Obama Officials: New Taxes May Be Needed

You have to wonder what the professors at Harvard, Yale and other high end colleges and universities are teaching about economics. Everytime we turn around we hear about how the Dems want to raise taxes on "the rich." Do they believe that the top income earners in the nation have a money tree that they can harvest at anytime. Do they believe that they can continually add more and more tax burdens without their being any detrimental effect on the economy at all?

Apparently, Harvard and Yale graduates believe just that. Those of us who went to more mainstream schools like the University of Maryland know better. We know that the more money the government confiscates from the private sector, the harder it is for jobs to be created and sustained. We know that there isn't a limitless supply of money and we understand that eventually, tax burdens will become so heavy that taxpayers will look for ways of minimizing the effect or simply move their means of income to a new location (e.g. off-shore).

The Dems are still trying to further wreck our economy by taxing away the means for employers to hire new employees. From Fox News:

President Obama may have to raise taxes to pay for public health care and the growing deficit, an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession. With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy. "We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week." Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right."

What Obama and Geithner seem to be completely unable to understand is that continually piling on more taxes for those who earn over $500,000/year will soon mean that they will get less take-home pay than people earning less than $500,000/year. Thus, who would ever want to earn that much money if it means less take-home pay? Those people will simply find a way to bring their income down below that $500,000/year level. That means less tax revenue which in turn means that the government will have to begin taxing lower income people in order to make up the difference.

The health care reform bill which is supposed to be saving us money is getting more and more expensive.

Which makes this little tidbit very interesting:

National Economic Council President Larry Summers said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that jobs are a lagging indicator and once output increases, job growth will start to pick up. "I think we have a ways to go. I want to emphasize the basic realities. Unemployment is still very high in this country," Summers said. He added that it's not a good idea to rule out future taxes. "There is a lot that can happen over time. ... But what the president has been completely clear on is that he is not going to pursue any of his priorities -- not health care, not energy, nothing -- in ways that are primarily burdening middle-class families. That is something that is not going to happen," Summers said.

Except that is is going to happen, one way or the other. Either a direct tax increase on middle-class incomes, or indirect taxes on companies and corporations who will simply pass the tax along to the middle-class in the form of higher retail prices.

But what are the Harvard and Yale graduates in the government proposing? More taxes and more spending:

While economists agree spending is required in a recession, [Rep. Mike] Pence said that money would be better spent by the American people, not the federal government. "Borrowing a trillion dollars from future generations of Americans and spreading it around the economy is going to have some catalytic effect in the economy in the short term, but again, it's no substitute for fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.," he said. 'This piecemeal approach -- government handouts through a government bureaucracy -- is no substitute for broad-based tax relief and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C."

I find it amusing how the Dems are constantly saying that Republicans haven't had an original idea since Ronald Reagan. Given their idea of tax and spend, tax and spend, and then raise taxes again to make up for the overspending, the Dems have not had an original idea since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Officials Don't Dismiss Possibility Of New Taxes
Fox News
August 3, 2009

Colin Powell Criticizes Obama Agenda

Well, I'm finally back from vacation with the family. Had a really nice time and the fireworks in Ocean City, MD were really good.

First, let me say "Congratulations" to all those principled Conservatives from Minnesoata who decided to stay home rather than get out the vote last November. I hope the next six years are everything you dreamt of.

But, let's look forward, not back. Colin Powell has finally seen the light concerning Barack Obama. Apparently, the retired General is now wondering whether or not voting for color of skin rather than actual issues was such a good idea.

From the Washington Times:

Colin Powell, one of President Obama's most prominent Republican supporters, expressed concern Friday that the president's ambitious blitz of costly initiatives may be enlarging the size of government and the federal debt too much. "I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them," Mr. Powell said in an excerpt of an interview with CNN's John King, released by the network Friday morning.

Well, those of us who were not blinded by a "Messiah complex" knew this to be true last year.

More:

"And we can't pay for it all," said Mr. Powell, who was the first African-American to serve as secretary of state, under former President George W. Bush. ... Mr. Powell's comments represent the growing concern that began with hard-line fiscal conservatives but is now spreading to moderates about the rate of government spending and debt under President Obama, and the long-term impact on the country's fiscal sustainability and national security. The national debt stands currently at $11.5 trillion and the deficit for the current fiscal year is projected to be close to $2 trillion. Mr. Powell expressed alarm at "budgets that are running into the multi-trillions of dollars" and "a huge, huge national debt that, if we don't pay for in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have to pay for it."

