The debt ceiling deal

You keep hearing that what we have in this debate over the debt ceiling is a classic case of immovable object vs. irresistible force. This time the lineup looks like this:

* Irresistible Force: The Democrat’s and Obama’s demand for tax increases.
* Immovable Object: The GOP’s demand for spending cuts.

Clearly the road to an improved economy is through reduced spending. Considering the fact that we pretty much doubled during the eight years of George W. Bush, and spending has gone up another 25% or so during the first 2.5 years of Barack Obama, do you really think the problem with our debt is that taxes aren’t high enough? Also, when you look at these amazing spending increases does it occur to you that any claim by any politician who tells you that we just can’t cut spending … even by as little as 5% … is being just a little disingenuous, if not completely absurd?

Now Obama is absolutely insisting on tax increases. There is just no way in the world he is going to approve of any deal to cut spending unless he gets his precious tax increases. Well here’s something we all need to realize about Obama. This man does not want to raise taxes because we need the extra revenue. He just wants to raise taxes because he is firmly philosophically opposed to letting some of these people keep the money they have worked for and earned.

Do you remember Obama’s encounter with Joe the Plumber? Joe asked Obama if he was going to raise taxes on small businessmen. Obama said yes. Did Obama tell Joe that we needed the revenue? Nope. He told Joe that he was going to raise taxes because the “wealth needed to be spread around.” In other words, he wanted to take the money away from the people he didn’t want to have it, and give it to the people he did.

Then there was Obama’s memorable encounter with Charlie Gibson. The subject was Obama’s desire to raise capital gains taxes. Gibson reminded Obama that the historical record was pretty clear on capital gains taxes; that an increase would actually result in decreased revenue. Obama said that he realize this, but that capital gains taxes had to be increased out of a sense of fairness. In other words, Obama didn’t think it was fair for those people to be earning that much off of their investments, and it was his job as president to take that money away from those people and give it to others … just to be fair.

Question, how can anyone take Barack Obama seriously in negotiating our national debt ceiling, when he himself has managed to increase our national debt by $3 trillion? Mitt Romney points out that by the end of Obama’s first term, he would will have added as much debt as all of the prior 43 president combined. This is what happens when you increase federal spending by 25%. Just to maintain our current level of spending through the end of this fiscal year, the federal government must borrow an additional $5,239.71 per American household. This is exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing to get our fiscal house in order. Kevin Williamson explains:

Coming in at 25.3 percent of GDP, federal spending is higher today than it has been in any year since 1945. What did we do at the end of World War II? We cut spending — radically. In 1944, federal spending was 43.6 percent of GDP. By 1948 it was down to 11.6 percent of GDP. It edged up after that, but from 1948–60, federal spending averaged less than 17 percent of GDP. (Those were not the worst years in the history of the republic.) What that means is that if federal spending as a share of GDP were reduced to that postwar average from 2012–16, we could balance the budget, start paying down the national debt, and cut taxes by $1 trillion over those five years.

Yet and still — the answer for Obama is tax increases. Nothing but tax increases. Oh how Democrats love tax increases.

When compared to the size of our deficit, or the size of our annual budget, the amount of money that can be realized by raising taxes on America’s small businesses — on the people who run those businesses and report their business income on their personal income tax returns — doesn’t qualify as a drop in the bucket. Obama’s favorite targets are those people earning over $250,000 a year. He is only proposing to raise their taxes by about 4.9% a year … but let’s just go all in here. Let’s put a 100% income tax on all incomes above $250,000 a year. Take every single dollar over $250,000. How much money would that be? Not enough to run our country 141 days. That’s 20 weeks or about 5 months. Plus … millions of jobs would be lost as businessmen decided to fold their tents and walk away from that confiscatory tax level. Now that’s a 100% tax, folks, and we only get 141 days? What do you think 4.9% is going to accomplish?

Not many people are saying this … but what is the easiest way to bring our deficit spending down? By growing our economy, that’s how. The last time we balanced our budget was during the dot-com boom of the 1990s. Even though government spending was increasing, the budget was balanced because of the additional taxes that flowed from economic growth. Now the progs will tell you it was because Clinton raised taxes, but when you realize that the additional tax revenue didn’t equal the spending increases you understand that the tax increase didn’t balance the budget.

Author: AKA John Galt

A small business owner, a tea party organizer, a son, father and husband who is not willing to sell out the future lives of his children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s