Tax Spending Reductions?

What?!

In his speech last night, the President said a couple of things that just drove me crazy.

“The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code.”

“the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions.”

“the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures.”

I hate politicians exactly because of this type of insane, dishonest and arrogant language.  Has no one read “1984”?  Does no one understand what it means when the Government starts to say things like “War is peace” or “Love is hate” or “taking money is reducing spending”?

“Reduce spending in the tax code” means raise taxes. Now to the President’s credit, he did mention that others might say “we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes.”  But is that the same as saying in multiple places, with emphasis, that he wants to “reduce spending in the tax code” instead of saying he wants to raise taxes?  Why not just say it?  Taking our money is not reducing spending, its increasing taxes, its taking our money.  This President is so political and disingenuous he makes George Bush look like a good President. And that is from someone who not only voted for Obama but contributed significantly to his campaign. What a mistake.

Now to the more substantive issues.  Obama has shown himself more and more to be a “populist” in the worst sort of way. A rabble rouser. An inciter of mobs.  Tax the rich.  Who could argue with that?  Who can argue that Warren Buffet and Barack Obama shouldn’t pay their “fair share.”  Except, as we all know, that isn’t the truth.  That isn’t who will be paying and that isn’t who will be provided disincentives from making money.

I live in California and I admit it, I make a good salary and I am probably in that 2% which sounds so great. I certainly can’t cry poverty. But the truth is I am not like those people. I can’t afford a private jet. I have to work.  In Orange County, CA, I live in an apartment because buying a house in a decent neighborhood for under $1 million is damn near impossible. I work 50-60 hours a week for a salary.  Since I have no house I have no deductions and because I live in the great State of California my tax rate is increased by 10%.  No “reducing tax spending” on me Mister President, you’re already taking almost half my salary.  And under the Obama plan you will make me work half time for the government. What is my incentive for doing so? Why work?  I’m in my fifties.  Maybe I should just retire on my savings and call it a day?  Why should I spend half my time working hard, staying away from my family, sitting in an office, in order to pay for a government that is badly run, inefficient, accomplishes little and treats me badly? What incentive do I have.  Hell, with what I have saved over the years, I could get a lower paying job that goes 9-5, has no stress and allows me time to enjoy life and I would get to pay less.

And I am not the worst example by any means.  What incentive does a young entrepreneurial hard working smart kid have? How many will be discouraged by the fact that they have to work 24 hours a day and be treated poorly by the government, told they are just like Buffet and should therefore pay for the abuse, inefficiency and stifling regulation that makes their business difficult to begin with?  How many will simply turn away?  When will democrats learn that taking money gives people less incentive to work for that money?  When will they realize how arrogant they sound when they talk about taking more of that money as “reducing spending.” 

Listen buddy, you are taking our money.  In our book that is increasing spending, not reducing it.  What do you think? That its your money to begin with and leaving it our hands is “spending”?   There is no “spending” in the tax code.  There is only taking.  It’s our money and you are taking it.  If you take more of it, you are increasing spending not decreasing it.  And after you take it, you waste it and give the people who need it much less than you take from us.  It’s highway robbery.  If the US government was a charity, I wouldn’t give, not because I don’t believe in the cause, but because the administrative costs are criminally high.  That’s why I won’t vote for you.  Of course I may be staying home if the only alternatives the opponents can give me is Bachmann, Trump or Romney.

Technorati Tags: Obama,Democrats,Republicans,Budget,Taxes,Government

Comments

[jeff davis]

The Accountability Party

http://theaccountabilityparty.wordpress.com/

Now, the tools are at hand to make the political promise of the internet a reality. Visit "The Accountability Party" blog, and help solve the problem of American decline.

The Accountability Party can become the single, dominant, "regular people's" "Main Street" party. It can displace the Dem and Repub parties, relegating them to irrelevancy as the parties of the fringe left and fringe right respectively.

If you're a centrist Dem Or Repub, imagine what it would be like to have a party all your own, and not beholdin' to some extremist "base". A "Grown-up" party actually able to accomplish something!

Through an innovative internet-based campaign strategy, it can solve the "campaign finance" problem, and liberate political power from domination by wealthy special interests.

Check it out,
Tweet it around, and let's get moving and begin the process of vetting candidates for 2012.

[justin]

I understand your point concerning the President talking out both sides of his mouth. But if I understand you correctly, you believe in less regulation and less taxes. If that is the case, why would you have voted for a Democrat rather than a Republican? That seems to the Republican mantra. Right?

[GovTogether]

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are with you on the "staying home because the choices suck" part. It's sad, but it's true. We don't have great people to choose from in the elections, which is why we need a system that would enable us voters to have a say on each issue as they came up, regardless of who the elected official is.

