Best of Biblical Conservatism - Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Raising Corporate Taxes Costs CONSUMERS

Today, we bring you a new feature on Biblical Conservatism that we'll be test driving throughout the next couple months: a mid-week Best of Biblical Conservatism Post, to compliment new posts on Monday and Thursday.

Today's post comes from July 13, 2011. At that time, we were in the heat of the last Debt Limit Battle.

This week, as the Debt Limit battle continues, we've been explaining the truth behind the liberal talking points that the Drive-By Media won't tell you. Today, we're going to dive into the truth behind the liberal idea that raising taxes on big businesses won't effect us, the middle class taxpayer.

As usual, liberal are applying an expectation of static consequences to a new tax. liberals always assume businesses don't change their behaviors or, in this case, their prices, when taxes are increased. There's an unfortunate truth behind it: Corporate taxes are ultimately passed along to the consumers. That means YOU are paying for it. Liberals would have you believe that if government imposes a tax on Proctor and Gable, for example, that means Proctor and Gamble just pays the extra tax out of their profits. In reality, the cost of that tax is rolled into the cost of that bottle of Tide you're buying. Either that or they step back production to continue to maintain the same profit margins. (1) Lower production means fewer employees, by the way.

That's the problem with liberal economic assumptions; they always assume the rosiest of scenarios. Unfortunately, raising those corporate taxes hurts you. It means either the company cuts production and people lose jobs or the price goes up. Either way, it hurts the middle class. That's the problem liberal don't tell you: you pay for that tax increase.

Don't believe me? Did you know that the United States Fuel Tax and state fuel taxes were hypothetically supposed to be levied on the gas station? Guess what, it isn't. You pay it. It's included in the prices. (Somewhere in the history of the gas tax the gas stations and the government dropped all pretenses and just advertised the price as "all taxes included). Before you lambaste the "evil gas station owners," the current Federal gas tax is at $0.18 per gallon and the average gas station's profit on a gallon of gas is $0.07-$0.10 per gallon. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means the tax is somewhere between $0.08 to $0.11 per gallon OVER their profits.)

For the most part, gas stations make their money selling you a Mountain Dew, a pack of Twinkies and a tin of Altoids, not on gas. Even on a full tank they're only making a buck or two profit. If I fill my car's 13 gallon tank (I drive a Chevy Malibu for those who care), that means a gas station on the high end of the profit range is making $0.91 - $1.30 of profit on me, once a week. Meanwhile, the government is making nearly twice that amount taxing you. So who's the one who is gouging you again?

No, there's no legal way to force the corporations to not roll those taxes into their prices. By the way, they aren't doing anything wrong. They are simply maintaining a net profit margin that makes their investment (aka risk) worthwhile. It's either going to lead to cutting production (which means cutting workers) or raising prices.
Don't believe the liberal lie: Raising taxes on corporations isn't raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. It's raising taxes on you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Not and Will Not Succeed

Biblical Conservatism Week in Review (Week of 12/10/12)

Monday, December 10, 2012 - Clinton Era Taxes? How About Clinton Era

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.

Except, that's not the REAL problem at hand. Here's what the problem REALLY looks like:

• 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.

Does anyone thing Baljeet would be wrong to refuse this compromise? Of course not! The compromise ignores the real problem!  The real problem is a bully is demanding something that isn't his from another child. Buford isn't entitled to Baljeet's money. Giving him what he demands doesn't solve the real problem, which is that Buford is a bully.

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.

This supposed compromise ignores the real problem: Excessive spending.  A false premise is being presented as a red herring. The important detail of the real problem is being left out. The fact is the Democrats want to raise taxes because...ummm...uhhh...I don't know, reasons? Other than punishing the rich, there is no explainable reason. 

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.
 

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Striking Down Obamacare

The Obama Administration and the Drive-By Media must be seeing the writing on the wall as it pertains to Obamacare...they're already polishing their excuses. The President is now speaking out against the court "legislating from the bench."

