A Growing Sense of Buyer’s Remorse?
Vol: 89 Issue: 28 Saturday, February 28, 2009
The president’s proposed Fiscal Year 2010 Budget demonstrates just how much power was handed to President Obama and the Far Left Democrats on November 5.
The budget sets an ambitious agenda for health care and the economy which the White House inexplicably claims keeps his campaign promise of fiscal responsibility.
The budget is the largest in history, in keeping with the theme that the best way to deal with a financial crisis is to borrow oneself out of debt.
But highlighting the economic ‘crisis’ (he used the word ‘crisis’ in a recent speech about the economy 29 times) seems to have a magical effect.
Obama’s budget is a study in management by crisis and the use of reward and punishment.
Because of the ‘crisis’, Obama was able, for example, to openly reward ACORN to the tune of billions of dollars, without so much as a raised eyebrow from the media.
As to the bitter xenophobic rednecks clinging to God and guns out in the hinterlands, Obama’s budget has a present for you, too. Not only will your taxes go up, (no matter how much you make) but Obama is targeting your church too.
Obama’s tax-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor scheme includes reducing the deductibility of charitable contributions for households that earn more than that magical $250,000 per year that defines families as ‘rich.’
Research suggests that a 10-percent increase in the after-tax cost of donations cuts giving by 4 to 8 percent, according to Roberton Williams, senior fellow at The Urban Institute s Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
About 3 percent of tax returns in 2006 (the most recent data available) had income of $200,000 or higher, which equates to approximately 3.4 million households, according to research conducted on behalf of Giving USA. Those returns claimed 42.5 percent of the total amount itemized that year.
The higher tax rate by itself would increase giving by lowering the after-tax cost of giving — if the contribution is fully deductible at the full tax rate. Relative to that higher giving, however, the 28 percent limitation would raise the after-tax cost of giving more, he said.
One other factor is that the proposed changes lower a taxpayer s after-tax income, making them feel poorer, which has an income effect that leads them to give even less, Williams said.
Granted, this is allegedly only supposed to affect the “rich” but that is a smokescreen. Tax the job creators and fewer jobs are created. Tax them even more and some of the jobs that are there begin to disappear.
One needn’t have a degree in psychology to predict that the job creators in society are going to preserve their own wealth first.
Reduce the deduction on charitable giving and the net effect is fewer charities capable of meeting the challenges facing them — which in turn creates additional dependence on government.
Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Reich was so effusive in his praise of the budget that he couldn’t help but let the cat out of the bag:
“Finally, a progressive budget. President Obama’s new budget is, well, audacious — not just because it includes several big, audacious initiatives (universally affordable health care, and a cap-and-trade system for coping with global warming, for starters) but also because it represents the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than forty years.”
Robert Reich smart enough to see that the goal is not to fix the economy, but to exacerbate the crisis even further. Obama’s budget amounts to $11,833.00 in spending for every single American, but claims that only the richest 3% of Americans will have to pay for it.
Is that even possible?
The WSJ published an editorial that examined what would happen if the government levied a 100% income tax on the top 3% of wage-earners and Obama’s budget would still be running a deficit.
CNBC’s Larry Kudlow called the Obama budget a “declaration of war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.
That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy s long-run potential to grow. “
Larry Kudlow isn’t exactly a political conservative and CNBC is about as deep in the tank for Obama as is Moveon.org or the Huffington Post.
What got my attention was Kudlow’s observation that “up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters especially hedge-fund types who voted for change are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.”
“There is a growing sense of buyer s remorse.”
One could almost think that was the whole plan. To push the nation beyond the breaking point. To stir up a national sense of buyer’s remorse. Even among guys like Larry Kudlow and CNBC.
Obama certainly seems determined to do whatever is necessary to destroy the American economy. He isn’t even pretending anymore. The plan is income-redistribution at what may turn out to be catastrophic levels.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if everybody were equally rich, then everybody would be equally poor. And nobody would have any incentive to produce anything.
The Soviet Union was defeated economically, not militarily. There was a Soviet-era joke to the effect that “we pretend to work, so they pretend to pay us.” Income redistribution is kryptonite to the principles of American capitalism.
There is yet another story in today’s edition of Worldnetdaily highlighting yet another effort to force President Obama to prove he is eligible for office.
In the same edition is a story about the rising popular opposition to the Obama economic plan organizing ‘tea party’ protests in some thirty cities nationwide. They’ve got some pretty catchy slogans: “Honk if you want to pay my mortgage.” “Obamanomics: Chains we can believe in.”
What would happen if enough Americans started to suffer buyer’s remorse to demand that Obama produce proof of eligibility for office?
It never made sense that Obama would even run if he wasn’t eligible — after all, Obama had no way of KNOWING that he could make it all the way to the White House without getting caught. So he MUST be legal.
But if he MUST be legal, then why not prove it and get it behind him? The eligibility question hangs over him like an escape clause for buyer’s remorse. If enough Obama supporters get buyer’s remorse, he won’t be able to stonewall anymore. Currently, Obama maintans a phalanx of lawyers whose only job is to conceal the circumstances of Obama’s birth from the American public.
So far, they’ve been doing a pretty good job — mainly because they’ve got the ongoing media love affair with Obama working on their side. But Bill Clinton was once as popular as Obama. He still ended up being impeached.
And just imagine if there were something like this hanging over the Bush presidency? Obama is a constitutional lawyer. So Obama HAD to know before he even threw his hat into the ring that eventually, this question would HAVE to be answered and what it would mean.
He knows it would mean every bill he signed would be null and void. Including the trillions in future spending and the hundreds of billions already spent. It would bankrupt the nation. Possibly even push it over the brink into civil war.
A plan to bring down the nation from within by planting a ringer in the White House? Naw. It couldn’t be. It’s too bizarre. You couldn’t even make this work as fiction. There has to be some other explanation.
There just has to be. Doesn’t there?