The Next Tax Revolt
Posted on June 24th, 2009
by Sean Scallon |
|
Matt Yglesias wrote a good article for the The American Prospect warning leftists that Obama Administration’s ambitious agenda in these bad economic times cannot survive unless more tax revenue is brought in. Indeed, one would have to see an almost miraculous turnaround in the economy by the end of the year and well into 2010 to have the kind of growth rates that will pay for public health insurance, stabilizing the financial system, stimulus packages and of course, our glorious war in Central Asia.
Right now the GOP can’t get anyone excited about top tax rates at 39 percent but they could if they rose to say, 50%. Indeed the Yglesias article basically confirms what many pooh-pooed about the Tea Party protests, i.e. the fear tax rates will have to go up in order to pay for all the spending (unless there’s a death wish about the dollar in an orgy of money making by the Fed). And we know about the current U.S. tax codes, the rich are more than prepared to make sure they don’t pay their fare share through the loopholes they buy politicians with to create for themselves. And if one thinks smokers are still an untapped source of revenue potential, then you need to make yourself familiar with the phrase “black market.” Oh yes, federal gas taxes and spike in oil prices go together like oil and water.
FDR’s New Deal programs did not have to face the kind of massive deficits coming into office that Obama is which is a very complicating factor. Something will have to give. Let’s hope that comes in the foreign and military policy sector, sooner rather than later. The Administration’s Iran policy offers a sign of hope.
Filed under: Economics
Oh, yes, and we are all going to thrilled to pay the extras $3000-plus a year in cap and trade taxes added to our energy and gasoline bills.
“FDR’s New Deal programs did not have to face the kind of massive deficits coming into office that Obama is…”
Patent dishonesty, friend, promoted by lefties.
Check out the truth, according to the CBO:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
Have folks try enough honesty to check out the above graph, and see if they can put their finger on just where the left took over the Congressional Budget oversight, say, about 2007?
(Those with advanced math skills, try subtracting out the TARP 1 nonsense out of the 2008 deficit. Then tell us how the % of FDR’s deficit/GDP, compares to Bush’s. In other words, pretty close to the amount of the 2008 deficit, was handed to Obama as his share of TARP 1.)
For those with an advanced degree in reality check, look at the 10-yr LIBOR:
http://www.learningmarkets.com/index.php/Charts/Market-Indicators/libor-chart.html
(Go to the top left, and click on “10v”, then “2v”, then “1v”. Can you see where the dems took over congress? Put your finger on the October 2008 anomoly - the one that killed McCain’s chances to legitimately run for the white house - and ask yourself why it is there. Ask yourself why 30 days later, oil prices plummeted. Ask yourself why 3 months later, it was miraculously discovered by the scientific community that they wouldn’t need to divert *all* corn from the farmer’s feed market, and the world food market, to support ethanol fuel as replacement for gasoline. Ask yourself why all the members of the Senate and Congress were only given the *1-year* LIBOR charts, with which to base their decision on TARP rested - instead of the 10-yr - look for yourself to see the difference. Ask yourself why the huge emergency to vote was part of this whole pattern, and was based so heavily on the 1-yr LIBOR chart. Ask your congressperson to explain this.)
If a leftie looks you straight in the eye, and pronounces, “It is a *given* that…”, then pay attention to “the one* who giveth, and *the one* who taketh away.
Then don’t be fooled by the lefties who pause, and say, “gee, to prove that we’re really fair, and can see both sides, we’re somewhat willing to agree there may be some problem with our economic forcasts and financial engineering methods.”
Anybody checked a wrecking yard lately? Seems the incentive to buy a new car, with generous allowance for your old car, will come with a *law* that requires the tradein to be pounded apart, and you can’t buy junkyard parts for the new cars. So we put the bottom 10% of the auto industry out of jobs (used cars, and small repair shops). Who cares (unless you own a small auto repair shop)? None of these are Union Members.
Three years from now, we will meet, and sheepishly admit, “I got taken in, because I didn’t realize that Obama’s cheerleaders could tell such massive lies. I just *hoped* that maybe there was some plan, other than the rumors that this was a manmade *opportunity* for tearing down the fabric of the US, in order to completely remake it.”
Yglesias makes a good point. People on the left (at least the ones I know and talk about politics with over beers) tend to misconstrue the amount of wealth that can be squeezed from the richest 5%.
First off, they employ accounting and tax law professionals and task them with reducing their tax burden as much as possible.
Secondly, there simply aren’t that many of them. The ultra-rich are a tiny minority, and,
Thirdly, they are very mobile, and they can afford to go where the high taxes aren’t, and,
Fourthly, if they do, the other 95% will be adversely affected because their spending and investment will be more or less lost to the country. We can’t afford that.
Sorry I didn’t catch this article when it first came up on the Net. I propose that we all pay our federal taxes to our home state. If you live in Wisconsin, pay it to Wisconsin. If you live in Arizona, pay it to Arizona. Etc. Corporate taxes, personal income taxes, the whole nine yards, just pay it to your home state. Face it, no one in Washington cares about us. They’re all career politicians. They made the big time when they were elected or appointed and they’ll have a government pension for life, so what do they care?
It’s up to us. With a federal tax revolt, we can finally send them the message that’s been long overdue: They work for us, not us for them. Shall we?