The Democrat Party and President Obama keep pushing for Clinton Era taxes on the top 2% of tax earners as part of a Fiscal Cliff deal. They keep pretending this will help with our problem, as if our problem was insufficient revenue not surplus spending.
Let's set that aside for a moment. I have a different question: If they want Clinton era taxes, how about Clinton-era spending? Think about it, friends. How about we demand Clinton era spending if Obama wants Clinton era taxes.
For the record, Clinton era spending was forced by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Welfare reform, cuts to corporate taxes, etc, all was forced upon Clinton by Newt and the Republicans. That's what I've said for years was the real reason for the Clinton-Era boom, not, as has been falsely credited, the tax increases. (That is, and always has been, a Democrat red herring).
What would Clinton-Era spending look like, adjusted for inflation? In 2000, Clinton's final budget, spending was set at $1.8 Trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $2.417 Trillion. In 2012, the incoming revenues were $2.469 Trillion. That would mean a $52 Trillion SURPLUS, and that is without raising taxes!
Of course, doing this means admitting the real problem, and Democrats are not at all willing to do this...it's all about raising taxes because...ummm...reasons? Oh, right. It's because they know this is indefensible. Their focus isn't on real problem solving. It's on expanding liberalism. And that's the truth the Left doesn't want you to hear.
Thursday, December 13, 2012 - Barack Obama and the Kindergarten Compromise
Compromise. It's a word we've all known since early childhood. When two people have a disagreement, it's important to compromise, find a middle ground, one where both parties get SOME of what they want.
It's the word we keep hearing repeated in the Fiscal Cliff discussions. The Left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media keep demanding the Republican party compromise and let Barack Obama raise taxes (even though it won't help an ounce in solving the problem).
It sure sounds like the GOP is the unreasonable one, right? They just won't compromise!
Except there's one problem: The GOP is trying to solve the problem. The REAL problem. Our massive deficits. President Obama clearly isn't interested in solving this problem, because he hasn't put forward any real solutions. Just "raise taxes on the rich" in amounts that will pay for the government to run for a whopping eight days. (We borrow 35% of our budget annually, which means we have to borrow money to cover just over 127 days a year. Obama has no plan to cover the other 119 days of borrowing.) President Obama apparently is only interested in raising taxes to punish the wealthy. There is no other explanation.
This, of course, goes unreported in the Drive-By Media. They present it simply as two sides with reasonable deficit solving solutions that just need to meet in the middle to pass a compromise. It's a kindergarten mentality. Too many Neighborhood Liberals and Moderates buy into this presentation of the story. Two sides, equally valid options, one refuses to budge.
They present the problem this way:
- The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
- The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone.
- The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners.
- A reasonable compromise is raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates for everyone else.
What's REALLY happening is a completely different problem. We have a spending problem. The nation is spends 35% more than we have in the bank each year.
The Drive-By Media is presenting this as if it were a kindergarten class compromise. Let's pretend there are two boys in a class. One is named Buford. The other is named Baljeet. Here's how the Drive- By
So here's the problem and solution in brief form, as the Drive-By Media is currently presenting it:
- Baljeet is playing with a toy firetruck during the class' 30 minutes of recess.
- Buford would also like to play with the toy firetruck.
- The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein each boy gets to play with the toy firetruck for 15 minutes of recess.
- Baljeet has lunch money.
- Buford wants all Baljeet's lunch money.
- Baljeet does not want to give Buford any of his lunch money.
- The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein Baljeet gives half his lunch money to Buford.
The fact is 100% of the lunch money is Baljeet's and none if it belongs to Buford. Buford has no right to take it. (Read into that what you wish.) The teacher isn't solving the problem. One side in this problem is very wrong, and his name is Buford. One side is very right, and his name is Baljeet,. Baljeet shouldn't be asked to enter into such a foolish compromise. The teacher should be fired for suggesting it.
That is precisely what's happening in our Fiscal Cliff debate. Here is the problem and solution in brief form:
- The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
- The nation has to borrow money to run the government for 127 days. That equals borrowing $1.3 trillion each year.
- The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners, which will raise a mere $85 billion each year. (This covers only 8 days of deficit spending.)
- The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone, because our problem isn't lack of revenue, but too much spending, and instead wants to cut spending.
- The Drive-By Media is saying "Just let the Democrats raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates on the other 98% of wage earners" as a fair compromise.
So what we have is a kindergarten view of compromise: Just have both sides give some. Forget what the two sides want. That doesn't matter. Just compromise. Even if one side's desires are beyond reason.