If you know history at all, you're smacking your head against the wall because that hurts far less than trying to find the logic in the President's statement. For a Constititional Law professor, this President doesn't have a clue about legal history.  He had no issue with the Supreme Court invented a right to destroy one's unborn child in the womb and claim it has something to do with privacy.  That wasn't legislating from the bench.  The court potentially saying "No, you cannot force free people to buy a product" is somehow legislating from the bench?

Actually, Mr. President, that's called Judicial Review. You see, Congress doesn't have the right to pass whatever law they want, even by majority decision. We have rights, Mr. President, and those rights can't be legislated away with a law.  (The idea of legislating away people's rights isn't a new one, by the way.  You can see it in old newsreels.  Of course they're tough to understand...because the narration is in German.)The fact is, Mr. Obama, you never had the right to require people to purchase health insurance by law.  You also never had the right to force the individual states to expand Medicare and pay for it.

Not sure if you read that whole 10th Amendment thing in the Constitution, Mr. Constitutional Law Professor, but that exhaulted document states:

 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The power to decide what product to purchase has not been delegated to the Federal Government. It was delegated to the States or to We the People. (I'd argue this is delegated only to us individual people.) 

My friends, that is not Judicial Activism. This is Judicial Review. This is what the Supreme Court's job is...to review laws in question and decide if it's Constitutional.  If the Supreme Court strikes this law down, it's doing it's job, Mr. President.  Get over it.

Stop Discussing the Left's Misdirection Narrative

For the last few months, the Left has been trying to change the conversation.  They want to talk about social issues.  They want to convince women to hold their nose and vote for Obama again due to a falsely created fear that some horrible, evil Republican wants to take away their birth control.  They want to make this election about something...anything really...besides the economy.

Do you know WHY they don't want to talk about the economy?  BECAUSE IT'S LOUSY!  Oh sure, the Drive-By Media is doing their darndest to convince you that it's actually improving...even though we've sat above 8% unemployment for years now...even though the number has only dropped as low as it has because there are 2 million fewer jobs to be had, and not because more people are working.  Oh, and by the way, the unemployment rate has gone back above 9% again, to 9.1% in Gallup's February report. We went up .5% in a month, friends. 

The Left doesn't want to talk about gas prices, either.  Obama once called prices of $2.50 a gallon unacceptable when Bush was president. Now we're heading back for $4 a gallon. Does Obama have a solution?  I mean a real solution, and not more phantom "green energy?"  Like, oh, I don't know, getting the oil we have out of the darn ground and refining it?  Or reducing the ridiculous regulations that stop new refineries from being built?  Or how about a pipeline from a nice, friendly nation like Canada to pump their oil to refineries in Texas making it easier for us to purchase their oil (instead of OPEC nation oil) and raising huge revenues?  Nah...let's just pump millions into making algae into fuel.

Friends, here's a dose of truth that you won't get from the Drive-By Media: The Obama Administration has failed. He's spent and spent and spent and we've got nothing.  Sure, Activist and Neighborhood Liberals alike are telling you that "it would've been worse."  Yeah, that's a logical argument.  If I guy punches me in the face, it's like telling me that I shouldn't be upset, because he could've punched me in the groin.  No, Obama has failed, by his own measure.  So let's not let the Left change the conversation and talk about the real issue of this campaign. It's the economy, stupid, and it's terrible.

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Roads, Schools Don't Rationalize Liberal Spending

It's the latest talking point from both Activist and Neighborhood Liberals: Every time a conservative points out something like "Apple created the iPod 3 without government help" they respond, "Oh yeah?  It's shipped on public roads...and most of their employees went to public schools! Couldn't do it without government!" 

