This Heritage Foundation article quite rightly describes the following statement as a “sobering” thought.
The federal government could cease all other operations (other than major entitlements), including its core constitutional duty to provide for the national defense, and would still end up in a fiscal hole within a generation.
They also provided the following graphic, which describes how each dollar is spent.
Our never-ending expansion of entitlement programs is crushing our ability to pay for what most Americans consider basic functions of government. It is clearly time for a serious overhaul and a rethinking (by people) of what one can reasonably expect government to provide, but I doubt that the country has the will to do anything serious about this situation.
It seems far more likely that our government will entertain (and eventually implement) programs like confiscating the retirement savings of citizens to “spread the wealth around” before they seriously consider cutting spending. A good example of this is the fact that, in the face of our crushing debt, and the sure knowledge that costs would skyrocket, we have gone ahead with a multi-trillion dollar expansion of public health care costs. We’ve almost doubled our debt in the past 5 years and we’re forging ahead with our tax and spend ways.
The truly unfortunate fact is that we still have an opportunity to stop this train before it reaches the cliff and we are forced to endure a far more wrenching and destructive correction. However, I can’t see that anyone in DC has the stomach for even slowing spending to kick the crash down the road a bit further.
Paul Krugman is a pompous, disingenuous ass and the very personification of the term “useful idiot.”
This is the same Paul Krugman that spent months railing against the notion that taxes were going to rise and pooh-poohed the very thought of death panels in the humorously-named “Affordable Care Act” (aka Obamacare).
He vociferously trashed anyone who brought up either tax increases or death panels over the past several years as fringe, right-wing malcontents and lunatics. But earlier this week he admitted that something like death panels were going to have to be put in place in the near future to control spiking health care costs. He also clearly stated that taxes increases on the middle class would have to be put in place. (News flash for Mr. Krugman – those tax increases have already started.)
This says it all. The hatred being thrown in Romney’s direction will continue no matter the issue.
The left is now apparently furious at Romney for overpaying his taxes – that is intentionally limiting his deductions to boost his effective tax rate. They’re apparently claiming that he is doing this as a political ploy.
It’s amazing to see how – in a matter of a few hours – Romney has gone from being attacked as a dirty double-dealing alleged tax cheat, to someone who is even willing to overpay on his taxes to win an election. They’re actually claiming now that he will “(do) anything to win.” (See @goldietaylor on Twitter for an example)
Romney’s 2011 taxes show that he gave some 30% of his income ($4.021 million) to charity and paid a tax rate of 14.14% ($1.935 million on income of $13.697 million – which is actually over 20% of his income after charitable givings). That tax rate, along with a 20 year average tax rate of 20.2%, now makes Romney a bad man?
The political left has become completely unhinged.
“There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy, so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue. It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome.” –Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 35
Why are we spinning our wheels over issues like gay marriage when Taxmageddon is looming?
Congressional Democrats plan massive tax increases and crippling defense cuts after November. Why not now? Because the voters would realize the Obama presidency has set the stage for fiscal catastrophe. [...]
Without action, the Bush tax cuts once again are set to expire at the end of the year and some $110 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts will take place automatically. House Speaker John Boehner is already wisely demanding “cuts and reforms greater than” any debt limit increase.
Heritage Foundation senior fellow and former Treasury Department tax economist J.D. Foster recently warned that on New Year’s Day, “some $494 billion in tax hikes will crash down on America’s taxpayers and economy” — not just the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that gave us a boom and cut unemployment to under 5%, but “a jump in the payroll tax rate,” “the return of the death tax,” ” a bigger, badder” Alternative Minimum Tax, and the tax hikes for ObamaCare.
The ObamaCare 3.8% surcharge goes into effect in 2013, “not just on wage and salary income, but all income, thus breaking the historical link between Medicare and labor earnings,” Foster recently noted. [...]
Lockheed Martin and other defense firms last week distributing “digital countdown clocks” warning that automatic Pentagon cuts will mean the loss of over 1 million jobs — at a time the U.S. suffers an 8.1% jobless rate?
Of course this IBD editorial doesn’t even begin to touch on the damage done to our domestic energy industry by this administration. With the engine of the Obama EPA’s regulatory train wreck just now hitting the coal and gas industries, we are primed to lose millions of jobs and multiple billions in infrastructure investments and revenues.
Add to that the fact that the majority of individuals in the health care market will see their insurance costs rise dramatically under Obamacare.
We need to be spreading this information around liberally. This country can’t take another four years of this amateurish mismanagement.
One Obama blockbuster you’ll be wishing you could have missed.
He’s baaaaack for more! And this time it’s personal!
BHO’s has added two of these to the national debt in 18 months. His spending spree has taken the nation’s total debt to over 13 trillion. For those who will get self-righteous about Democrat spending, Bush oversaw the addition of almost 5 in his eight years in office.
Anyone wondering when (if ever) the DC elite will cut spending?
This is a classic example of an “unbiased” CNN reporter talking over TEA Party protesters after asking them to answer a question, trashing Fox as a “rightwing conservative network” while on air, and arguing with the protesters using standard liberal blog talking points.
