Tax Cut + War = Deficit

Tax Cut + War = Deficit

This subject line on an email greeted me this morning from my friends at MoveOn.org.  It really bothers me.  Not because I am a "hawk" and am very satisfied with the status of our offensives in the Middle east.   (I'm not.)  Not because it makes a very powerful argument.  (It does.) What really bothers me is the presupposition that one is required to make in order to agree that it is true.  Now, if they had said, "Medicare+War+Funding female Jello wrestling in Antarctica= Deficit".  Alright.  Or I'm even OK with "Food stamps + Shrimp on a Treadmill Studies + War =   Deficit".  But please, please, please...if you're interested in Truth, stop telling us that Tax Cuts are a COST to government.   

That statement is wrong on so many levels.  To hold that view presupposes that the government owns all of our money -- all of it -- and simply allows us to keep a certain amount of it.  It presumes that anything that it "gives back" to us "costs" it something.  That is the only assumption that can be made if allowing us to keep what we think is our hard earned money "costs" the government something.  This is why so many people from the right and, to a lessor extent, the independent side of the political spectrum think that our President leans toward socialism.    

The only way to assume a tax cut a cost, is if you start from the view point that all resources are owned by the government.  Then, anything that you give to people becomes a "cost".  Only then can you can say that a Tax Cut "costs" the government something.  However, understand the importance of personal property and John Locke's argument of ownership: that we own our production and the results of that productivity.  This is ownership.  If you agree then you will also agree that the government takes from what "we the people" own.  It takes for many reasons, some of which are well intentioned and some reasons of which are necessary.  I'm OK with that...in balance.  To live in a free, (relatively) just society, it is good for the federal government to take funds to assure certain things are accomplished.  That must be balanced however, with the idea that government does not have the authority, much less the obligation to borrow beyond our ability to repay, in order to provide these services.  And we are dangerously close to that position in 2011.  When you cut taxes on the means (owners) of production, productivity increases.  When productivity increases, taxes increase: even if the tax rate goes down!  It's a proven fact with which even President Obama apparently agrees.    

Recall the debate between then Senator Obama and Hillary Clinton that Charlie Gibson moderated?  This was the Gibson debate that was "fair" according to the pundits.  Senator Obama tells in so many words that he doesn't really want to raise taxes because it will increase our revenues in the Treasury (Apparently he knows that it won't.)  He wants to raise taxes out of "fairness".

GIBSON:  You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Breath taking.  He wants to raise taxes, not because it will increase revenue in the treasury which we desperately need, but because it's not "fair" that other people get to make lots of money.  Is it fair that the money that is taken from the wealthy can no longer be invested in assets that will require people to run (jobs) and new business for people to own? (jobs)  Is it fair that we are actually going to have less money in the treasury to pay our bills because the government would rather play to some intellectual notion of fairness? The reality that the President and Charlies Gibson agreed upon is that revenue in the government treasury GROWS when taxes are lower.  It's not fair to raise taxes, when lower taxes improve all of our lives. 

This is what brings us back to our original notion. Barack Obama and his  wing of the Democratic Party (and yes, some Republicans) want to control as much of our assets as they can, even if it is counterproductive to increasing our revenues.  Plans in place are well on their way to a maximum tax rate over 60%.  This isn't imaginative, congress works on this as we speak.  These tax rates rival the rates of the Jimmy Carter era.    Is it any wonder that one might suspect that it's not really about fairness - that contradiction smacks of control.  Controlling as much of the assets and dollars as possible and giving to "each according to his need".  Thereby explaining why MoveOn considers a tax cut - a "cost".

War + A whole host of Other things we Can't Afford = Deficit. 

Weighed, Measured and found Wanting?

Today we find ourselves at a crossroads. Is anyone surprised? The winds of change are upon us and they aren't what we thought they would be. In any case. We now stand in mock disbelief. Strong conservatives feeling attacked and unsettled at the aggressive track that they expected would come but hoped they were wrong. Moderates and Independents standing figuratively, if not literally, with their mouths gaping, because the One is (as Valerie Jarret would say) ruling by decree with the help of a solidly democrat based congress. Ironically, enough strong democrats are angry at Obama for the exact opposite reason - he isn't taking Health Care far enough. In their minds - no public option - no deal. Our choice is before us. A litmus for the coming elections lie in Massachusetts. The far and moderate right will encourage us to vote republican at all costs - don't split the vote - at the risk of government control of healthcare. The far and moderate left will encourage us to fulfill the legacy of Ted Kennedy. Vote Democrat. The result? We have a socialist leaning democrat and a republican that for whatever reason posed nude for a national magazine. Is there anyone else out there that thinks our choices sit before us, they've been weighed, measured and found wanting?

Socialist Revolution - QUOTE

What does revolution require according to a communist?

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon -- authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists."

 Frederick Engels, On Authority, 1874

Common Obama Refrain? "Bush did it first..."

Will this be a common refrain by our new President?  It very well may be.  President Obama has taken my concern first articulated about the Bush Administration's Patriot Act to a level well beyond the concern I mentioned in 2005.  

I'm no prognosticator.  In fact to date I have been anything BUT a prognosticator.   One may notice from reading my opinions that they tend to be non-specific and non-judgmental in most cases. I typically "wonder" about things, speculate at best, and formulate opinions with the full realization that it is highly possible that I am wrong.  This is why I try to at link you to the facts.  This, because I've lived long enough to realize that I'm not one blessed with the gift of telling the future.  Perhaps my thoughts, plus your thoughts, plus the facts will result in some modicum of an accurate perspective.  We shall see.    

What I do have some understanding for is human nature, and  like the founders of our country I understand and believe that absolute power corrupts, absolutely.  This phrase, while being first attributed to Lord Acton in the 1800's was previously understood by the fathers of our country and resulted in the establishment of a three tier  system(commonly called 'branches') of government.  Each power endowed tier, is reliant upon the other to get something accomplished in a way that is enforcable by law.  In fact, this system was designed to act as a "check" for bad ideas.  Amazingly, it sometimes fails.  Which I guess offers credence to Winston Churchill's statement that, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." 

In my limited view, The Patriot Act in it's current form was a bad idea.  We can thank GW Bush for that.  The government infusing trillions of dollars into private banking was a bad idea. We can thank GW Bush for that.  The drone will go on with President Obama and his task will be much easier because of the precedent set by his republican predecessor.   I expect that we will see a great deal of support for Mr. President Obama's methodology by examining the power grab's established in the Bush administration.    And the President is not being subtle about it.  Yesterday the New York Times asked the President if he was "...a socialist..." and his response was indicative of a refrain I suspect we will hear frequently, to wit:  "...I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks.  It wasn't on my watch. "  I imagine that there will be a whole bunch more of that justification process coming down the pike.  The defense itself, unfortunately, I suspect will be accurate all too often.

We saw a mild tryanny under Bush, watch out for an exponential increase in these tendencies from our new President.

May God Bless our President with wise counsel to avert this tendency.    

 

Value and wealth - SELF QUOTE

"America was never intended to provide an equality of wealth...it was intended to provide a wealth of equality."

The opposite of Productivity - QUOTE

"You cannot legislate the poor into riches by legislating the wealthy into poverty. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anyone anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 to 2005

Frog in a steeping Pot - Quote

Norman Mattoon Thomas (1884 - 1968). Norman was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say, "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."