We at GovTogether are trying to build a system that would make that possible. Better yet, you wouldn't even have to LEAVE home to have a say in the issues, since it would be web-based.

We want to make it so that the people are the ones with the true power, as it should be, and not just for elections, but beyond the elections.

We're not trying to create a third political party. We are the United States of America. Political parties only serve to cause a divide amongst the people, and nothing more.

Individually, we all have a say. Together, we have the power.

If we have it our way, government officials would have to take a pledge to always abide by this new system and cast their vote according to what the people have decided would be best on each new issue.

If you like the idea, come to our site and show your support with a vote, and tell others to vote as well. The more votes we get, the more likely we will be to make this system into a reality.

http://www.GovTogether.com/

[Richard Thornton]

I broached this topic on my blog a few days ago. Our current tax code is outdated. The last MAJOR revision was during the Reagan administration. He dumped the multi-tiered tax brackets for a two tiered bracket, 15% and 28%, bringing us closer to a flat tax that we've ever had. By actually instituting a flat tax (not the 9/9/9 plan Cain proposes), but actually pushing for a sweeping tax reform (sweep it right into the trash) and making it simple for the average American to understand and appreciate. No one enjoys forking over their hard-earned money, but at least make it more equitable. And I DO NOT advocate making the "1%" pick up the tab for the 53% of Americans who don't pay taxes. The rhetoric coming from Washington from BOTH parties is almost laughable if it wasn't so disturbing. I say we can the politicians (all of them) along with our tax code and start over. This is not an "overthrow the government" post, but it IS a "make our government work for us" post. We need to put the common sense back into our government, quickly.

[Jim Harris]

Anyone who claims to be independent and then writes that President Obama makes George Bush look like a good President either is new to the planet or is disguising themselves as an independent because they cannot abide the 7 dwarves currently running for the GOP nomination.

George Bush was the worst president since World War II without a doubt. He bankrupted two companies in the enrgy sector and damn near bankrupted the US with his fruitcake economic views backed-up by Republican know-nothings.

The current fiscal mess has a solution but if you have signed a tax pledge with DC's Official Bridge Troll, Grover Norquist, you have compromised your pledge to uphold the constitution. Why? Because the solution requires that revenues be raised by allowing the Bush "unpaid for tax cuts expire" and by eliminating tax spending in the tax code. Tax spending means giving out tax creditis like they were Pez mints. No more deductions to oil and gas drillers "for non-free market" goodies like depletioni and accelerated depreciation. That raises another $50 billion to the $250 billion raised with letting the Bush tax cuts disappear. Right there the deficit has come down from $1.3 trillion to one trillion.

Reducing military spending to a cost of living adjusted pre-Iraq,pre-Afghanistan level would cut another $300 billion out of defense. Redefining Medicaid elegibility and defining benefits more rigourously would save another $50 billion. Now the deficit is down to $650 billion. We still have not touched Medicare which is not causing a problem at the time nor have we touched Social Security. ( Want to have some fun, imagine the mess we would be in now if George Bush has gotten his way and privatized social security and millions of people had turned over their safety nets to the very same people who created the housing mess?)

I think even the most idiotic teaparty jerk or the bluest of the bluedogs could figure out a way to balance the budget at that level.

I for one am getting sick and tired of people whining about Obama. He has by all standards, out performed his two predecessors. No he did not get a universal mandate through. But he did stop the war in Iraq and is stopping the war in Afghanistan. He has put through a sweeping healthcare reform and he got Bin Laden. All Cheney got was another lawyer.

He is going to be reelected and he is going to win big. The republicans are a mean spirited group intent on taking down the country. The democrats are a feckless bunch who let too much of this nonsense go one for far too long without stopping it. The only one around who has done anything at all to change the dynamic is Barack Obama. God bless him.

[JR]

Jim Harris:
First, I must apologize for not getting this published sooner. Second, I must point out that I only mentioned Bush once, and in no way did I imply he was a good or even decent president (elsewhere I have explicitly said I thought his administration was corrupt to the core). I said that Obama's politicism and disingenuousness made Bush "look like a good President." That means that I believe Bush was not a good President. He certainly was not.

Finally, if Obama is the saint you imply he is, why can't he just say "wipe out loopholes" or "raise taxes?" Why does he have to try and pull the wool over our eyes by calling it "tax spending reductions"? "Tax Spending Reduction" implies a reduction in the cost of government, which it clearly is not, it is an increase in revenue, it is taking more from corporations or rich people or whomever. My real problem is that I believe that language matters and using this language implies that the government has a right to our money and that by allowing us to keep it, the government is "spending" and when they take more of it they are "reducing spending." Lennin and Stalin might have thought that was a good concept. It isn't. Call it what it is.