• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    May 2024
    M T W T F S S
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    texan2driver on NY Doctor Confirms Trump Was R…
    markone1blog on NY Doctor Confirms Trump Was R…
    markone1blog on It’s Only OK for Kids to…
    America On Coffee on Is Healthcare a “Right?…
    texan2driver on Screw Fascistbook and *uc…
  • Archives

Senate Panel OKs Bill to Flatten Ariz. Income Tax

Hmm.  Imagine that.  Actually simplifying the tax code so all the complex deductions go away and everyone pays the same percentage of their income.  <sarcasm>No, that could NEVER work.  We need to just tax the rich at 100%.  THAT will fix ALL our problems.</sarcasm>


http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/2277

Senate panel OKs bill to flatten Ariz. income tax

Written by CAA National on March 25, 2011, 05:14 PM

PAUL DAVENPORT

PHOENIX — A “flat tax” bill to rewrite the state individual income tax is nearing the finish line at the Legislature, setting the stage for changes that would have the Arizona’s wealthiest taxpayers paying less while nearly nine of every 10 Arizonans pay more.

The Senate Finance Committee approved the Republican-sponsored bill on a 4-2 party line vote Thursday. The House has already approved a version of the bill.

Major changes in the bill include eliminating the standard deduction, dependent exemptions and most other state deductions while flattening the current five rates into one lower rate of 2.13 percent. Current rates range from 2.59 percent to 4.454 percent depending on income levels.

The changes would be phased in over three years starting in 2013. It would not affect federal income tax paid by Arizonans.

As passed by the House, the bill would have produced an additional $50 million of annual revenue for the state. However, the Senate committee amended the bill so that it would not significantly add or subtract from total state revenue, according to an analysis by the legislative budget staff.

A legislative budget staff analysis indicated that taxpayers with federal adjusted gross incomes below $100,000 generally would pay more state income tax under the bill while those with higher incomes would save money. Taxpayers with incomes below $100,000 account for 88 percent of state income tax filers, according to the analysis.

“There are winners and losers in this proposal,” said Sen. Jack Jackson, D-Window Rock.

Republican Rep. Steve Court of Mesa said average tax increases under his bill wouldn’t exceed $200.

“There’s not going to be an excessive tax increase,” Court said.

The goal is to simplify the tax system “so the government is not incentivizing how you spend your money,” Court said. “It’s a policy bill. It’s not a revenue bill.”

 


California DEMOCRAT Rep. Waters may face fall ethics trial

Yet another rat in Nancy Pelosi’s swamp of corruption. Not only do we need to drain the swamp, but we need to burn it and spray it with DDT.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100731/ap_on_go_co/us_waters_ethics

California Rep. Waters may face fall ethics trial

Maxine Waters AP – FILE – In this Oct. 28, 2009 file photo, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington. …

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer Sat Jul 31, 8:27 am ET

WASHINGTON – A second House Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, could face an ethics trial this fall, further complicating the election outlook for the party as it battles to retain its majority.

People familiar with the investigation, who were not authorized to be quoted about charges before they are made public, say the allegations could be announced next week. The House ethics committee declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter.

Waters, 71, has been under investigation for a possible conflict of interest involving a bank that was seeking federal aid. Her husband owned stock in the bank and had served on its board.

New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel also faces an ethics trial this fall on charges that include failure to disclose assets and income, nonpayment of taxes and doing legislative favors for donors to a college center named after him.

Both Waters and Rangel are prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the trials would be an embarrassment for the group. Dual ethics trials would also be a major political liability for Democrats, forcing them to defend their party’s ethical conduct while trying to hold on to their House majority.

(View complete article HERE > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100731/ap_on_go_co/us_waters_ethics)


CBO: Obamanomics Unsustainable

In a very clear way, using numbers provided by the governments own Congressional Budget Office, Heritage.org does a fantastic job of illustrating where Obama and the democrats are taking us.  For you liberals who think we spend too much on defense, take note.  Defense spending (at approximately 9% of GDP) is individually less than Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, and is only a drop in the bucket compared to all social spending combined.  That’s kind of ironic when you consider that without a strong national defense there will be no society to secure.

Obama and the democrats are destroying us economically, not to mention socially and morally.  They are spending money we will not have for generations to come, they are devaluing the dollar by printing more and more money, they have driven the dollar from its historic place as the central trading currency in the world, and they have sold most of our country to the Chinese who can now destroy our economy on a whim.  All to buy votes and gain political power.

