The Dance

Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening plan: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and enhancing the president’s power to raise the national debt limit.

In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him.

Republicans said they responded in closed-door meetings with laughter and disbelief.

That works out to spending cuts for 3 months of overspending by the Obama wannas for Trillions in new taxes. And he gets more power to boot!

Wow! that’s a bargain!!

No wonder there was laughter.

“It’s welcome that they’re recognizing that revenues are going to have to go up. But they haven’t told us anything about how far rates should go up … (and) who should pay higher taxes,” Geithner said.

So we can roast them alive for it. Notice, the Democrats aren’t saying much at all about their actual plans and their actual specific cuts… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 Alinky’s Rules for Radicals: Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
In an interview with Candy Crowley on CNN’s State of the Union, Geithner claimed that the Obama Administration proposal, which includes various spending provisions intended as economic stimulus, had “huge support in the business community” and that it would be “good for the economy.”The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the fiscal cliff projected that up to 300,000 jobs could be lost over the next two years if top tax rates were to rise.

 

“There’s not going to be an agreement without rates going up… If they are going to force higher rates on virtually all Americans because they’re unwilling to let tax rates go up on 2 percent of Americans, then, I mean that’s the choice they’re going to have to make.”

The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the fiscal cliff strongly advised against tax rate hikes and recommended that the best way to raise tax revenue is through deduction reform [pdf], not through rate hikes.

 

Increases in marginal tax rates on labor would tend to reduce the amount of labor supplied to the economy, whereas increases in revenues of a similar magnitude from broadening the tax base would probably have a smaller negative impact or even a positive impact in the supply in labor.

What Geithner and the Obama Administration are pushing for will hurt the economy far more than the approach that Speaker John Boehner has advocated. To be fair, Republicans have not been specific enough in their deductions reform proposals, but the Obama Administration’s ideological inflexibility when it comes to tax rates makes it nearly impossible to deal with them.

And they like it that way. You have to do what they want or else face the wrath of the Ministry of Truth.

After all, he has to feed the Class Envy beast. It’s eternally hungry for more.

Thomas Purcell: Team Obama is claiming Americans are not paying their fair share in taxes and has proposed increasing income taxation (albeit of people earning 250k or more) and postponing spending cuts until after the economy recovers more. Furthermore, he has argued that we should return to the ‘Clinton era tax schedules’ when we ran a surplus.

 
I’m all for that, assuming we return to Clinton era spending levels, and if I were the GOP that’s the deal I would argue for.
 
Ultimately though, what defines fair share? Here are some head spinning numbers.
 
There are approximately 114,825,428 households in the US (US Census numbers)
 
The average income of those households is 46,326 dollars. (ed note- using raw data to achieve an average mean result rather than a median result, this number would be closer to 102, 000, resulting in a number similar to the national GDP of about 13 trillion–see below)
 
If you multiply that out, you come to 5,319,402,777,528 – or 5.3 trillion dollars of annual income.
 
However, Team Obama’s proposed spending plan for 2013 is 3.803 trillion dollars to run the federal government.
 
Essentially, he wants to spend 60+ percent of your income next year—and that’s not even counting state and local taxes. A small tax increase will little to no difference on that ridiculously oversized budget, but it could have a dramatic negative impact on the economy. If you take out all the households below the poverty line, the federal government would only run for about 8 months before imploding.
 
It gets worse.
 
Assuming you factor in all the state and local taxes the government takes in, from state income taxes down to the local parking tickets, the GAO reports that as of last year the state and federal government (in total) raked in 5.1 trillion dollars nationally—OR 98% OF THE TOTAL (MEAN) INCOME GENERATED IN THE NATION LAST YEAR! (ed note– or approximately 33-43%– depending on budgetary calculations– of the total nation’s GDP on absolute raw personal income)
 
If you are wondering how that is possible, you have to realize that the GDP (gross domestic product) of the country is 15 trillion dollars and therefore as money exchanges hands taxation takes a hidden bite of it. You don’t directly feel it in your wallet, since income taxes are a small percentage of overall revenue. You feel it indirectly, as jobs are lost, your dollar gets pinched and prices go up while wages go down. It’s one reason why gas is 4 bucks a gallon and your grocery bill has doubled in the last 4 years.
 
