It’s Math Folks
Sorta. I mean, not serious math. More like populist math.
President Obama on Monday proposed a deficit reduction plan that calls for about $3 in new tax increases for every dollar in additional spending cuts as he seeks to put his imprint on the ongoing talks with Congress over reducing the government’s staggering deb
So, in reality, he’s gonna reduced $1 in spending for every $3 dollars of new revenue he gets. It’s math folks. It’s political math, where the politicians absolutely cannot do without our money to pay off their allies. Solyndra anyone?
“This is not class warfare, it’s math,” Mr. Obama said in the White House’s Rose Garden as he laid out the outlines. “The money’s got to come from some place.”
Hey, I’ve got an idea – how about you stop spending and wasting our money on useless stupid shit and use THAT money?
And, Obama’s spending reductions are complete and utter bullshit.
The rest is $580 billion in reductions to formula-driven entitlement programs such as Social Security, with much of the savings coming from reducing overpayments and finding waste.
These are the same over-payments and waste that Obama claimed he was going to find when he got into office. If he didn’t find them in the last two and a half years, you’d be a fool to think he’s going to find them now.
It’s political BULLSHIT.
Mr. Obama said his plan calls for $2 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases, but he reaches that by re-counting cuts already in law or in the planning pipeline, and by factoring in lower debt service costs.
So, he’s lying.
About the Buffet tax, in which Obama argues that the wealthy are not paying their fair share, the WSJ runs the numbers.
There’s one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule premise is false, as the nearby table shows. In 2008, the last year for which such data are available, the IRS reports that those who made more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid an average income tax rate of 23.3%.
That’s slightly lower than the 24.1% rate paid by those making between $500,000 and $1 million, probably because the richest are like Mr. Buffett and earn more from capital gains and dividends. The rate for a relative handful of the rich—400 people—fell to 18%, the modern equivalent of Barr’s Gang of 21. But nearly all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.
What? Obama lied to us? David Brooks is going to be distraught.
We rehearse all of this because it shows that the real point of Mr. Obama’s Buffett Rule and his latest deficit proposal isn’t tax justice or good tax policy. It is all about re-election politics. Down in the polls and facing a sullen liberal base, Mr. Obama wants to rally the left behind him, and nothing fires them up like the pretense that government is sticking it to the rich. Mr. Obama is picking a tax fight that he apparently believes will carry him to re-election next year.
He believes that, because he thinks, and hopes, that the plurality of Americans are stupid. In the end, it is math. The mathmatics of electors.