[NOTE: Although even the Democratic Senate the other day failed to pass the President's so-called Buffet Rule(that seeks to require millionaires to pay twice the rate they are paying now), don't expect this ideological liberal gimmick will be given up on. On the contrary, KNOWING it will do nothing to solve our debt crisis, the effort will still be cynically pursued in the months leading up to the election in order to play on the envy of many people toward the rich. Let's PRAY that the American people and especially the voters will be too smart to be taken in and will see through this desperate ploy.Check out the following TWO items.]
------------------------------------------------------------------
- by J.D. Foster, Ph.D. and Curtis Dubay April 10, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/10/the-buffett-rule-is-a-calculated-distraction-from-obamas-failed-leadership/
What do you do when you’re losing a debate? Change the subject. That’s really all you need to know to understand President Obama’s resuscitation of his infamous “Buffett Rule” that would impose a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate on businesses and families earning $1 million.
The Supreme Court gave Obamacare a nasty audition two weeks ago, leaving even staunch defenders of the law grasping for straws while the former constitutional law professor now in the White House outrageously flailed the court for doing exactly what the Constitution intends. So what is the President’s response? Change the subject, of course.
After releasing a non-budget that completely ignored the nation’s near-term, medium-term, and long-term fiscal plight – an extraordinary trifecta not easily achieved – the President then tried to take the House Republicans to task for their proposed real solutions on all three. Nothing highlights irresponsibility like responsible behavior, and so Obama found sharp rhetoric and a frowning visage to be thin gruel when you’ve no policies of your own. Response? Change the subject.
Soaring gas prices have put enormous strains on family budgets and business plans. The President might deflect some of the resulting popular anger if he actually had an energy policy that might produce more energy. Instead, his policies have produced only more examples of why government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers (Solyndra). When your most notable policies relating to gas prices is to kill a major oil pipeline like Keystone, propose algae as an energy source and seek to raise taxes on oil companies, you’ve nowhere to hide. Response? Change the subject.
Then came last Friday’s [4/6] jobs report, which was universally acknowledged as disappointing: job growth cut in half from the modest levels of previous months, and an unemployment rate that fell only because thousands of Americans just gave up looking. If Washington had merely left the economy to heal itself, performance today would have been much stronger and unemployment markedly lower. Instead, almost everything this Administration has tried has failed noticeably, and voters have noticed. Response? Change the subject.
With nowhere else to go, Obama has fallen back to his most comfortable setting – class warfare. Now that it is painfully obvious the Buffett Rule is the President’s chief policy priority and the centerpiece of his reelection campaign, it is fair to ask, what would the policy do to address any of the nation’s problems?
The answer is – absolutely nothing.
Strengthen the economy? No, when it comes to economic growth the Buffett Rule would weaken the economy. The tax would fall most heavily on job creators like businesses that pay their taxes through the individual income tax, investors, and entrepreneurs. The higher levy would confiscate from them resources they would otherwise use to start new businesses, grow existing businesses, and hire more workers. This will slow economic growth, job creation, and wage increases.
Reduce the budget deficits? More like “budget pixie dust” in the words of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). According to a recent analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the Buffett Rule would raise $47 billion over ten years. And that assumes no negative economic effects, which are certain to reduce the revenues gained. For perspective, during that period President Obama’s budget calls for adding $6.7 trillion to the national debt. The Buffett Rule would reduce the increase in debt in Obama’s budget by about one half of one percent. No joke.
The Buffett Rule debate is desperate political prestidigitation. President Obama is losing the fight over Obamacare, which remains intensely unpopular. Gas prices show no sign of descending. The economy at best is muddling. And the nation is looking for answers on the budget and the President has none. The President needed a change of subject. For Obama, what better time for a distracting, divisive fight over fairness?
When a President refuses to address the issues the country cares about, they tune out. Obama’s fairness fight is likely to fare about as well as the rest of his policies.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffett Rule Obfuscates the Real Debt Crisis
Posted by Daniel Horowitz http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/04/11/the-buffett-rule-obfuscates-the-real-debt-crisis/ Wednesday, April 11th
Over the past few weeks, Obama has exhibited the intensity of a Navy SEAL in his execution of class warfare. He is trying to convince everyone that those who earn 17% of Adjusted Gross Income, yet pay 36.7% of federal income taxes don’t pay anything, while those who pay little or no taxes shoulder the entire tax burden. Obama will continue to toss out misinformation throughout the campaign about all these billionaires that supposedly pay little in taxes. While he is prosecuting his class jihad, we should remind him of these facts and figures:
•Obama has accrued more debt in 3 ½ years than Bush did in 8 years – and Bush was a big spender. When President Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the total federal debt stood at $5.728 trillion. On January 20, 2009, the day he left office, the debt had increased to $10.629 trillion, a jump of $4.9 trillion. Just 38 months later, the debt has increased another $4.992 trillion to a grand total of $15.621 trillion (as of April 9)!
•Amazingly, $4.577 trillion, or 91% of Obama’s debt increase comes from the public share of the debt, which now stands at $10.88 trillion.
•We are on pace to breach the $16.394 trillion debt limit before the November elections. That means that he will have amassed almost (or more than) $6 trillion in debt by the time he, God willing, leaves office next January. It took from our country’s founding until 2002 to amass $6 trillion in debt.
•The debt has increased $1.327 trillion in the past 9 months since we “solved” the debt crisis with the Budget Control Act. That’s about as much as the top 1% of income earners make in 12 months.
•When Obama took office, the gross federal debt was 76.5% of GDP, while the public share of the debt stood at 45% of GDP. Now, those numbers stand at 102% and 71% respectively.
•The debt per taxpayer stands at $137,751, up from $89,330 just 4 years ago.•The monthly deficit for this past February was a record $232 billion. We didn’t start accruing annual deficits of $230 billion until this past decade.
•In February, we spent $335 billion in 29 days. It comes out to $11.5 billion per day; $480 million per hour.
Remember that none of this even begins to account for the $70 trillion+ unfunded entitlement liability and Obama’s new proposed spending that he wants to pay for with the “Buffett Rule.” Even Obama claims that he understands how massive tax increases would be counterproductive and that he only wants the rich to pay “a little more” to fulfill their “fair share.” The fact is there is no way the Buffett Rule, which would raise $46.7 billion in revenue over 10 years, will ever solve the debt crisis, even if you subscribe to the notion that we can and should raise some taxes.
Now that Mitt Romney has all but secured the nomination, he has an opportunity to combat Obama’s Buffett Rule with the Romney Rule. Government spending should not grow faster than the private economy. That is the only way to solve the debt crisis. Period
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment