Meet the new boss America, same as the old boss

Obama speaks after meeting with taxpayers

Obama speaks to the press after meeting with taxpayers on Wednesday

For at least a year, President Obama has argued for a “balanced approach” to fixing the economy. He claims to want to increase revenue while lowering expenditures. The problem lies in the fact that although he has a real penchant for raising taxes, he doesn’t have a clue how to cut the costs of our bloated government.

This week, we learned that although Obama talks “balanced approach,” he has no intention of touching spending.

We got our first hint Tuesday, when he met with small business owners — a very select group of small business owners. The more conservative business groups like the National Federation of Independent Business and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council weren’t invited.

“It’s becoming clear that the president only wants to hear certain views on the issue,” NFIB spokesman Kevan Chapman told The Business Journal. “We’d welcome the opportunity to allow him to hear from some of our members.”

Obama’s select group made it easier, however, for the president to espouse his oft-repeated “soak the rich” message.

Any hint we received from Tuesday’s meeting was confirmed Wednesday, when Obama met with taxpayers and we heard him repeat for about the thousandth time his favorite phrase: “Fair share, fair shot, same rules.”

Even The New York Times took note of where the president was heading:

As the president and Congress hurtle toward a reckoning on the highest federal budget deficit in generations, Mr. Obama says he wants a “balanced” approach to restoring the nation’s fiscal order. But the high-profile public campaign he has been waging in recent days has focused almost entirely on the tax side of the equation, with scant talk about his priorities when it comes to curbing spending.

And just what would Obama’s $82 billion tax hike on the wealthy buy us?

It would give us 8.5 days of federal spending. Or it could pay four months’ interest on the national debt. It would’ve paid for just under a 10th of the 2009 “stimulus.” It could pay 6.6 percent of our Social Security/Medicare costs in 2012. It could prevent one month of borrowing per year.

As conservatives have preached for years, we don’t have a revenue problem — we have a spending problem, and that’s where our priorities have to lie.

Liberals like the president are tone-deaf to this maxim. As the Times article concludes, “Obama evidently sees no percentage in talking in detail about spending cuts, acutely aware that his liberal base is unenthusiastic about paring back entitlement programs. Senator Richard J. Durbin, a longtime Illinois ally and the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said this week that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security should not be part of current budget talks.”

Before the president considers hiking tax rates on the wealthy, he should take note of England’s experience.

According to a recent article in the Telegraph, in the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million. This number fell to 6,000 after Prime Minister Gordon Brown introduced the new 50 percent top rate of income tax. That’s right, almost two-thirds of England’s millionaires left the country to avoid the tax hike.

As a result, Britain lost not only the tax revenue from the millionaires who skipped the country, but also from the lost jobs they provided. As revenues sank, unemployment rose — not a formula for a healthy economy.

In response, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., produced the following video road map for real bipartisan tax reform:

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed
About Michael Dorstewitz

Mike has been with BizPac Review almost from the beginning. Email Mike at michael@bizpacreview and follow him on Twitter at @MikeBPR.

  • seazen

    And meet the new BS; same as the old BS.

    Real data: "The number of millionaires living in Britain has risen by 17 per cent over the last two years as the wealthy start to recover from the 2008 credit crisis, a survey revealed today

    Barclays Wealth said there were 619,000 millionaires – including property assets — currently living in the UK at the end of 2010, up from 528,000 in 2008."

    Cherry-picked numbers taken totally out of context to make a fallacious argument is really not very helpful – but it goes on, and on, and on.

  • KB Cook

    blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah — ad nauseum

  • Libertylady

    And then there's France… And all it's millionaires and billionaires who have fled to other countries to escape Holland's excessive taxation. Capital, innovation, business acumen, etc., will all go where it's appreciated and can flourish. If that's not in the person' country of origin, then other countries will reap the benefit of those people.

    Speaking of data, Seazan, it's amazing to me that Dims are now trying to create an argument of causality between the tax rates of the Clinton era with the prosperity it experienced. Intelligent people will have none of it… The prosperity of that time was created as a direct result of the welfare and economic reform Clinton was forced into by the conservative sweep of 1994, and the smaller-government, reduced-taxation environment created in concert with Newt Gingrich and the conservative House.

    An even better example was history's longest sustained bull market in history created by Ronaldus Magnus' bold tax REDUCTIONS in the early 1980s. Before posting, one should study what comprises "causality and correlation", and what does not. The readers here are not dumb, and they won't bow to fallacious "reasoning". 'Nuff said.

    • seazen

      Thank you for the lecture! I now understand that the real "cause" of prosperity in the Clinton era was "welfare and economic reform Clinton was forced into by the conservative sweep of 1994, and the smaller-government, reduced-taxation environment created in concert with Newt Gingrich and the conservative House." I guess I was confused by all of the other factors that contribute to economic and financial growth both in the short term and over longer periods on a global scale. Newt was the cause! And so much solid data in your argument!! Thanks.