Government is soon poised to make more money off of our businesses and labor than we are.
 
As for those ‘Clinton tax rates’ let’s examine that too.
 
In 2007, the national GDP was approximately 14.5 trillion dollars, the same as it is now—no growth in 5 years. The federal government spending plan was an astonishing 2.7 trillion dollars, almost a trillion dollars LESS than we are spending now- but at least Bush was taking in 2.3 trillion in taxes on essentially the same sized economy we have now. Clinton’s GDP numbers?  1.8 trillion in spending—more than half of what Obama was spending – on an 11 trillion dollar economy. As for the median income in 2000 (Clinton’s last year,) it was 42,148 on 106 million households (4.4 trillion in income), so the federal government was only consuming 30% of your tax dollar rather than Obama’s 60%. (ed note– again using mean income averages, that would be about half (15-30%) but the ratio relationship would be essentially the same since mean incomes from that time period were also flat)
 
So please, don’t tell me the government needs more revenues, it has almost entire income of the American people now, double that of ‘Clinton’s tax rates’ and wants more, despite being able to historically run fine on much less. What government needs to do is SPEND less, and get more productivity out of what it spends. 
 
Time for some fiscal belt tightening, and to stop redistributing the wealth of this nation.
Not going to happen. Washington runs on Drug Money. (the addiction to money is the drug). They just have to figure out how to make it look like they care and rob John to pay Paul, George, and Ringo. 🙂
But make it good political theatre so it looks convincing, and not a pantomine.
Too many times during this last Presidential election, an important message about conservatism was lost in the debate due to poorly chosen words. The art of communication has almost been lost in the past few generations and that lost art is being exploited by political opponents and forced politicians into the game of essentially not saying anything important in order to avoid saying the wrong thing.
Unless you’re a Liberal, then the Ministry of Truth will cover for you. But if you’re not, you’ll be hung out to dry for even the merest perceivable hint of the “wrong thing”. Even if it doesn’t exist, if it did exist and was advantageous to the Left they would do it anyways.
And that’s what the Republicans don’t understand, I think.
But then again, as I have said before, I’m just a white “racist” “homophobe” “misogynist” Conservative, what do I know.
And I’m a terrible Dancer. 🙂

 

DC Vs The States

I was going to do another Illegal Immigration blog, especially after the rancher was killed on the Border and dear Ex-Gov Janet “It’s a Federal Problem” Napalitano (now Homeland Security Secretary)  is so blase about it, but I will save that outrage for another day.

I found this article by David Broder, no rightwing bomb-thrower or extreme Leftist he.

It points out that while Washington D.C can’t stop spending to save anyone’s lives, the States are cutting programs, services, and raising taxes like mad because they are forced to.

Most states, unlike Washington, are mandated to not run deficits in their budgets.

Most people do as well.

So they are slashing and burning everywhere.

Here in Arizona, our Governor, Jan Brewer, who was given the job after Janet Napalitano could see the iceberg coming and jumped ship before she had to do anything about it has been fighting about this since the day she was handed the office.

And the rancor has been fierce.

But they have to get it done.

Meanwhile, in D.C., they spend $4 Trillion in 15 months, and the CBO projects a nearly $25 Trillion Dollar Deficit by 2020, and the Democrats continue to spend.

They pass Pay-As-you-Go Legislation to put lipstick on the deficit pig and before the inks even dry they roast the pig.

They can’t help themselves.

It’s what they do.

That and they endless obsess about how to run everyone else’s lives for them and the minutiae of political chess matches.

There is no discipline in D.C.

And they don’t want any.

There is enforced discipline on the States.

Which explains why the government always foists the mandates on the States.

They make them do it.

The States are the siblings who have to pick up the pieces that the Drunken,drugged out, abusive Parents in Washington everyone lives with inflict on them.

So, on that note: David Broder (Washington Post):

There is a great divide in American politics. It’s not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between the president and Congress in Washington, on one side, and governors and legislators around the country on the other.