The charts below come from Heritage’s 2009 Federal Revenue and Spending Book of ChartsYou can download the entire Book of Charts in PDF format HERE.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Obama-Budget-Increase-Debt-26-Percent-GDP.aspx

Obama’s Budget Would Increase Debt by 26.3 Percent of GDP Compared to CBO Baseline

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that publicly held debt (Debt issued in the form of treasury securities; unlike government-held debt that is issued from one part of the U.S. government to another.) will reach 56.1 percent of GDP under current law. If President Obama’s budget is implemented, CBO projects debt to reach 82.4 percent of GDP.

Debt Held by the Public as a Percentage of GDP

Debt Held by the Public as a Percentage of GDP

Source: Congressional Budget Office; White House Office of Management and Budget.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Obama-Budget-Would-Create-Unprecedented-Deficits.aspx

Obama’s Budget Would Create Unprecedented Deficits

Since the 1960s, deficits driven largely by increased levels of spending have been the norm, while surpluses were an exception. The 2009 Congressional Budget Office deficit projection under President Obama’s plan is far above the 45-year historical average of 2.2 percent of GDP.

Average Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP by Administration

Average Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP by Administration

Source: Congressional Budget Office; White House Office of Management and Budget.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Unfunded-Obligations-Entitlement-Programs-Dwarf-Bailout-Spending.aspx

The Unfunded Liabilities of Entitlement Programs Dwarf Recent Bailout Spending

Recently, massive federal government spending on programs such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the 2009 economic stimulus bill, and the bailout of AIG has dazzled the nation with their enormous price tags. However, the cost of the unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicare are more than 61 times the cost of TARP alone.

Total Unfunded Obligations for Medicare and Social Security vs. Bailout Spending

Total Unfunded Obligations for Medicare and Social Security vs. Bailout Spending

Source: U.S. Department of Treasury; U.S. Government Accountability Office; Congressional Budget Office.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Entitlement-Spending-Deficit-Problem-Could-Resolve-Without-Tax-Increases.aspx

The Long-Term Entitlement Spending and Deficit Problem Could Be Resolved Without Tax Increases

In May 2008, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced The Roadmap for America’s Future, a comprehensive bill that would reform entitlements and hold taxes near their historical average of 18.4 percent of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office scored his proposal and found that it would eliminate long-term deficits without tax increases.

Federal Spending as a Percentage of GDP Under Rep. Paul Ryan’s Proposal

Federal Spending as a Percentage of GDP Under Rep. Paul Ryan’s Proposal

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Entitlement-Spending-Will-More-Than-Double-by-2050.aspx

Entitlement Spending Will More Than Double by 2050

Entitlements (Program providing guaranteed benefits to eligible parties, such as retirees; funding levels grow automatically.), fueled by demographic changes and rising health care costs, will cause federal spending to explode. Medicaid (Federal health care program for low-income individuals and families with children.) spending will more than double, increasing from 1.5 percent of GDP (Gross domestic product is the total value of goods and services produced in the United States.) in 2005 to 3.1 percent in 2050. Medicare (Federal health care program for retirees; includes inpatient and outpatient care and drug coverage.) spending will more than triple, increasing from 2.7 percent of GDP in 2005 to 8.9 percent in 2050.

Entitlement Spending as a Percentage of GDP

Entitlement Spending as a Percentage of GDP

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Entitlements-Alone-Eclipse-Historical-Tax-Levels-by-2052.aspx

Entitlements Alone Will Eclipse Historical Tax Levels by 2052

Spending on the three major entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, will more than double in the next 40 years. Without major reforms, entitlement spending will consume all federal tax revenues by 2052.

Three Major Entitlements and Tax Revenues as a Percentage of GDP

Three Major Entitlements and Tax Revenues as a Percentage of GDP

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/If-Tax-Revenue-Is-Held-at-Historical-Levels.aspx

If Tax Revenue Is Held At Historical Levels, Total Spending Could Reach 67 Percent of GDP

Historically, tax revenues have hovered around 18.4 percent of GDP.  If taxes are kept at these levels, spending from the three major entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, will push spending levels to unsustainable heights, crowding out all other programs by 2052.

