The payroll tax battle

In January of this year, payroll taxes were cut by two percent. The payroll tax cuts, like the Bush tax cuts, had an expiration date. That date was originally six months, but was extended to one year. If this cut is not extended, payroll taxes will rise to their normal rates in January 2012. When Obama returns from Martha’s Vineyard and presents his jobs plan he will propose another extension of the payroll tax cuts. Frankly, I like the idea. Some Republicans apparently don’t … and here’s the rub.

Apparently – for reasons that defy rational explanation – there are some Republicans who have expressed opposition to this extension. Now bear in mind the Republican Party does not oppose the extension. There is no resolution or party statement in opposition. That matters not. All you need is one or two Republicans and you’ve given the Obama junta all they need to make a nifty little issue of this in the media.

How is this working for our Dear Ruler? Well, here’s how ABCNews reports the story: “Some congressional Republicans, meanwhile, are vowing to oppose another temporary payroll tax cut, even as they pursue other tax cuts that would affect far fewer — and far wealthier — Americans.”

But who exactly are these Republicans who are “lining up” to oppose the extension of the payroll tax cut?

For this answer, you have to travel back to June, embroiled in the debate over the debt ceiling, when two Republican lawmakers said they would not support extending the payroll tax cut. These two Republicans were Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. At the time they had three reasons: the need to shore up Social Security and Medicare, the need for a long-term plan (rather than short-term “gestures”) and the belief that the cut, thus far, had failed to create jobs or stimulate the economy. What other Republicans are “lining up” against Obama on this issue? When asked, a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he “has never believed that this type of temporary tax relief is the best way to grow the economy.” (Though he did not explicitly say he wouldn’t support the cut.) He may have a point. The Wall Street Journal reports:

In December the White House touted a Deutsche Bank economic analysis predicting that the tax holiday would increase output by 0.7 percentage points and boost overall year-over-year GDP growth to 4%. They weren’t even close. Instead the economy decelerated and growth in the first six months averaged 0.8%, down from 3% in 2010.

It matters not. There is no logic behind Republicans fighting tax cuts. And, in fact, perhaps they’re not! We’ve searched the news, and since last June we can’t find any Republicans voicing opposition to the extension, but this isn’t stopping the Democrat effort.

This should go into a textbook someday about idiotic political decisions. Some of these Republicans need an intervention. You don’t sit out there and fight a tax increase specifically targeting people who make over $200,000 a year and at the same time call for a tax increase on those who make less – no matter how insignificant. It is beyond stupid.

Make the payroll tax cut permanent. In fact, get rid of payroll taxes completely. It’s called the FairTax.

Obama to streamline regulations .. yeah, right

Here’s what Barack Obama’s administration is really good at: Making it sound like he is all for something, but not actually doing anything about it. Government regulations is a case-in-point … yesterday his administration announced plans to streamline hundreds of hideous government regulations. This “review” is said to “likely” save $10 billion over five years. That’s great. I truly hope that Obama is serious about this and it is carried out in full. But why should I believe him?

What happened to the executive order Obama issued earlier this year? Oh you don’t remember that, do you? At the beginning of the year, Obama issued an executive order stating that all rules “must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty” and “must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.”

Since issuing that executive order, the administration has repealed a whopping one rule. You may remember that asinine rule .. it was the rule where a spilled milk emergency was treated the same, under the eyes of government, as an oil spill and dairy farmers were required to have emergency plans in case of a spill.


So Obama issues this executive order, and the administration repeals one stinking rule. In the meantime, since the beginning of this year, the administration has proposed 340 new regulations that are estimated to cost us $65 billion .. and this is the just the cost they could estimate based on the rules that actually underwent an economic analysis. That figure is definitely higher. So let’s get this straight .. Obama’s new plan is said to save $10 billion over the next five years, so $2 billion a year. Meanwhile, in this year alone he has proposed $65 billion in new rules. And we are supposed to be hailing this as a great victory? I’m not surprised though. This is the same administration that has increase spending by 25% and then claims that we can’t afford spending cuts.

If Obama was seriously about stimulating our economy, he would do something drastic about government regulations. Repealing ObamaCare would be a wonderful start. Imagine if Americans suddenly had $2.8 trillion more money in their pockets to spend and invest .. imagine what that could do for our economy! Why $2.8 trillion? That is the amount of money that government regulations are projected to cost U.S. taxpayers each year. That is money spent complying with government rules and regulations. This means that the average worker worked 77 days this year just to pay the price of complying with government regulations.

By the way .. who manages to weasel themselves out from under the thumb of government regulations? Union bosses. Seriously! Just take a look at how the Obama administration wants to increase regulations, but not on unions.

The Bush surplus

Sooooo sick and tired of hearing liberals talk about the great and wonderful surplus that George Bush inherited when he came into office, and then squandered. Know this folks – the surplus didn’t exist. Never did. It was a projection – nothing but a projection by the CBO. That projection was based on the 1990’s dot-com economy with the assumption being that we would see a continuation of this amazing economic growth, along with the increased government revenues, for the next ten years. It didn’t. That projection also made no allowances for the Islamic attacks of 9/11 and the cost of responding to those Muslim goons.

It’s a shame that more reporters don’t know the truth about this so-called Bush surplus so that they can call these Democrats when they spout this particular lie on television.

%d bloggers like this: