The deficit super committee has now waved the white flag of defeat. They’ve thrown in the towel. They failed. And who among you thought it would be any other way?
So now the blame game begins. It’s all the Democrat’s fault because they wouldn’t go for entitlement reform. No! It’s the Republican’s fault because they won’t agree to any “revenues” – DemoSpeak for “tax increases.”
Bottom line? The super committee failed because the Democrats are philosophically wedded to the concept of raising taxes – but only on the evil rich. The Republicans knew that if they caved to taxes increases it would hand next year’s elections to the left. Remember Bush 41?
Why this Democrat dedication to tax increases? It’s certainly NOT to provide needed revenues to the federal government to reduce our debt or to pay for government programs. Historical data clearly shows that tax increases aren’t particularly useful for raising revenues. The purpose is twofold: First we have the traditional Democrat willingness to pander to wealth envy. Then we have the Democrat sacrament of income seizure and redistribution.
Know this: The idea that the Republicans are the ones who killed the super committee because they wouldn’t agree to new “revenues” is going to be the featured spin in the ObamaMedia. After all – they have a president to re-elect.
Watch carefully. Listen carefully. Read everything you can get your hands on. See if you EVER see anyone that could even be loosely defined as being part of the mainstream media mention these three Obama moments …
• The raise taxes out of “fairness” moment
• The “gotta spread the wealth around” moment
• The “you’ve made enough money” moment.
In each one of those instances Obama spoke of tax increases NOT in the context of the need for extra tax revenues for deficit reduction, but rather in the context of achieving a social goal through changes in tax policy. For Obama the tax code is as much a tool of social engineering as it is a method of raising revenue for the necessary and constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
If you’re not convinced, here are those three “moments” in more detail … complete with video. Raise Taxes out of Fairness:
The issue here was increasing capital gains taxes. Obama appeared on TV with Charlie Rose – hardly an interviewer you would expect to be tough on our Dear Ruler. Rose quizzed Obama on his plans for a capital gains tax increase:
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. VIDEO
So there you go. Increasing these taxes was not for the revenue … it was just to be “fair,” however Dear Ruler defines that term.
You Gotta Spread The Wealth Around
You remember this one. Our hero here was Joe the Plumber. Obama was doing a neighborhood walk when Joe wandered out of his house to see what the commotion was about. Right there on the neighborhood street Joe confronted Obama on his plan to raise taxes on small businessmen – the very people we depend on for new private sector jobs in our economy.
Here’s what Obama had to say to Joe:
‘‘It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.’’
There again is Obama pushing a tax increase not for revenue, but in the pursuit of a social goal. Somehow Obama felt that taking money away from those who achieved success through hard work would insure that “everybody … got a chance at success too.” I’m not sure how that flow chart would look … but there’s the Obama philosophy on taxes again for you.
At Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money.
In April 2010, Barack Obama went off TelePrompter in his speech to a Quincy, Illinois audience about Wall Street reform. During his wanderings in the rhetorical wilderness Obama once again suggested that he would use tax policy for the purpose of controlling how much people could make, rather than raising revenue for the operation of government.
“We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.” VIDEO
Well now, isn’t that special? Can you remember any leader – any president – in the history of our country who has ever delivered a sentiment like that to the American people? Have you ever had anyone tell you that the American dream of achieving wealth, and the pursuit of that dream through hard work and good decision making, should be limited by some measure of just how much money you should be able to earn before you, in the government’s (and Obama’s) eyes, have made enough? And if you happen to be the man in charge, and if you happen to feel, as Obama does, that there is some point at which people have just by-God made enough money, what do you do to rein them in? Why you step forward and seize the money you don’t think they deserve! To put it simply, you raise their taxes!
Has the light bulb come on yet? Don’t you get it? Obama knows full well that raising taxes on the most productive Americans will not necessarily result in increased tax revenues for the federal government. In fact, if he looks at the record he will know that exactly the opposite is true! You punish people for achievement, and they will naturally achieve less.
Obama feels --- it’s at the core of his political philosophy – that the dollar earned by one person is taken from another; and that people who acquire wealth do so, if not by inheritance, through the shameless exploitation of others. It is, therefore, the government’s responsibility to come along and even the odds – level the playing field – redistribute the wealth. Wealth redistribution is the sole driver of Obama’s never-ending quest for higher and more punitive taxes on the rich.
The Obama campaign theme for 2012 has been duly telegraphed to the American voters. “Those people have more than you do, and it just isn’t fair. Vote for me and I’ll help you get some of it.” That’s a winning campaign theme the Republicans will have a tough time overcoming.