Federal Spending and Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

Federal Spending and Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on White House Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office data.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Obama-Scenario.aspx

Obama’s Budget Ignores Entitlement Crisis

The entitlements – Social Security, Medicare Medicaid – will impose costly burdens on future generations if they are not modernized. Unfortunately, President Obama’s budget fails to address spending on these programs and does nothing to address America’s long-term deficit problem.

Federal Spending and Revenue as a Percentage of GDP Under President Obama’s Budget

Federal Spending and Revenue as a Percentage of GDP Under President Obama's Budget

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on White House Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office data.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Ratio-of-Workers-to-Social-Security-Beneficiaries-Declining.aspx

The Ratio of Workers to Social Security Beneficiaries Is Declining

As the baby boomers age, the nation’s demographic makeup will change greatly. Currently, there are approximately 3.3 workers for every Social Security beneficiary, while in 1945 the ratio was approximately 42 workers per retiree. This declining ratio means that fewer and fewer workers will be left to support more and more beneficiaries.

Covered Workers per Social Security Beneficiary, Intermediate Scenario

Covered Workers per Social Security Beneficiary, Intermediate Scenario

Source: 2008 Social Security Trustees Report.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Repealing-Tax-Cuts-and-Not-Fixing-AMT-Won%E2%80%99t-Balance-Budget.aspx

Repealing Tax Cuts and Not Fixing AMT Won’t Balance the Budget

If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax. A parallel income tax system increasingly falling on the middle class.) is not fixed, taxes will soon grow to unprecedented levels. Even this massive increase in federal revenue will not solve the spending imbalance driven by Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Federal Spending as a Percentage of GDP Under the Extended Baseline Scenario

Federal Spending as a Percentage of GDP Under the Extended Baseline Scenario

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on Congressional Budget Office data.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Social-Security-Spending-Soon-to-Rise-Rapidly.aspx

Social Security Spending Soon to Rise Rapidly

Although Social Security spending has remained relatively constant since the early 1980s, the approaching wave of retiring baby boomers is set to send Social Security spending to levels never before seen.

Social Security Spending as a Percentage of GDP

Social Security Spending as a Percentage of GDP

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Tax-Rates-Would-More-Than-Double-If-Entitlements-not-Reformed.aspx

Tax Rates Would Need to More Than Double If Entitlements Are Not Reformed

Under current law, the costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise substantially. If this spending were funded solely through federal income tax increases, tax rates would more than double, even for the lowest tax bracket.

Increased Tax Rates Necessary to Pay for Entitlement Spending

Increased Tax Rates Necessary to Pay for Entitlement Spending

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The Senate and House of Representative of the United States are Hereby Evicted

The bums aren’t listening, so it’s (past) time to throw them out.  There might be 10% of the elected officials in Washington who have voted faithfully in line with the constitution and American values, but the rest are merely the flotsam and jetsam of the American political scene.  For them to simply be swept away with the tide would be a good thing for America.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

http://www.americanvision.com/sendanevictionnoticetocongress.aspx

EVICTION NOTICE

On the following grounds I serve notice that you, the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, are hereby EVICTED.

  • You have broken your contract with America by violating your oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States by expanding the powers of the Government in exchange for our God-given Liberties.
  • You have ignored the pleas of the majority of Americans by forcing a takeover of our private health care industry and exchanging it for a bureaucratic nightmare.
  • You are attempting to control our economy by empowering “Pay Czars” to regulate the income of workers.
  • You are increasing taxes on small business owners, the life blood of our free economy, while bailing out the banking industry.
  • You are overstepping your Constitutional Boundaries by agreeing with this present Administration to seize control of private industries, such as banking, automobile manufacturing, and health care.
  • You have jeopardized the international value of our currency with deficit spending.
  • You have failed to secure our national defense by refusing to tap the vast natural resources within our own borders and off our own shores.
  • You have punished citizens and private business establishments with further regulation with hysteria and false claims of “climate change”.
  • You have borrowed against our children’s future for political gain today

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Laziness Is Colorblind

Before the uninformed among you scream “racism,” do a little research and find out who Mr. Williams is.  Once again, I expect the liberals loyal to the democrats to immediately dismiss Mr. Williams as a “sell out” and an “Uncle Tom”  just as they did with Bill Cosby.  Those that do simply illustrate why they will never be anything other than sponges soaking up the sweat of our society.  They strive not, but merely place the blame for their situation on others and sit back waiting on SOMEONE ELSE to do something about it.  Make no mistake, this is not a black or white problem.  It is a lazy person problem.  The problems that plague the black community are infecting everyone just the same.  Laziness is colorblind.

_________________________________________

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1505&status=article&id=334794716456151

Political Power Hasn’t Brought Black Progress

By WALTER E. WILLIAMS | Posted Monday, August 10, 2009 4:20 PM PT

President Barack Obama won an unprecedented 96% of the black vote. That’s not much of a news story since blacks typically give their votes to the Democratic candidate.

Blacks are probably the most politically loyal people in the nation, and it is almost taken as gospel, at least among civil rights organizations and black and white liberals, that the only way black people can make socioeconomic progress is through the politics of race and special government programs.

However, such a vision can be subjected to empirical evidence.

In 1940, when blacks were politically impotent, their poverty rate was 87%. By 1960, before blacks achieved much political power, it had fallen to 47%. During that interval, in various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled.

Before 1960, there were no anti-poverty programs or affirmative action programs that can explain an economic advance that exceeded any other 20-year interval, though there were Truman and Eisenhower administration attacks on some of the gross forms of racial discrimination.

A significant chunk of black progress occurred simply through migration from rural areas in the South to big Northern cities. Between 1960 and 1980, black poverty fell roughly 17% and continued falling to today’s 24%.

The decline in black poverty between 1960 and 1980 might have simply been a continuation of a trend starting much earlier and cannot be attributed solely to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, President Johnson’s War on Poverty or Richard Nixon’s affirmative action.

Most of the major problems that many black people face are not amendable to political solutions and government anti-poverty programs. Let’s look at some.

In 1940, 86% of black children were born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate among blacks was about 15%. Today, only 35% of black children are born inside marriage, and the illegitimacy rate hovers around 70%.

Today’s breakdown of the black family is unprecedented. It began in the 1960s with the War on Poverty and the harebrained ideas of the welfare state. In the mid-1960s, Daniel Moynihan sounded the alarm about the breakdown in the black family in his book “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.”

At that time black illegitimacy was 26%. Moynihan said, “At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of the Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family.” He added, “The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.”

Moynihan’s observations were greeted with charges of racism and blaming the victim. By the way, the welfare state is an equal-opportunity family destroyer. Today’s illegitimacy rate among whites, at nearly 30%, is higher than it was among blacks in the 1960s when Moynihan sounded the alarm. In Sweden, the mother of the welfare state, illegitimacy is 54%.

Blacks hold high offices and dominate the political arena in Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., New Orleans and other cities. Yet these are the very cities with the nation’s most rotten schools, highest crime rates, high illegitimacy rates, weak family structure and other forms of social pathology.

I am not saying blacks’ having political power is the cause of these problems. What I am saying is the solution to most of the major problems that confront many black people won’t be found in the political arena and by electing more blacks to high office.

In fact, politicians tend to be hostile to some of the solutions to problems many blacks face, such as school choice as a means to strengthen education and the elimination of oppressive licensing restrictions for various occupations, and supportive of job-destroying labor legislation such as minimum wage laws.

The bottom line is that there is very little evidence anywhere on the planet that political power is a necessary condition for economic power.

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

_____________________________________________

Obama Raising Taxes $26,000 per year on Tax Paying Families Over Next Decade

Don’t look behind the curtain.  These are not the tax cuts you’re looking for.  What we’ve got here is failure to realize your failed communist policies have failed every time in history they have been tried.  Our wannabe-communist liberals believe that the only reason communism failed is that not enough freedom was taken, not enough taxes were confiscated, and not enough money was spent.  Well, now they have their chance to prove their point and have ALREADY demonstrated the historic truth that communism and socialism are simply and demonstrably failed ideologies.  Over spending and borrowing what you can’t afford to pay back are what got America into its current mess.  So why is it suddenly a good idea to borrow TRILLIONS of dollars we can’t afford to pay back just so we can spend most of it on pork projects designed to get politicians re-elected? These lying, power-hungry scumbags are taxing and spending us into oblivion.  We can’t afford any more of Obama’s  lies or broken promises.  We can’t even afford for Uh-Bama to tell the truth.  The few times he’s honest, we get a glimpse into the “1984” Big-Brother future he has planned for us.  He promises to raise a civilian security force as well funded as the military (Brown Shirts).  He promises to destroy the coal mining industry in this country.  He promises to make other countries like us again (by destroying us so we are no longer the lone super power).  America can not afford Obama.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  TERM LIMITS. The liberals are shredding the constitution as fast as they can feed it into the shredder.  What is it going to take to MAKE THEM STOP?

Obama’s $163,000 Tax Bomb

Families well below the president’s ‘no-tax’ threshold will get a six-figure bill.

The House and Senate are preparing to pass President Barack Obama’s radical budget blueprint, with only minor modifications, by using (abusing would be more accurate) the budget “reconciliation” process. This process circumvents the Senate’s normal rules requiring 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. Reconciliation was created by Congress in the mid-1970s to enforce deficit reduction, the opposite of what the president and his party are aiming for.

[Commentary] AP

The immense increase in nondefense spending and taxes, and the tripling of the national debt in Mr. Obama’s budget, have been the subject of considerable scrutiny since it was announced. Mr. Obama and his economic officials respond, not without justification, that he inherited an enormous economic and financial crisis and a large deficit. All presidents present the best possible case for their budgets, but a mind-numbing array of numbers offers innumerable opportunities to conjure up misleading comparisons.

Mr. Obama’s characterizations of his budget unfortunately fall into this pattern. He claims to reduce the deficit by half, to shave $2 trillion off the debt (the cumulative deficit over his 10-year budget horizon), and not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. While in a Clintonian sense correct (depends on what the definition of “is” is), it is far more accurate to describe Mr. Obama’s budget as almost tripling the deficit. It adds $6.5 trillion to the national debt, and leaves future U.S. taxpayers (many of whom will make far less than $250,000) with the tab. And all this before dealing with the looming Medicare and Social Security cost explosion.

[Commentary]

Some have laid the total estimated deficits and debt projections (as more realistically tallied by the Congressional Budget Office) on Mr. Obama’s doorstep. But on this score the president is correct. He cannot rightly be blamed for what he inherited. A more accurate comparison calculates what he has already added and proposes to add by his policies, compared to a “do-nothing” baseline (see nearby chart).

The CBO baseline cumulative deficit for the Obama 2010-2019 budget is $9.3 trillion. How much additional deficit and debt does Mr. Obama add relative to a do-nothing budget with none of his programs? Mr. Obama’s “debt difference” is $4.829 trillion — i.e., his tax and spending proposals add $4.829 trillion to the CBO do-nothing baseline deficit. The Obama budget also adds $177 billion to the fiscal year 2009 budget. To this must be added the $195 billion of 2009 legislated add-ons (e.g., the stimulus bill) since Mr. Obama’s election that were already incorporated in the CBO baseline and the corresponding $1.267 trillion in add-ons for 2010-2019. This brings Mr. Obama’s total additional debt to $6.5 trillion, not his claimed $2 trillion reduction. That was mostly a phantom cut from an imagined 10-year continuation of peak Iraq war spending.

The claim to reduce the deficit by half compares this year’s immense (mostly inherited) deficit to the projected fiscal year 2013 deficit, the last of his current term. While it is technically correct that the deficit would be less than half this year’s engorged level, a do-nothing budget would reduce it by 84%. Compared to do-nothing, Mr. Obama’s deficit is more than two and a half times larger in fiscal year 2013. Just his addition to the budget deficit, $459 billion, is bigger than any deficit in the nation’s history. And the 2013 deficit is supposed to be after several years of economic recovery, funds are being returned from the financial bailouts, and we are out of Iraq.

Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.

What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In ten years, interest would bring the total to well over $200,000, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding ten years, the tax hike per year would average almost $26,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits.

We can get a rough idea of who is likely to pay them by distributing this $6.5 trillion of future taxes according to the most recent distribution of income-tax burdens. We know the top 1% or 5% of income-taxpayers pay vastly disproportionate shares of taxes, and much larger shares than their shares of income. But it also turns out that Mr. Obama’s massive additional debt implies a tax hike, if paid today, of well over $100,000 for people with incomes of $150,000, far below Mr. Obama’s tax-hike cut-off of $250,000 (over $130,000 in ten years and over $16,000 a year if paid annually over the following ten years). In other words, a middle-aged two-career couple in New York or California could get a future tax bill as big as their mortgage.