Welcome aboard, General Powell! It's good to see that you have finally realized what most of us have known all along!

This is what happens when people vote from their emotions rather than their rationality. They get the exact opposite of what they were expecting.

BTW, look for the Obama administration to throw General Powell under the bus soon.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Powell Airs Doubts On Obama Agenda
Jon Ward
The Washington Times
July 3, 2009

The Coming Budget Fight And Why We Need To Make Sure It Is A Big Fight

What will the ultimate results of Obama's budget and tax hikes be? In general terms, bad news. But in terms of how much of the U.S. economy is going to be swallowed up by government, it looks even worse.

Patrick Buchanan, writing for Town Hall, gives us some particulars:

Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21 percent of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28 percent in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7 percent of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II. Add that 28 percent of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12 percent spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40 percent of the economy in 2009.

40%. And most of that is going to be wasted on welfare programs and socialist wealth redsitribution schemes.

More:

Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter, but 6.2 percent. All the assumptions in Obama's budget about growth in 2009 and 2010 need to be revised downward, and the deficits revised upward. Look for the deficit for 2009 to cross $2 trillion.

Do you remember just two years ago when the Dems were screaming that Bush's budget was causing a deficit and how the Dems were going to fix that for us? I guess when the Dems said "fix" it they meant they were going to send it soaring even higher than Bush ever tried to do.

And this:

Who abroad is going to lend us the trillions to finance our deficits without demanding higher interest rates on the U.S. bonds they are being asked to hold? And if we must revert to the printing press to create the money, what happens to the dollar? ... Who is going to pay for all this? The top 2 percent, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5 percent of income earners already pay 60 percent of U.S. income taxes, while the bottom 40 percent pays nothing.

And that bottom forty percent are going to get nice fat checks next April, that is, wealth will be redistributed to them despite the fact that they do not invest, they do not employ other people and their tax burdern was 0. In other words, Obama is making good on his promise so that he can complete the deal of buying off their votes. What is going to happen when the banks no longer honor those government checks, though?

And the reason we know that Obamanomics is going to be a disaster:

Markets are not infallible. But the stock market has long been a "lead indicator" of where the economy will be six months from now. What are the markets, the collective decisions of millions of investors, saying? Having fallen every month since Obama's election, with January and February the worst two months in history, they are telling us the stimulus package will not work, that Tim Geithner is clueless about how to save the banks, that the Obama budget portends disaster for the republic.

Which is why we need to put up a huge fight over the budget and the way this administration is dragging us towards socialism.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Pitchfork Time
Patrick J. Buchanan
TownHall.com
March 3, 2009

Fifteen Questions For People Who Think The GOP Should Be More Moderate

Over at Town Hall, John Hawkins has fifteen questions that he poses directly to those who think the GOP should move to the Center. But before we get to those questions, let's all understand that the GOP tried moving to the Center in the last two elections and got its collective butt whipped both times. So, you have to wonder why, if that has been the proven outcome twice in a row, anyone would want to embrace such a losing strategy.

The questions:

