head/happy face are quite comical on that site. Kudos to the St. Petersburg Times.
As for the liberal thought, I like the “no increases in 2009 and 2010″ so the midterm election won’t be sullied with this debate.
I have a hard time believing in someone who says that we’re going to give tax relief to 95% of America when only 40% pay taxes. Apparently the Ivy League schools don’t have basic math classes … or he’s playing on the ignorance of the citizenry.
On a side note, I’ve always wondered:
If it’s understood that businesses don’t pay taxes and only people do, then why tax businesses at all. It’s just a hidden tax on the consumer. These common sense issues need to be put in real terms for the citizenry. “Under my plan, we’ll tax no businesses. If Best Buy doesn’t have taxes imposed on it then their product will only be cheaper for you. That means your money can go farther. For that new MP3 player you were going to buy, you could buy the charging station that goes with it, or forgo that and put the “extra” towards that trip you’ve always wanted.” etc…
Engage in conversation WITH the people, not TO them. As in sports (my favorite comparison to explanations since most people are actually interested in that), fundamentals, basic and understanding why the underlying principle is in place will provide understanding in what the politically active (that’s use) know and take for granted that everyone knows. Mixing in humor and wit go a long way in making the conversation enjoyable instead of getting reactions like when you mention a root canal.
President Obama is raising taxes on the rich and this will hurt job growth in the future.
The US owes to much debt to foreign nations.