You got those tax hikes, now what?

Democrats got their massive tax hikes, and are indiscriminately cutting rather than carving with the sequestration they wanted. Creating new job losses so they can blame Republicans (ran out of the Bush excuses after 4.5 years) No reduction in the deficit, however.

The problem is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And no one has a solution; putting younger workers on a self-directed plan while raising the retirement age will be stomped to death by Democrats (not because it is bad, but because it will work), and Republicans will scream at reduction in benefits for current recipients.  No one said Republicans were conservative about spending on themselves.

Back in my day. . .

Oh, young people love to hear that one, don't they? My chosen career, librarianship, was and probably still is, at the bottom of the pay scale for an advanced degree (entry level degree is a master’s but many have PhDs).  But I loved it. What could be more fun than buying, organizing, preserving and distributing information, knowledge and wisdom? ("For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage o...f knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it." Eccl. 7:12) I don't envy Bill Gates' wealth or the 3 winners of the Megamillions. In fact, my religion says coveting is very, very bad not only for a society but for me personally. However, my president says it's good. He wants "fairness," which actually means coveting what others have. If you don't believe me, try teaching fairness to 6 year olds--you'll create jealousy as they each eye what the other has and start to whine.

 
The Buffett rule is something for President Obama to talk about during the campaign so he doesn't have to face the huge economic problems he has created and to rail against “rich Republicans” if it fails.  The biggest, wealthiest donors are all contributing to Democrats, but don’t let the facts confuse him—he’s already way off track and it plays well with the unemployed he hasn’t helped.   He wants the government to take more of what you or someone else has, not to use for any particular purpose, but to satisfy a vague belief in "fairness."

The Buffett rule takes money out of the economy and gives it to the government, where it will be spread around the various bureaucracies, revolving door non-profits and unions and you'll never see a dime of it.

The plight of the small businessman

Small businesses generate 65% of job growth and Obama plans to tax them to death if they are successful. So when the head of SBA says they need access to capital, that's only part of the story. Small business owners often pay taxes at individual income-tax rates rather than corporate rates, so these rich "fat cats" that Obama demonizes in almost every speech may be a dress designer or dry cleaner or dairy plant that employs 20 or 30 people and easily go over his magic number of $250,000. I'm not sure why Geithner, who couldn't even figure out his own income taxes, is saying Obama's increases will only affect about 3% of the population. We're retired, and looking at the tax charts it looks like we'll be paying more--I sure we all will, even if it's indirectly through higher prices.

As the saying goes, "I never got a job from a poor man." Increasingly, you only get a job through some level of government, and that will impoverish all of us, so the only people hiring will probably be poor, too. Ending Bush tax cuts?

Headline gets it wrong

"Markets fall as fears of slump span world"No, it's fears of Obamanomics--higher taxes, more trade restrictions, more powerful unions and more environmental regulations. If you are wealthy, better to sleep on your cash in the "mattress" and sit this one out until your well-paid accountantants and lawyers can find the loopholes. Investors and money managers aren't stupid. A president like FDR who took a struggling market in 1932 and artificially inflated it with more government programs but no real job growth, extending the Depression another decade, is not building confidence. Even if Obama and the American voter haven't read history, chances are there are some out there in Japan and Germany who have.

Ode to a very bad plan
by Norma Bruce

Capitalists and Socialists alike
around the world
invested in our bad mortgages
bundled by our biggest banks
backed by our GSEs
promoted by our Congresses
protected by our Democrats
on the banking and finance committees
handing out with a wink big grants
to community organizers threatening
the writers of the mortgages
to fund the dream that
every Joe the Plumber
and each Maria the Barista
should have a PMI
they couldn't possibly afford
when the bubble burst
as all bubbles do.

Obama's fairness doctrine

The damage of Obama's slip up in talking to Joe the Plumber, and why the press is trying to take your eye off Obama and focus on an ordinary citizen working for a living for a plumbing company in Ohio, is that even the most undecided voter knows that "spread the wealth around" is socialism.

For some reason, the voters haven't caught on to the lie, "95% will have their taxes reduced." These are the same people who don't realize credit means debt and sale means spend. In this parable he's talking about reinstating welfare for millions; millions of people don't pay taxes, so they will get a tax credit, i.e., will be paid for not paying taxes. McCain has been really weak in demolishing this phony claim.

Also, voters don't seem to remember one of the most successful features during the Clinton years was the Congress forcing his hand on welfare reform. Oh! the Democrats moaned and groaned, they predicted horrible things, but the economy soared by putting people to work. And Clinton got the credit--about his only positive legacy. The "community organizations" immediately went right to work pushing the newly employed or low income into NINJA loans so they would have something to do when they took their clutches off the necks of the poor.

Also, voters in 2008 don't remember the promises Bill Clinton made about reducing taxes on the middle class during his campaign in 1992 (I voted for him, did you?)--took about a month when he told us that he really couldn't do that--we'd all have to pay more. Maybe McCain is too much of a gentleman to bring it up, but he could turn that one over to Sarah.

Someone, and I don't care if it is Governor Palin or Senator McCain, needs to tell the voters that when Obama hits up the rich for more taxes (because "it's fair" or "patriotic"), he is simply penalizing the investors. The truly rich will still hire the accountants and lawyers and buy their boats, houses, and travel, but there will be much less left to invest. I saw some figures on how much Cindy McCain has lost recently. You're not sorry? I am. That's money that won't create jobs. (And she won't pay taxes on her losses, remember, so we're hurt two ways). So tax rate for the top 10% goes up, but Joe the Plumber or Jane the Pharmaceutical rep may be 100% out of a job. Jobs are created by the rich, not the poor.

Bush certainly hasn't been frugal. He's thrown money at education like he was a drunken Democrat from Massachusetts instead of a recovering Republican from Texas. He's infuriated conservatives. But he knows the way to bring in more money is to reduce the tax rates--that really spreads the wealth. Our nation's unemployment was under 5% for most of the Bush years because of his tax cuts. And before the housing meltdown caused by Democrats failing to rein in Fannie and Fred, the market was at an all time high. Obama doesn't care. He wants your job--as long as some rich investor gets taxed more. If you are 100% unemployed, well good, it just gives him more opportunity to make you more dependent on him. Makes him feel good--or powerful--or both.

The Team Obama's treatment of Joe the Plumber is just a foretaste of what's to come.