While Mr. Obama’s higher tax rates are economically harmful, some of his tax policies deserve wide support, e.g., permanently indexing the alternative minimum tax. Ditto some of the spending increases, including the extension of unemployment benefits, given the severe recession.

Neither a large deficit in a recession nor a small increase from the current modest level in the debt to GDP ratio is worrisome. And at a 50% debt-to-GDP ratio, with nominal GDP growing 4% (the CBO out-year forecast), deficits of 2% of GDP would not be increasing the debt burden relative to income.

But what is not just worrisome but dangerous are the growing trillion dollar deficits in the latter years of the Obama budget. These deficits are so large for a prosperous nation in peacetime — three times safe levels — that they would cause the debt burden to soar toward banana republic levels. That’s a recipe for a permanent drag on growth and serious pressure on the Federal Reserve to inflate, not the new era of rising prosperity that Mr. Obama and his advisers foresee.

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

This story has been corrected. An earlier version included in two parenthetical statements calculations of additional taxes derived from the debt occurring over the period, rather than present discounted values.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Stop the Obama Plan to Take Total Control


Stop the Obama Plan to Take Total Control

The extreme-left is desperately trying to take over every aspect of your life.

In case you haven’t noticed, they’re taking control of the banking industry, they’re trying to take control of your family’s healthcare, they’re taking control of the auto industry and the energy industry… .

But, most horrifically, THEY’RE TRYING TO TAKE CONTROL OF YOU. And, make no mistake; the so-called $3.6 TRILLION BUDGET ABOMINATION IS THEIR MEANS TO DO IT.

Some critics, to borrow a phrase from the good folks at FreedomWorks, are saying that this $ 3.6 trillion budget abomination “taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much.”

But the simple fact that $3.6 trillion is a mind-boggling figure is just one small piece of the puzzle.

The one thing that no one is really taking about (the 800 pound gorilla in the room) is that this $3.6 trillion budget abomination is ALSO the LARGEST AND MOST AMBITIOUS GOVERNMENT POWER GRAB IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.

And if it passes, you can kiss the free-market system goodbye. If it passes, you can kiss your personal liberties goodbye.

Here are just a handful of the highlights:

Health Care: According to the typically pro-Obama New York Times: “Mr. Obama asked Congress to set aside $634 billion in a ‘reserve fund for health care reform.’ He provided no new information about how to cover the uninsured, saying he would work out the details with Congress later this year.” (The only plan they have is to take your money and your choice on what you can get for your health care dollar. Under this system, a government agency will decide what treatment is available to you, and whether you will get that treatment based on how much value (i.e. tax paying potential) you have left in your life. Are you nearing retirement age? Don’t count on that hip replacement or triple-bypass. It doesn’t matter if you (still) have enough of your own money to pay for the procedure. You will not be allowed to have that health care. Oh, but if you’re part of the ruling class as designated by emperor Uh-Bama, you’ll have your own private doctors and first class medical care.)

The Times also stated that Obama “would also increase premiums charged to Medicare beneficiaries….” No, your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Obama is asking Congress for $634 billion dollars of your money, is offering no clear plan as to what he wants to do with the money (he’ll get to that later, after the money is appropriated) and wants to cut back on benefits. The only thing that is certain is the government will start taking money out of your pocket and start making your healthcare decisions for you.

Taxes: Moveon.org, while promoting the $3.6 trillion budget abomination, repeats the Obama mantra that it: “Reduces taxes for 95% of working Americans. And if your family makes less than $250,000, your taxes won’t go up one dime.”

The truth of the matter, however, is that this $3.6 trillion budget calls for a number of hidden taxes. One of these is a cap-and-trade energy tax which, according to The Wall Street Journal “would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3 percent of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9 percent to 2.7 percent of income.” (This was supposedly removed from the current version of the budget because even some democrats were asking how we could possibly afford this. Have no doubt that they will find another way to put this over on this, and here’s why. Don’t miss this. Cap-and-Trade, carbon tax, or whatever label they place on it is the one, single way to tax and control EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE. Think about it. We are a carbon based economy. Is there ANYTHING that you use, consume, buy, etc. that isn’t produced with carbon based energy, made from carbon fuel derivatives (i.e. plastics come from oil), and/or delivered in a vehicle that burns carbon based fuel? This includes the electricity that lights, heats, and cools your home, and cooks your food. The producers will be taxed on the carbon used to produce, this tax will of course be passed on to you, the consumer. The consumer will also be taxed on the carbon they consume. This will doubly and heavily burden you and I with massive taxes, and will eventually drive producers out of business because we can’t afford to buy their products. They close, we lose jobs, the tax base of both producers and consumers shrinks, the government has fewer dollars they can tax, the nation goes deeper in debt, and the death spiral of our country’s economy continues.)

