A Redistribution Campaign

Posted on by

Charles Krauthammer is really on fire in the Washington Post:

…Obama introduced a shiny new twist — the Buffett Rule, a minimum 30 percent rate for millionaires. Sounds novel. But it’s a tired replay of the alternative minimum tax, originally created in 1969 to bring to heel all of 155 underpaying fat cats. Following the fate of other such do-goodism, the AMT then metastasized into a $40 billion monster that today entraps millions of middle-class taxpayers.

There isn’t even a pretense that the Buffett Rule will do anything for economic growth or job creation (other than provide lucrative work for the sharp tax lawyers who will be gaming the new system for the very same rich). Which should not surprise. Back in 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support raising the capital-gains tax rate (the intended effect of the Buffett Rule) if this would decrease government revenue.

Obama said yes. In the name of fairness.

This is redistribution for its own sake — the cost be damned…

[Obama] Can’t run on his record… His platform is fairness, wrapped around a plethora of little things, one mini-industrial policy after another — the conceit nicely encapsulated by his proclamation that “I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or to Germany.” As if he can command these industries into existence. As if Washington funding a thousand Solyndras will make solar economically viable.

As usual… adding my thoughts to to someone as intelligent as Krauthammer will likely do a disservice to him so … I wont.

sad truth…

Posted on by

unfortunately… I think this guy might be on to something:

The secret shame of the conservative base is that they’ve internalized the enemy’s secular cosmopolitan value set and status hierarchy—hence this obsession with the idea that somewhere, someone who went to Harvard might be snickering at them.

And if that wasn’t convincing enough…

Or consider the study Ryan Sager highlighted a while back, showing that many SUV owners don’t merely think their choice of vehicles is harmless or morally neutral, but positively virtuous. Apparently the “moralistic critique of their consumption choices readily inspired Hummer owners to adopt the role of the moral protagonist who defends American national ideals.” Note two things here.  First, this is classic ressentiment: It’s not just that SUVs are great in themselves because they somehow “embody” some set of ideals. They’re goodjust because they symbolize an inversion of the “anti-American” values of critics. Second, think what it reveals that people feel the need to construct these kinds of absurd rationalizations—to make their cars heroic rather than simply denying that they do much harm. It betrays an incredible sensitivity, not to excessive taxes or regulations on the vehicles, but to the feeling of being judged.

 

SOTU Response

Posted on by

Mitch Daniels had a compelling response to the President’s State of the Union address:

“In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt.  And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead.  The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends.  No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours.

“The President’s grand experiment in trickle-down government has held back rather than sped economic recovery.  He seems to sincerely believe we can build a middle class out of government jobs paid for with borrowed dollars.  In fact, it works the other way: a government as big and bossy as this one is maintained on the backs of the middle class, and those who hope to join it.

 

tax failure in Illinois.

Posted on by

Liberal’s solution to everything:  higher taxes.  Let’s see how that’s working out in President Obama’s home state:

As WBBM Newsradio’s Regine Schlesinger reports, officially, the state [of Illinois] has a backlog of more than $4.25 billion in unpaid bills.

But Illinois State Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka says when one factors in other bills, the figure is closer to around $8.5 billion.

Topinka says this is extremely disappointing, since a year ago, the state sharply increased income taxes (by 67 percent) and corporate taxes.

“After the largest tax hike in our history, the state continues to be in this precarious fiscal position with persistent payment delays, and frankly, the situation is unlikely to significantly improve in the near term,” she said.

Some state officials say the solution is more borrowing to pay the bills, but Topinka says the solution is to cut spending.

our passive-aggressive president

Posted on by

From James Taranto on WSJonline.

One way of thinking about the administration’s approach is that it reflects a passive-aggressive attitude. Congress obliges the president to make a decision, so he makes one, but he also makes clear that it isn’t really a decision and he doesn’t appreciate being rushed. The administration’s approach to the economy has been consistently passive-aggressive. First it was “we inherited this mess.” Then, as time passed and that claim became decreasingly plausible, the bad economy became the fault of the “do-nothing Congress.”

Obama’s supporters in the media likewise try to shift responsibility away from the president. And while they sometimes have a point–the president’s power over the economy is limited–the passive-aggressive approach is even used to explain away Obama’s policy decisions.

on media bias…

Posted on by

Bias [in the media] is a fact of American political life…

On the social issues especially, the media narrative is that Republicans are obsessed. The truth is that at a time when millions of Americans can’t find work, when our Middle East policy is in turmoil, when the future of Mr. Obama’s signature legislative achievement—health care—is in question, every Republican in the running is itching for the opportunity to talk about how he would address these things.

In sharp contrast, it was Mr. Stephanopoulos and Ms. Sawyer who showed themselves consumed with nonexistent initiatives on contraception and what you might say to gay friends who are sitting in your living room. Saturday night on ABC, we saw this bias in its full, condescending form.

The Stephanopoulos Standard by William McGurn at WSJ.com

About that “Buffett Rule”

Posted on by

Next time you hear the president talk about how we need to tax more people like Warren Buffett – someone who, as of late, frequently advocates for higher taxation on the rich – should keep this in mind:

The “Buffett Rule” would not tax the vast majority of his shielded income, including either his unrealized capital gains, which are currently taxed at zero percent, or charitable contributions, which are tax deductible.

If the “Buffett Rule” were applied as President Obama proposes, then Mr. Buffett’s federal tax bill would have been $14.4 million, rather than the $6.9 million he actually paid. As a fraction of his true income, his effective tax rate would only have risen from 6/100ths of 1% to 12/100ths of 1%.

 

It turns out that all of Obama’s tax increases wouldn’t actually make any real difference in Buffett’s own taxes.  But the hypocrisy of everyone involved worse:

Mr. Buffett’s donation to the Gates Foundation goes to the heart of my critique of his public call for higher tax rates on the rich. Just look at the second contractual condition for his ongoing pledge to the Gates Foundation: “The foundation must continue to satisfy the legal requirements qualifying Warren’s gift as charitable, exempt from gift or other taxes.”

 

In other words, if his gift weren’t tax sheltered he wouldn’t give it. So much for “shared sacrifice.”

Incidentally, I’m not the first to question Mr. Buffett’s commitment to “shared sacrifice” in balancing the federal budget. In a 2007 CNBC interview, when asked why he shelters his money through tax-free strategies rather than writing big checks to Uncle Sam, Mr. Buffett responded: “I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter’s foundation, my two sons’ foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”

So Mr. Buffett thinks he and his family can put their money to better use than the government can. I guess he’s really not so different from the rest of us after all.

So Mr. Buffett isn’t really being honest with us after all… and neither is Obama.  The richest 1% will continue to shelter their income with the help of an army of lawyers and accountants… and the hard-working upper-middle class who makes more than 250 thousand dollars… THEY will get foot with the bill.  So much for ‘shared sacrifice’.

Via Class Warefare and the Buffett Rule — on WSJ.com

« Older Posts