The reality is that the American public is waking up and realizing (finally!) that government is not the solution to our problem and that, in fact, it is the source of many of our problems. So now liberals are once again trying to change the conversation by bringing up schools and roads and other such things that government is the...shall we say, least worst...entity to handle.  It's also a rationalization for saying that "the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes!" (Which they have to rationalize since fact is the "evil" top 1% pay 36% of the tax burden and the top 10% pay more than 70% of the tax burden.)  They try to rationalize it by saying that those businesses use public infrastructure to ship their products ergo they somehow benefit more than other citizens from the public roads (of course, those same people use the same roads to get to their jobs etc).

It's time for a reality check on this talking point, which I'm pleased to be able to provide.  First and foremost, this entire argument is a Straw Man argument. Conservatives don't argue with government handling infrastructure (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that'd be roads and bridges).  We do think the best place to handle this kind of project is local governments or, at most, state governments and not the Federal government.  The most efficient (relatively speaking...government efficiency is an oxymoron as always) way to handle these jobs is the public sector. Conservatives also don't argue with public schools.  Yet we again believe the best way to handle schools is the local level or at the most the state level, and never at the national level.

Now to the issue at hand:  Does this translate into "couldn't live without government?"  Absolutely not!  Fact is, public schools weren't available to all individuals in America until 1870!  It wasn't until 1910 when public school attendance was mandatory.  Are you saying that there weren't businesses before 1910?  Of course there were!  As far as public highways? The first public highway wasn't commissioned until 1921!  And again, every citizen has the right to use the public roads and has equal access.  The disparity between the taxes paid by the business owner over the rest of the population more than covers the theoretical extra wear and tear on the road from business shipping.

More importantly, this excuse of "infrastructure and education" absolutely does not validate the level of government spending that the modern liberal desires.  Government has handled both for decades.  Let's take a couple of snapshot years, shall we? 

In 1952, the federal deficit was $3.883 Billion.  Adjusted for inflation that's $31.536 Billion in modern dollars (translation - less than one day of modern deficit spending).  In 1954 the deficit was $3.114 Billion. Adjusted for inflation that's $24.695 Billion in modern dollars (translation - again, less than one day of modern deficit spending).  Finally, in 1962, the federal budget deficit was $9.229 Billion.  Adjusted for inflation that's a mere $65.780 Billion in modern dollars (translation - about two days worth of modern deficit spending).

What's the point, you ask?  Here's the point: In every one of those years, government was spending on infrastructure and schools. Yet the deficits were very reasonable...and I didn't even mention fiscal years 1951, 1956 or 1957, where the federal government ran a modest surplus...and yes, the government was spending for infrastructure and schools in those years as well.  Clearly, the cause of our trillion dollar deficits each year aren't because of Obamanomics and government spending. 

Talking about infrastructure and education, or if you prefer fire departments, police departments, or any other legitimate public service is simply a cop-out by the Left to deflect the realities: Government isn't overspending on the things it ought to be doing, nor is the problem that we don't tax enough.  The problem is...the problem has always been...that we spend too much and we spend to much not on necessities but on frivolous and unnecessary things.  Sometimes, those unnecessary things are veiled as compassion. 

Feeding people who legitimately can't feed themselves? Fine.  But doing so in a way that other people's money can be spent on candy, on potato chips, on soda? (I've managed an inner-city store...it was infuriating to see what food stamps were spent on...in greater quantities than actual nutritious food.) Advertising food stamps?  Again, those who need it don't need advertisements (which I can tell you due the fact that I work in media advertising is not cheap) to tell people "you may not think you qualify for food stamps, but you might!" Think about that!  "You may have enough money to buy food...but we can give you food stamps anyway!"

The truth that no liberal wants to tell you is that infrastructure, schools, etc. are a drop in the bucket of the deficit.  More importantly, they won't tell you that conservatives don't argue against infrastructure or school spending.  We do argue against Cowboy Poetry festivals, investing in phantom "Green Energy" and paying for people to not work for 3 years and giving food stamps to people who legitimately do not need it.  We argue against waste.  So let's refuse to engage in this misdirection and change the conversation.