The Wall Street Journal concludes: “Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth–but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street ‘green tech’ investors who know how to leverage the political class.” (Do you understand how this will redistribute wealth? Whatever international agency is in charge of issuing carbon credits will issue lots of credits to underdeveloped nations that will never be able to use all of the credits they are given. Developed nations such as the U.S. will not be given enough credits to operate at a level that sustains our economy and way of life. To operate at our current economic level under the cap-and-trade system, we would be forced to buy excess credits from 3rd world countries at exorbitant prices, thus transferring the wealth we have produced and earned to nations, dictators, and people who have not earned it, and DO NOT DESERVE IT.)

Jobs: MoveOn.org claims the budget “Invests more than $100 billion in clean energy technology, creating millions of green jobs that can never be outsourced.”

The folks at FreedomWorks have this to say: “The numbers being used here, like the numbers used in the stimulus debate, are deceptive in that they hide the less rosy bigger picture. It is a classic case of ‘what is seen and what is not seen’ as described so clearly by economists Frederic Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt. What is seen are the jobs that will certainly result from the government spending $100 billion. What is not seen are all the jobs that are lost because the government has to take those $100 billion out of one part of the economy to spend it somewhere else.” (Government, by definition, CAN NOT create wealth or jobs. Government acquires all of its money and resources from the private sector (that’s businesses that earn a profit and create REAL jobs, and you and me the taxpayers). Because of the inefficiencies and corruption of government, the level of which is directly proportional to the size of government, much of the wealth that is TAKEN from the private sector evaporates long before it reaches its intended recipients. Imagine you see a homeless person and want to give him $10 to get something to eat. If you give it directly to him, he gets the full $10. If government taxes that $10 from you in order to “end homelessness,” “feed/house the underprivileged,” or whatever feel-good label the government puts on their excuse to take your money, the value of that $10 immediately gets diluted. The agency that is taxing you takes a cut for their overhead. Portions of it are taxed away for other government causes. Portions of it are lost to outright corruption. By the time the $10 that were liberated from you works its way through the government system to the homeless person you wanted to help in the first place, he will be lucky to get $1 out of the original $10.)

You’re starting to get the picture. This $3.6 trillion budget has nothing to do with stimulating the economy, or making life better for the average Joe; unless, of course, you believe that the redistribution of YOUR income and government intrusion into YOUR life are good things.

Perhaps that’s why Senator Judd Gregg called Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget “an extraordinary move of our government to the left.” Gregg added that President Obama “is proposing the largest tax increase in history…”

Compromise Is Not An Option. Compromise Means Obama Wins And The American People Lose

President Obama knows that when his $3.6 trillion budget is debated in the Senate that our elected officials will be inclined do what they always do… he knows the first thought that will spring to their minds is “compromise.” (This is where the Republicans who have betrayed conservative principles will once again show their true colors. Rather than going down fighting, they will go down compromising. There is a time for compromise, but now is not that time. It is time to actually stand for something, and not to compromise what you stand for. Those Republicans who claimed to be conservatives, but have compromised our nation into the position we are in now, are just as much to blame for the condition we find ourselves in now. THEY COULD HAVE STOPPED THIS WHEN THEY WERE IN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE, BUT INSTEAD OF PURSUING THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA THEY RAN ON AS AGRESSIVELY AS OBAMA IS PURSUING HIS COMMUNIST AGENDA, THEY COMPROMISED!) Just as the socialists like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the like need to be tarred, feathered, and run out of Washington D.C. on a rail, so to do the Republican compromisers who went along with them.)

Obama knows their inclination will be to put lipstick on this pig under the idiotic assumption that cutting a little bit of the fat will somehow make it palatable to the American people. After all, that’s so much easier than simply fighting for what is right.

