« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

By Hook Or By Crook, They Will Get Their Revenue

Every Issue Is A Simulacrum – It’s All About Wealth Distribution and Power

It had to be one of the more epic political understatements of the last five years. President Obama announced in his grandiloquent, condescending manner that he wouldn’t balance the budget just for the sake of balance. Well that’s a relief. Maybe our President could try balancing it so that we don’t wind up allocated a significant chunk of our GDP in the out years to paying off our current year ongoing spending binge. Oh, wait, I get it! The light bulb just turned on. President Obama doesn’t even intend to TRY and balance the Federal Budget. Wow! That makes it easy.

So if we no longer care about balancing the Federal Budget in any way, shape or form, could we all just scrap the idea of jacking everyone’s taxes through the roof? Ben Bernanke will just print us out of any trouble. The dollar is the world’s de facto currency. Our government’s spending is no problem. Therefore, we can all just keep our money and live happily ever after in our Post-Modern, Disney Consumption Land. Barack Obama is far too nice a gentleman to even consider another round of tax increases. Bwank! Thanks for playin’!

The tax increases are everywhere on the Democrat agenda. Never you mind that they have no intention of even trying to balance revenues against expenditures. They intend to grab the revenues. They intend to grab the power over your life that the revenues will give them. The Democrats are after your wallet by any methodology they can use to horn in on its contents. Three primary methodologies include regulatory interpretation of ObamaCare’s taxation changes, imposition of the carbon tax and a filibuster-proof tax reform bill being proposed by Patty Murray in the US Senate.

We saw yesterday how Senator Mitch McConnell pilloried the regulatory findings made by Executive Branch agencies regarding Obamacare. One day’s release stacks the paperwork up to the ceiling. Why the red tape and utter harassment? Sometimes a picture is truly worth 1,000 words. The TaxProfBlog gives us a rather frightening picture below.

The Real ObamaCare Tax Burden Vs The Promised One

The Real ObamaCare Tax Burden Vs The Promised One

And now they remind us that we all are supposed to love the environment. The only way to do this properly, according to Senator Whitehorse (D-Broke Island) is to tax the evil manufacturers every time they omit carbon. (They emit a modified form thereof every time they exhale after breathing*). Senator Whitehouse and his daffy allies can’t quite make up their minds whether to tax carbon emissions $15, $15, or $35 per ton. They also can’t decide whether the annual jack-rate on top of that should inflate the tax by 2% or 8% per year.

OK, so Senator Whitehouse loves us and he’s doing it for the children. Just how effective would this be at saving the planet? According to The Heritage Foundation, it would accomplish two things. One, the reduction in global CO2 levels in PPM would be minimal. Two, it would be reversed as more and more companies jettisoned their US-based plants and workforces to move to places like China where they can omit to their greedy, capitalist heart’s content.

The Heritage Chart below shows just how useless unilateral US Carbon regulation would be in reducing global CO2 concentrations. So other than making US-based manufacturers go visit Sen. Whitehouse and say “Mother, May I?” before they do anything crazy like make things, what would a Carbon Tax accomplish? What would it have to accomplish? Once these manufacturers are forced to ask Sen. Whitehouse for permission to continue their existence, the man has gotten exactly what he wants from the deal.**

A CO2 Tax Will Not Reduce CO2 Much

A CO2 Tax Will Not Reduce CO2 Much

And finally we come to that dear old mom in tennis shoes. Our Dear Friend Senator Murray from The Great State of Washington. It appears that she intends to do something completely alien to the DNA of our current US Senate and actually propose a Federal Budget. Turn off the sequester, and Murray’s budget contains absolutely no spending cuts whatsoever. What it does contain, however, is over $1Tr in new taxes. Oh, and she doesn’t intend to allow GOP Senators to filibuster this budget either. The bill would contain reconciliation instructions – 51 votes to pass the crap sandwich – it’s the New Democracy.

So, on the one hand, President Obama says he doesn’t intend to play silly, PR games like balancing the Federal Budget. On the other hand, he and his allies pursue every drop of revenue they can from working Americans. So if our nation’s leadership doesn’t even care if the budget balances, why are they hard after the revenue? It’s about the power. Every dollar they transfer is freighted with power. It’s not just your money that gets taken to Washington, DC every tax day. It’s your ability to make volitional decisions that impact your own life. And that’s exactly how the current leadership in Washington, DC will continue to like it for at least as long as Barack Obama remains US President.

*-Would letting those omissions slide constitute an egregious form of spending in the tax code?
**-As Sen. Menendez likes to put it: “Screw the children.”

COMMENTS

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    I looked for VAT, and they seem to have it mothballed for the nonce. Not saying you aren’t right, but it’s not being featured this year…

  • Ann_W

    You’re exactly right, it seems hopeless some days. Baby steps, baby steps, everyday I guess.

  • clowngirl

    He doesn’t want to balance the budget “just for the sake of balance” ? That’s got to be one of the most bizarre Obama statements ever.

    For one thing actually balancing the budget in the next 3 1/2 years is such a pipe dream nobody even seriously talks about such a thing. Most would be shocked and amazed if Congress and the President even managed to cut to half a trillion dollars in annual deficit spending — we’re not just miles away from being balanced- figuratively speaking – we’re more like continents away or even on another planet.

    Does he think that by phrasing it as “just for the sake of being balanced” (interesting, considering that “balanced seems to be Obama’s favorite word) that people will forget it’s lack of “balance” means over a trillion dollars more in additional debt?

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Balancing the budget – it’s a silly fetish. He has such important things he could be doing instead.

  • rennyangel4

    And the Reps. and cons. who do not vote– some 3,000,000 of them.

  • fredflintlock

    They’re probably waiting for another 9-9-9 like proposal from another naive Republican to move. Once that gets passed, and 9-9-9 becomes 12-36-72, it will forever be tagged as a gift to the people from those heartless Republicans.

  • fredflintlock

    Wow. What a difference four years and $5500 billion of debt make.

    “90 percent of the projected deficit is due to the cost of the Bush economic collapse and Bush policies like his unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.), the fourth-ranking member of the House. “The devastating fiscal hole he left us in was far worse than anyone could have imagined.” – House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson reading from Pelosi’s official talking points memo.

    FoxNation

  • celador2

    Yes he is busy electing more Democrats for more of the same.