Obama vows to veto House GOP’s bill to extend payroll tax cut

The White House said Tuesday it will veto a payroll tax cut extension being prepared by House Republicans, with President Obama insisting the bill also must raise taxes on the wealthy rather than cut government spending.

In a statement of policy, the White House said the bill, which the House will vote on later Tuesday, is a Republican effort at politics rather than a compromise deal.

“This debate should not be about scoring political points. This debate should be about cutting taxes for the middle class,” the statement said.

Republicans say they have given Mr. Obama everything he wants in the bill, including an extension of this year’s payroll tax cut, additional limited unemployment benefits and a continuation of full payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.

But rather than imposing a tax increase to offset the costs, as Democrats wanted, the Republican proposed a freeze on spending for federal salaries.

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.

Boehner stands for Americans…or does he?

House Speaker John A. Boehner abandoned efforts Saturday night to cut a far-reaching debt-reduction deal, telling President Obama that a more modest package offers the only politically realistic path to avoiding a default on the mounting national debt.

On the eve of a critical White House meeting on the debt issue, Boehner (R-Ohio) told Obama that their plan to “go big,” in the speaker’s words, and forge a compromise that would save more than $4 trillion over the next decade had fallen victim to the toughest ideological issues: how to raise taxes and cut spending on popular health and retirement programs.

That leaves negotiators reexamining a less-ambitious framework — aimed at saving roughly $2.4 trillion over the next decade — that had been under discussion between Vice President Biden and a bipartisan group of lawmakers. But that group’s talks broke down more than two weeks ago over the tax issue as well.

“Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase,” Boehner said in a statement released less than 24 hours before the White House meeting was to take place.

The sweeping deal Obama and Boehner were discussing would have required both parties to take a bold leap into the political abyss. Democrats were demanding more than $800 billion in new tax revenue, causing heartburn among the hard-line fiscal conservatives who dominate the House Republican caucus. Republicans, meanwhile, were demanding sharp cuts to Medicare and Social Security, popular safety net programs that congressional Democrats have vowed to protect.

Obama, at least, was willing to make that leap and had put significant reductions to entitlement programs on the table. But on Saturday, Boehner blinked: Republican aides said he could not, in the end, reach agreement with the White House on a strategy to permit the Bush-era tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest households to expire next year, as lawmakers undertook a thorough rewrite of the tax code.

Democrats quickly accused Boehner of placing tax breaks for the rich above the nation’s financial salvation.

“We cannot ask the middle-class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts. We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a written statement.

“Both parties have made real progress thus far, and to back off now will not only fail to solve our fiscal challenge, it will confirm the cynicism people have about politics in Washington.”

The Sunday meeting at the White House will go on as scheduled, and Pfeiffer said Obama will continue to press for a broad deal aimed at stabilizing the soaring national debt. Without such a plan, lawmakers in both parties have said they will not vote to grant the Treasury additional borrowing authority. Unless Congress acts to raise the $14.3 trillion legal limit on the debt, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said that the government will begin to default on its obligations after Aug. 2.

The Biden framework, which he crafted with key Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.), includes cuts to federal agency budgets and more modest reforms to entitlement programs. That package would allow Congress to approve an extension of the federal debt ceiling into spring 2013.

Read more here.

Obama’s Deceit

I have had it with this President’s blatant dishonesty. His speech was appallingly deceitful and misleading. This President, has spent more money and added more debt than any other President in history. This is not political rhetoric, this is simply fact! Barack Obama’s budget deficit in March of 2011 was larger than the deficit for all of 2007!

According to Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal, under Historical Tables, the budget deficit under George Bush first peaked in 2004 at $412 billion dollars. Between 2005 and 2007 the budget deficit declined by $252 billion to reach its low, under Bush, at $160 billion. If the tax cuts and wars, both occurring in 2001 and 2003, caused our current financial situation, how did the deficit fall between 2004 to 2007? Because Tax Cuts increase revenue to the government by allowing people and business to invest more of their own money. As people invest they conduct taxable transactions which bring in revenue to the government.

So where did Obama come up with the claim that he inherited a trillion dollar deficit? In 2008, the deficit under Bush climbed to a new high of $458 billion. The reason for the climb was the fiscal stimulus and emergency spending as a result of the financial crises. However, this number is somewhat misleading. The fiscal year for 2008 ended in October of that year, pushing much of the onetime emergency spending on the 2009 budget. When you add that spending onto the budget baseline, you come up with a deficit for 2009 of $1.4 trillion. While Obama is correct that he is not solely responsible for the 2009 budget, he is lying by not informing the American people most of the deficit was “one time emergency spending.” He, Barack H. Obama, chose to put that spending in the baseline budget for the next decade. Thus, we have $1 trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see.