#1) If both the GOP and the Democrats support bigger government, how does the country survive long term given the size of the debt we already have and the deficits we're running right now? In other words, how can running massive deficits possibly be sustainable over the long haul? #2) If the GOP were to officially become a big government party, wouldn't there be a real danger of having a large third party spring up that would represent the considerable number (I'd say a majority, at least in the abstract) of Americans who do want smaller government and less spending? #3) If the GOP becomes a big government party, how do you see us differentiating ourselves from the Democratic Party? Do we spend almost as much as they do, but not quite as much? Do we spend even more? Do we favor deficit spending, but just on different things? Isn't there a real danger that Democrats -- since their base tends to generally be OK with excessive spending -- could simply outbid us on anything we offered to the American people? #4) Since the majority of the GOP's core supporters don't agree with "moderate" positions like big spending or amnesty, feel very strongly about it, and feel those positions harm the party politically, how can the party continue to hew to those positions over the long term without being permanently at odds with the people who should be their strongest supporters? #5) Let's do the math on amnesty: there are roughly 12-20 million illegal immigrants, most of whom are Hispanics. Hispanics broke 70/30 for the Democrats in 2006 and 69/31 for the Dems in 2008 according to the latest exit poll data. If the split stayed at 70/30 and 12-20 million new illegals were made citizens, that would mean the Democrats would add another 4.8 to 8 million potential new voters as a result of amnesty. The top end of that scale is a larger margin than what Barack Obama won by in 2008. Additionally, even if the GOP improved our numbers with Hispanics -- which we certainly need to do -- we've never come close to getting 50% of the Hispanic vote. With all that in mind, isn't amnesty political suicide for the GOP? #6) Some people tend to assume that Hispanics vote almost entirely on the illegal immigration issue, but I would assert that there is very little objective evidence for that. George Bush and John McCain are the two biggest proponents of amnesty in the Republican Party and neither of them is particularly popular with Hispanics today. In fact, according to exit polls, against a candidate who was thought to be weak with Hispanics, John McCain only got 31% of the Hispanic vote. So, what objective evidence convinces you that Hispanics vote largely on illegal immigration and that if the GOP supports amnesty, it will get us over the 50% threshold with Hispanics? #7) Given that the mainstream media overwhelmingly supports the Democrats, it's extremely important for the GOP to have the support of conservative talk radio hosts, magazines, and the RightRoots. Since the new media is overwhelmingly comprised of conservatives, how does a moderate GOP gain their genuine support over the long haul? #8) Follow-up question to #7: If the GOP can't get the new media back enthusiastically on its side -- which is likely to be the case unless there are changes on spending and illegal immigration policies -- how does the GOP get the base fired up? In other words, if Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc., etc., are telling everyone who'll listen that the Republicans stink, how does the Republican Party work around that? #9) Setting aside the conservative media, obviously the conservative movement is lacking energy and passion right now. Many people, myself included, would say that this has a lot to do with the position that the GOP has been taking on immigration and spending issues. How does the GOP get conservatives supporting the GOP again, instead of just opposing the Democrats, if the party continues to pursue big government policies and amnesty? #10) If amnesty, big government, and deficit spending are winning issues for the Republican Party, why did we take such a huge beating in 2006 and 2008 despite pursuing those very policies? #11) Over the last two elections, moderate Republicans haven't quite been wiped out, but percentage wise, they've suffered much higher losses than conservative Republicans. If moderate Republicans can't even win elections in moderate districts now, why would we want to adopt that losing philosophy across our whole party when conservatives are winning at a much, much higher clip across the country? #12) As moderate columnist David Brooks has said, There is not yet an effective Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas. There is no moderate Club for Growth, supporting centrist Republicans. The Public Interest, which used to publish an array of public policy ideas, has closed. Reformist Republican donors don't seem to exist. Any publication or think tank that headed in an explicitly reformist direction would be pummeled by its financial backers. National candidates who begin with reformist records -- Giuliani, Romney or McCain -- immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base. So, there are no moderate think tanks, no moderate donors, the new media is overwhelmingly conservative, the Republican base and activists are overwhelmingly conservative -- shouldn't that tell people something about whether the idea of a moderate GOP is workable? #13) Follow-up question to #12: If a moderate Republican Party is workable, how do you make it work without the new media, think tanks, money, or an excited base on your side? #14) John McCain was the most moderate candidate the GOP has run since Richard Nixon. In fact, he's the standard bearer of the "moderate Republican" wing of the party and yet the media trashed him, he had trouble raising money -- and other moderates, including prominent moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, voted for Obama. In the end, McCain received almost 4 million less votes than Bush did in 2006. Doesn't that suggest that moderate Republican candidates may have trouble raising money, retaining moderates, and generating the enthusiasm from the Republican base that will be needed to win? #15) When the Democratic Party was out of power, the party moved to the left, not to the center. They obstructed the GOP at every opportunity, put hard-core left-wingers in charge of everything, and ran an extremely liberal candidate in 2008. Granted, they also had moderate Democrats that they ran in states and districts that leaned red, but those people are almost completely locked out of power and their agenda is largely ignored. Since that strategy worked so well for the Democrats, doesn't it make more sense for the GOP to pursue the same strategy instead of continuing the move to the center that has done so much damage to the party over the last two elections?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Fifteen Questions For People Who Say The GOP Should Become More Moderate
John Hawkins
TownHall.com
November 14, 2008