Not surprising therefore, that CNN is demanding that the video be removed from YouTube. Since they’re doing that, I’ll just host it on my account and make it easy for you to download so you can host it on yours too (just click the “download” link under the video).
The best part is when the second lady in the video tells Susan Roesgen that it’s not a party issue (“Bush voted for all of this … Obama voted for all of this”) and then Roesgen refuses to admit that she was only featuring signs that supported her leftwing slant on the “news.”
I’m betting that Obama won’t make it through the first 100 days before he claims a “need” to raise taxes across the board.
Forbes.com has an interesting explanation of what the country can expect under Obama’s redistributive “Euro-tax” plans.
Obama has also said he wants to push up tax rates on investment and does not agree that corporate tax rates should be cut. Obama’s proposals would not only harm the investment landscape, but they would also make the tax system substantially more “progressive.” In particular, Obama wants to raise taxes on “the rich,” but “cut” taxes for 95% of Americans. He does this by giving $500 to anyone who is in the workforce and earns between $8,000 and $75,000 per year. In addition, he would use tax credits to further subsidize daycare, college and unwed (working) parents.
In many cases, these are not really tax cuts at all but spending programs dressed up as “tax cuts.” The Internal Revenue Service will send out the check rather than some other government agency. This is a modern day version of the negative income tax, and it would make the burden of taxes fall even more heavily on those with higher incomes. This is hard to imagine.
In 2005, the most recent year available, the top 1% of households (by income) earned 16% of income and paid 39% of all income taxes. The top 40% of households earned 74% of income and paid 99% of income taxes.
These percentages surpass levels from the late 1970s, a time when the top income tax rate was 70%. Some say that looking at only income taxes overstates the burden on the wealthy, but when Social Security, Medicare, corporate and excise taxes are included, the top 40% of income earners still pay a whopping 86% of the overall federal tax burden.
Sen. Obama apparently believes that this is not enough. His tax plan would make the system even more progressive and would push the U.S. perilously close to the “tipping point,” when more than 50% of Americans would pay no income taxes at all.
Remember those last line when you’re thinking of voting. Obama and Biden — who believe that paying higher taxes is “patriotic” — want to give your money to the 40%+ of people in the country who currently PAY NO TAXES AT ALL.
This plan is not a “tax cut.” It is a radical expansion of the welfare rolls.
I’m not really surprised to read that the Democrats are tying spending on veterans programs to their hugely unpopular budget programs. They’re trying desperately to push through spending increases that will make Bush’s profligate squandering of our taxes look like child’s play. Problem is that they know that the rest of the country doesn’t want their spending and the constitution doesn’t allow for it. So they think that using the well-being of our veterans as a political stepping stool will help them get their way.
A massive spending bill with increases long sought by Democrats for education, health and job training programs passed the Senate on Wednesday despite a promised veto. …
The upcoming veto would be the first skirmish in a fight promised by Bush over Democrats’ efforts to add about $23 billion for domestic programs to his $933 billion cap for agency budgets that are passed by Congress each year.
The $606 billion House-Senate compromise measure passed the Senate after Republicans used procedural tactics to remove $65 billion for veterans’ programs and military base construction. The legislation contains $151 billion in discretionary money directly under lawmakers’ control.
Democrats had attached the $65 billion for politically sacrosanct veterans’ programs to the education and health measure in hopes in winning enough GOP votes to override Bush’s veto.
They have no moral compunctions against using children as political pawns in their attempts to expand their power and authority over our lives and wallets, so why would they hesitate to use veterans?
For those who thought they would “teach neo-cons a lesson” about their love for big government while voting in the ’06 election, this article should help demonstrate how short-sighted the ‘cut your nose off to spite your face’ policy is.
More than any other spending bill, the education and health measure defines the differences between Bush and majority Democrats.
Since winning re-election, Bush has sought to cut the labor, health and education measure below the prior year level. But lawmakers have rejected the cuts. The budget that Bush presented in February sought almost $4 billion in cuts to this year’s bill.
Democrats responded by adding $10 billion to Bush’s request for the 2008 bill. The increases cover a broad spectrum of social programs, including:
_a 20 percent increase over Bush’s request for job training programs.
_$1.4 billion more than Bush’s request for health research at the National Institutes of Health, a 5 percent increase.
_$2.4 billion for heating subsidies for the poor, $480 million more than Bush requested.
_$665 million for grants to community action agencies; Bush sought to kill the program outright.
_$63.6 billion for the Education Department, a 5 percent increase over 2007 spending and 8 percent more than Bush asked for.
_a $225 million increase for community health centers.
Bush’s veto promise, said Sen. Tom Harkin, “shows how isolated President Bush has become.
“Every additional dime that we have put in here go to bedrock, essential programs and services that this Congress and this president and other presidents have always supported,” said Harkin, D-Iowa.
Leave it to the Democrats to argue that every dime of additional spending in a $600 billion spending bill — a bill that literally makes Bush look a piker when it comes to lavishing tax dollars around the country — is an absolute “bedrock essential.” Reducing the size of ANY government program is anathema to the Dems; once they have that money in their paws, they will never let it go.
If you ever wanted to see the outcomes of voting Democrat, here you have it — tax and spend.