The record of the Washington politicians is summarized in the report that came out of the Congressional Budget Office last week. That nonpartisan scorekeeper announced that it projects the cumulative national debt to increase in the next decade by $9.8 trillion.

That unimaginable (and indigestible) sum is more than a trillion dollars higher than the Obama administration’s estimate. It means a lower future standard of living for Americans because of vastly increased debt.

As Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, pointed out in his commentary on the CBO report, it projects the annual cost of interest on the debt to rise from $209 billion this year to $916 billion by 2020.

Most of that debt is now held overseas by nations such as China and Japan, so we are draining huge sums from ourselves and handing them to others to use in buying us up — or competing against us.

That is the story that has been written and is still unfolding in Washington, with budgets shaped by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a saga of national ruin.

The state side of the story is told most clearly in another report this week, this one from the private Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Staff members Nicholas Johnson, Catherine Collins and Ashali Singham summarized systematically what I had heard anecdotally from many of the governors when they were here last month for their annual winter conference.

Less Spending, More Taxes

The Great Recession knocked state tax revenues down by $87 billion in the fiscal year that ended last September — an 11% decline that was the steepest on record.

In response, the first thing the states did was to cut spending. General fund outlays were reduced by 4% in fiscal 2009 and by another 4.8% in 2010 — even as Medicaid rolls swelled and other recession-related expenses climbed.

But the governors and legislators did not stop there. Two-thirds of the states, 33 of 50, also raised taxes last year, adding more than $30 billion in revenues.

Ten states hiked taxes enough to increase revenues by more than 5% over the previous year’s collections. This happened in California, Florida, Indiana and Nevada, which have Republican governors, as well as in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and Oregon, all governed by Democrats.
While the federal government was handing out tax rebates and now is preparing to extend many of the Bush-era tax cuts, 13 states were raising personal income taxes, 17 were passing sales tax and various business tax increases, and 22 were hiking excise taxes on tobacco, alcohol or gasoline.

California, with chronic budget problems, a Democratic-controlled Legislature and a Republican governor, bit the bullet and temporarily raised its income tax rate across the board and its sales tax by 1% and also lifted its vehicle tax.

It’s Different In D.C.

All the states except Vermont operate with a constitutional requirement that they balance their budgets. But I was reminded again during the governors’ conference how different the psychology is in the state capitals and in Washington.

Governors live in the real world, where budgets mean something more than a formula for shifting burdens to the next generation and where there is much less room for partisan game-playing.

Once again this year, Congress has passed a “pay-as-you-go” bill requiring it to make compensatory cuts whenever it increases appropriations for some worthy purpose. Then it turned right around and began waiving the requirement when circumstances pinched.

Discipline is visible in the states. It is still a stranger to Washington.

AMEN

And after the Health Care Slow Death Takeover bill passed it was even more of a stranger.

The director of the state’s Medicaid program, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, said last week that reversing health care cuts to comply with the federal health overhaul will cost Arizona $3.8 billion over the next three years.(NYT)

And predictably, Terry “the Tool” Goddard, a massive liberal who managed to become Attorney General is suitably liberal in his condescending and refusal to care about the additional money that the state doesn’t have that this would cost us.

And naturally, all the Democrats in the legislature are against the lawsuit.

That’s bi-partisanship for you!

I think the States are correct in challenging the law because it will be a massive burden in a time when massive burden are definitely not needed.

But Washington doesn’t care.

Their too busy popping champagne corks and looking to see what other “social justice” they can cram down your throat.

And the lawsuit have to go through a gauntlet of Liberal judges, whom I’m sure will be impartial and blind as Lady Justice. 😦

And one Constitution scholar said it was clearly unconconstitutional but because it was so political that the high courts would rule against the States.

If that turns out to be true we have no Constitution left.

And that would be the end.

Because if you can pass a blatantly unconstitutional law and not rule it unconstitutional for political reasons it’s over and there’s nothing left.

Turn out the lights. No one’s home.

So we will have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, the Arizona legislature has to cut nearly 50% more than they already have thanks to ObamaCare.

And that’s reality.

Not the liberal desires of entitlement and control.