So the president wants to increase taxes, eh?
OK, so the deficit is big, like in $1.5 Trillion Big. Maybe bigger, even; who knows? The previous sitting Congress and the President himself pushed it up there – after all of them running on the shrill complaint that Bush’s $400 Billion deficit was “way too big.” So much for that campaign promise, eh? It must be easy to spend other people’s money, it appears. Ah, I know it is. While in college I was an intern at NYC Councilman Ed Wallace’s office, and as my time came to leave we were all having a discussion about what I learned – for it was for credit. And the question came up, “What did you like the least about the job?”
And all I could answer was “Watching Mr. Wallace vote for an income tax increase.”
They looked at me like I was a heathen about to pillage a village. “No, seriously,” they asked.
“I already answered.” Harrumph. Though I still got a very nice reference letter from the man.
Obviously, some folks there in Washington are unaware of how much money the government “earns” – or more correctly, “takes,” in taxes. It’s $2 Trillion. Which is a lot, no? Basic rational thought says, though, that if you take in $2 Trillion, you should only spend $2 Trillion. Unless, some really big thing happens, like oh, a Japanese sized earthquake topples Los Angeles. Something big. But to just take more in taxes so that Congress can continue giving goodies to their goofball friends is nuts. To do so year after year is lunacy. Some up there are quite intent, however, in continuing the spending orgy. The president is among them, clearly. So, his solution is more taxes? Huh? That’s crazy, dude, crazy.
Forget the “trillions.” Let’s put it in “normal” terms. You earn $200,000 – and you spend $390,000. Or you earn $20,000 and you spend $39,000. Oh you can do it once in a while. But you can’t keep doing it. And to have no intention to stop is sheer insanity. And to think you can just go get the money from the neighbors is delusional. And to think that there’s going to be $1.5 Trillion you can tax out of the “rich” and use it to cover the deficit is not rational either.
Much analysis has been done showing that if you took ALL the wealth from the wealthiest Americans you’d have a few hours or a day or two at most of spending. Then when that money is gone, you’ll still have to find more money. Trouble is, there is no more. And every society that ever went beyond the 50% tax rate pretty much was done for. It’s the lesson of history. Ask Louis XVI of France.
You know, one of the most understudied elements of the Medieval epoch were the countless revolts by the people against the ruling elite. These almost always came about when the taxes were raised. Every single time when some elite somebody saw that he needed a new wardrobe or a new castle he went and raised taxes. Then he found himself barricaded inside his old castle with pitchforks at the gates.
There’s nothing stimulating about the stimulus – a near Trillion Bucks spent, and unemployment went up, foreclosures went up, business closings were up and just about every other bad economic indicator was up. And all the good were down. Obviously it didn’t work – as it couldn’t. You can’t take $20 from one person and give $17 to another and say you helped anyone. Why just $17 when you took $20? Ah, there’s always that $3 deduction for the government’s overhead costs in making sure the money is collected and then given out without the fraud and waste that usually accompanies such programs. It’s been that way since the dawn of time. Even Lincoln noted it, as did Adam Smith and a raft of others. Only Karl Marx, his followers and royalty ever disagreed with this sentiment. Which is weird, for supposedly Marx was against Royalty – but he wasn’t. He just changed the names of everything, King for First Party Chairman, or something. It’s just royalty without the ermine.
There’s nothing good in banning the increase in oil production so that you can push for wind farms or green technologies, whatever they are. There’s just not enough power in them there windy hills to cover what we need.
There’s nothing good in building new community centers with some politician’s name on it as a permanent re-election advertisement.
There’s nothing good in just spending billions on keeping the price of food high through farm support payments so that you then have to spend billions more helping people to buy food with food stamps. I’d say you could almost do a dollar by dollar cut in both, to lower them both to zero, almost. And if the country was drilling for oil everywhere, many of the unemployed would be employed.
And you can’t tax all the people over $200,000 – whom are the alleged “Rich” to be pillaged, according to the president – and expect them to 1) keep earning so much money – after a while it becomes rational to stop using time and effort to earn money that will be taken away. In a sense, you’re working for some other people, and that’s indentured servitude or slavery, both of which were rightly prohibited by the 13th and 14th Amendments. And 2) use their money to buy goods and services, increase the size of their business, and hire people.
I recall working at a supermarket in Brooklyn as a 20 year old. If I worked an hour or two overtime, I actually came home with less money; something with the tax brackets. When I saw that I refused to work overtime. What would be the point? Who works more for less money? It’s anti-human. So then they started paying me in tuna fish and other products. It worked out better.
I love it, (well, no, I don’t, it’s the “ironic” love here,) when our own Senator Landrieu says she wants to put $30 billion into helping small businesses. Yes, dear lady, I’m sure you think it’s rational to tax away the $30 billion already in their rich pockets and then give it back to the same people, minus the overhead charge, and get them to do what they would have done with it in the first place. Maybe that’s why you’re not in business Ms. Landrieu; you’d lose your shirt pronto. You’re clueless about how it operates, my dear lady.
And if Obama thinks he can get a tax increase out of the House, he’s crazy. For that’s why Tea Party Republicans won so big – No More Taxes. Cut The Spending. It really is that simple. Cut something, anything. But, no, all they could come up with is legerdemain and funny accounting gimmicks to “cut” a measly $39 Billion. Well, it’s a start, yes. And every journey starts with the first step. But still, that’s it? Nope, not good enough. Then the president launches a “week long war” now approaching the second month of action in Libya, and there’s already the “supplemental budget item” or whatever they’ll call it – to spend an equal amount over there on an ill defined mission without a plan. Meaning there’s no net change in spending.
And so, with a shellacking in his midterm elections, precisely because of a No New Taxes pledge by his political opponents, the president is calling for – wait for it – more taxes.
And after you tax away half the wealth from the rich, and they have no more to take – what are you going to do about the $1.5 Trillion Dollar deficit, sir? There’s just not enough money in the hands of the “rich” to pay but for a few weeks at most of government spending. Then what? Will the “rich” now be redefined to include all those over $100,000 a year?
So, yes, Washington, Republican and Democrat alike, and you too Mr. President – you all keep the spending up and raise the taxes, and push for new stimulus. It won’t do any good. And it will stiffen the resolve of we whom are opposed to new taxes and ridiculous spending habits. Which might bring more shellacking. Which will make Washington very shiny, and almost new like.
Say, why don’t you get rid of the Department of Commerce, except the census bureau. There’s a few dozen billions. We don’t need such a department. We Americans know how to commerce without the government getting its hands in the mix.
- Posted in: Uncategorized