Why do more than half the people in this country pay no income taxes at all, while President Barack Hussein Obama keeps insisting that everyone must “pay his fair share?” For over half of citizens, is that their fair share? Or is creating more recipients of government handouts, at no cost to themselves, simply a strategy to gain more votes? The current federal debt burden works out at about $140,000 per federal taxpayer. Are you one of those taxpayers, the unlucky less than half? Obama is proposing to increase both debt and taxes. How much more do you want added to your $140,000 debt burden? Is your fair share $140,000?
Now Obama is pushing “the Buffett Rule,” a capital gains tax hike designed to ensure that Warren Buffett pays as much tax as his secretary. His reason is that it, “will help us close our deficit.” Oh, really? Does Obama realize that the Buffett Rule, if enacted, will help pay down the 2011 deficit (which, I’m sure, was George Walker Bush’s fault) in only 514 years? And that’s only for 2011, not deficits in future years. The Buffett Rule is forecast to raise $3.2 billion per year, what the US government currently borrows every 17 hours. Buffett is worth $44 billion, so if he donated his entire fortune to the US government, they would go through it within four and a half days. If you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is just a little less than the Obama budget deficit for a year.
Obama denounced (excuse me, evaluated) Paul Ryan’s budget plan. Given what’s at stake, you might think then that Obama would have an alternative plan. But his was voted down 414-0.
And speaking of the Buffett Rule, did everyone see this? In an article titled “Obama Paid Lower Tax Rate Than Secretary,” we learn that the Obamas paid an effective rate of 20.5 percent in 2011. White House aides would not reveal presidential secretary Anita Breckenridge’s tax rate (on earned income of $95,000) but confirmed it was higher than the first family’s rate. And the Obamas paid a rate far below the 30 percent Buffett Rule rate.
In Obama’s latest class-war, tax-the-rich gambit, he has stooped to a new low with misleading and out-of-context quotes from Ronald Reagan. Obama cited a couple of Reagan speeches from June, 1985, in which the former president quoted a letter from a wealthy executive who grumbled that he paid less in taxes than secretaries or bus drivers. Obama, of course, doesn’t tell you that Reagan had a completely different tax-reform vision. Rather than raising the capital gains tax on successful investors or punishing wealthy people, as Obama advocates, Reagan wanted pro-economic growth tax reform that would cut rates for everyone, simplify the tax system with only two brackets, and eliminate tax shelters that allowed people to avoid paying any taxes at all. Reagan said, “We want to cut taxes, not opportunity…. By lowering everyone’s tax rates all the way up the income scale, each of us will have a greater incentive to climb higher, to excel, to help America grow.” By cutting the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, Reagan launched a huge prosperity boom that basically spanned three decades. It’s hard to argue with success, but I’m sure you Kool-Aid drinkers are up to the task.
Obama has a completely different vision, one that would lift the top income and investment tax rates to about 45 percent, while, the integrated corporate and capital gains tax would be 55 percent. Instead of rewarding success, Obama wants to punish it. Instead of economic growth, he talks about tax fairness, which is a euphemism for redistributing resources from private hands to the government sector. Obama’s vision is the exact opposite of Reagan’s. Reagan’s optimistic rising-tide-lifts-all-boats message was the direct opposite of Obama’s. For Obama to attempt to associate himself with Reagan is a falsehood, some would say lie, of the worst kind.
Have you ever heard of Marjorie Rawls Roberts? Neither have I. Roberts, it appears, is bundling a minimum of $100,000 to $200,000 in donations for the Obama Victory fund 2012. But guess what? Roberts is a tax lawyer located in St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands who owns her own firm that specializes in offshore investments and how to avoid paying US taxes on those investments. Prior to owning her own firm, Roberts worked for a different St. Thomas firm that managed nearly $1 billion of investments, and some of her clients are somewhat questionable in their legal dealings.
This bundler is an Obama supporter, the same Obama who, in 2009, delivered a speech condemning the practice of using overseas investment tax loopholes to avoid paying US taxes. He referred to the US tax code as being, “…full of corporate loopholes that make it perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share.” There’s that “fair share” phrase again. Obama continued, “The Treasury Department and the IRS, under Sec. Geithner’s leadership and Commissioner Shulman’s, are already taking far-reaching steps to catch overseas tax cheats, but they need more support.” Let’s see, Obama says he wants to go after overseas tax cheats, but appointing US tax cheats like Geithner is permissible.
More “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisy. It’s really getting easy to find things to write about. And this is the guy you libruls keep defending and supporting.
But that’s just my opinion.Powered by Sidelines