The President claimed that we didn’t “pay for” the tax cuts. Excuse me Mr. President, when someone takes a pay cut, do they have to “pay for it?” A tax cut means the government simply takes less of YOUR money, what is there to pay for? This, seemingly innocuous, difference comes from the President’s view that government has a right to your money. To Obama, it is not your income, but governments’, and government not taking all of your money is an act of compassion. Obama believes that by leaving more of your money in your pocket, it is the equivalent of government sending you a check! If government sends you a check, that means government must “pay for” the tax cut. Unbelievable!

‘Cut it or Shut it!’: Tea Party Says No to Budget Compromise at DC Rally Today

Jenny Beth Martin looked out on the rain-dampened crowd along Constitution Avenue and pointed over her shoulder at the Capitol.

“They heard us, but they’re not listening!” Martin, a tea party leader, told members of the movement that helped put Republicans in charge of the House last November.

The crowd booed.

Four months after the historic election, the populist force that helped drive Republicans to power is finding that its clout on Capitol Hill isn’t automatic.

What brings you out today, one tea party member was asked. “Saving our country, obviously.”

Sensitive talks over how many billions of dollars to cut from this year‘s federal budget have strayed far below the Republicans’ campaign promise to slash $100 billion. Rather than standing firm and allowing parts of the government to shut down until enough lawmakers came around, House Speaker John Boehner was doing exactly what the tea partiers thought they had elected Republicans to avoid: negotiating with President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats over spending cuts.

“Cut it or shut it!” chanted the crowd outside the Capitol on Thursday.

“I’m not talking about $5 billion or $6 billion or $10 billion. I’m talking about $100 billion,” said one tea party activist (seen in the picture above), speaking of the budget cuts. According to the AP, $10 billion has been cut so far.

Among those not balking were some of the 87 freshmen Republicans, who more than anyone in the House owe their seats to the tea party juggernaut.

Read more here.

Murphy Outlines Three-Year Plan to Eliminate Maryland’s Corporate Income Tax….

….Proposes Reductions in Personal Income Tax

Crofton, Maryland – Brian Murphy, Republican candidate for governor of Maryland, continues to propose solutions to grow Maryland’s economy. Today he laid out a proposal to eliminate Maryland’s high 8.25 percent corporate income tax. In spite of Maryland’s ideal location and talented workforce, unemployment remains at record levels. Murphy sees the state’s high taxes and anti-business environment as the causes.

“The governor is the State’s Chief Executive Officer. Marylanders are suffering from a lack of confidence in our elected officials and from a lack of certainty in our tax structure. As the only candidate who has pledged not to raise taxes, I have aligned myself with Maryland’s families and small businesses. Today, by proposing a tax plan that will grow our economy, I am the only candidate who is inviting families and businesses to consider making Maryland their home,” said Maryland.

“Our 8.25 percent corporate tax is one of many failed policies killing our economy. And when we consider that the vast majority of Maryland businesses are small businesses, and corporate income tax represents only 2 percent of the state’s tax receipts, it makes us wonder why we have the tax at all. As a small business owner, I can tell you firsthand the burdens of operating in Maryland. We need to empower business owners to grow their operations in our state,” said Murphy.

“Maryland has the best labor force and infrastructure in the country. But our tax structures make it impossible for us to compete. My goal is the phased elimination of our corporate income tax in three years. In the first year, we will balance and streamline our budget without raising taxes. This will put our economy in a position to recover and grow. In the second year, we will reduce the corporate income tax rate by 50 percent, funded by organic growth to preserve revenue neutrality. This will give new and existing businesses an incentive to grow their Maryland operations. In the third year, we will eliminate the corporate income tax all together,” said Murphy.

“Finally, after we make Maryland competitive for small businesses and families, we will revisit our personal income tax rates. Personal income taxes make up a greater portion of our state’s tax receipts, so eliminating them completely is not immediately possible. But I am committed to growing Maryland’s economy. Reducing our personal income tax rates, even slightly, will create a significant benefit for Maryland families,” said Murphy.

Brian Murphy and Robert Ehrlich are running in the Republican Primary on September 14. Governor Martin O’Malley is running in the Democratic Party Primary on September 14. The winners of the respective parties’ elections will square off against each other in the November 2 General Election.

Brian Murphy is a successful Maryland businessman with a B.A. in Economics from the University of Maryland and an M.B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. He is founder of the Plimhimmon Group, whose first investment, the Smith Island Baking Company, has been featured in The Washington Post, the Wharton Magazine, the Baltimore Sun, Businessweek, and other publications for its principled approach to job creation in Maryland.

For more information on the Brian Murphy for Governor campaign, see www.brianmurphy2010.com. To set up a press or media interview, contact Fran Griffin at fran@brianmurphy2010.com. To volunteer, contact Sam Hale at sam@brianmurphy2010.com or 301-509-1437.