We cannot let that happen because “compromise” simply means that Obama gets 95% of what he wants… 95% European-style socialism… 95% income redistribution… 95% economic destruction.

Cutting a few hundred-billion here or a few hundred-billion there is NOT going to make this $3.6 trillion monster significantly smaller, NOR WILL IT DAMPEN THE ASSAULT ON OUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. OBAMA’s $3.6 TRILLION BUDGET MUST DIE!

If they “compromise,” we all lose. The American people lose… your children and grandchildren lose… even the people who are being hoodwinked into supporting this $3.6 trillion budget will lose.

If they “compromise,” the United States will take one giant leap into European-style socialism.

That’s why we must take this bull by the horns and let our elected officials know right now that we don’t want any “compromises” or any lipstick put on this pig.

We want Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget DEAD… a stake driven through its evil heart. Anything less means the American people LOSE.

This is not just a partisan budget battle. Our future and the future for our children and grandchildren hang in the balance!

AIG Bill: Counterproductive and Unconstitutional

Do you think they’ll stop their “collections” with the AIG execs? If you do, I have some beachfront property in Florida I’ll sell you when the tide goes down. Once Obama and Co. un-cork the bottle that’s holding the tax genie, that genie will likely never go back in the bottle. Is what they’re attempting to do constitutional? Constitution, shmonstitution. Who needs rules? Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank and company don’t care about the constitution or us peasants. They have an agenda, constitution be damned.

The AIG (And Everyone Else) Bill: Counterproductive and Unconstitutional

Posted By Rory Cooper On March 20, 2009 @ 11:43 am In Ongoing Priorities | 33 Comments

Whom It Really Targets

  • The Hit List: H.R. 1586 retroactively taxes AIG employees who are due deferred compensation and would tax that compensation at a 90% rate [1].
  • A Much Broader Sweep: Going forward, the bill also imposes a 90% federal tax rate [1] on anyone employed by a company receiving $5 billion in TARP funds who has a family income over $250,000, individual income over $125,000 (if single or married but filing separately), or performance pay larger than adjusted gross income.
  • What Defines a Bonus? Under H.R. 1586, a “bonus [1]” is any amount over an employee’s base salary, including retention and performance pay and even deferred compensation. But compensation in banking and finance is heavily geared towards performance, with relatively lower base salaries.
  • Counterproductive Policy: While taxpayer money shouldn’t be spent on excessive bonus compensation, broad-based pay caps and punitive clawbacks will hurt performance and slow economic recovery. The government is ill-suited to set private-sector pay scales and risks causing more financial damage.
  • Your Branch Manager: Anecdotally, a “Regional Branch Manager” for Bank of America who makes $250,000 plus bonuses for outstanding customer service at his branches would be taxed at 90% due to this bill.

The Real Problem, Plain and Simple

  • How We Got Here: Senator Chris Dodd would like you to forget [2] that he inserted specific language recognizing AIG’s executive compensation into the $800 billion stimulus bill, which Finance Chairman Max Baucus now admits [3] nobody read.
  • Government Bailouts: This is the inevitable result of government bailouts, which turn private concerns (such as compensation agreements between private parties) into public business, bringing politics where it is likely to do damage.
  • Hasty Bills Make Disastrous Policy: The very fact that this problem was created by a mega-bill that wasn’t properly reviewed before passage—and is now being “corrected” by a hastily put together bill that hasn’t been properly reviewed—is beyond ironic.
  • Avoid This in the Future: To avoid further entanglement of the federal government and taxpayers in routine business matters, President Obama and Congress should reject further bailouts and insist those already done be unwound as quickly as possible.

It’s Not Constitutional, Plain and Simple

  • Bill of Attainder: The Constitution prohibits Congress [4] from punishing individuals, which is the role of the justice system. This prevents legislative tyranny and is essential to ensuring that those accused of wrongs receive due process and can mount a defense. It also encourages “sound legislation,” which is not accomplished by legislators being whipped into a frenzy and interfering in personal and economic affairs.
  • An End Run? Congress added more taxes to the bill to get around the bar of bills of attainder, but it can’t make an unconstitutional act permissible by cloaking it in the guise of a tax bill.
  • Taxation Not the Answer: Congress is prohibited [4] from using the tax code as a weapon of convenience against a select group of unfavorable people, even when the political opportunity exists.