President Obama, the Republican controlled congress and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) hammered out a compromise on fiscal cliff: Higher taxes, increased debt and more spending. Is America so apathetic that voters do not care about the future of the American balance sheet? Will voters kick both incumbent Democrats and Republicans out of office? Scott Ott, Steve Green and Bill Whittle discuss the fiscal cliff deal on this episode of Trifecta.
Showing posts with label Fiscal Cliff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fiscal Cliff. Show all posts
Friday, January 4, 2013
PJTV Trifecta - Credibility Cliff - Americans Have Lost Faith in Their Government
President Obama, the Republican controlled congress and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) hammered out a compromise on fiscal cliff: Higher taxes, increased debt and more spending. Is America so apathetic that voters do not care about the future of the American balance sheet? Will voters kick both incumbent Democrats and Republicans out of office? Scott Ott, Steve Green and Bill Whittle discuss the fiscal cliff deal on this episode of Trifecta.Alfonzo Rachel - The Fiscal Cliff Drama Played Like A Saturday Morning Cartoon
The fiscal cliff negotiations unfolded like an episode of the Road Runner, except in this episode, the Road Runner was played by the private sector, and Wylie E. Coyote was played by the federal government. Hear more about how the Republicans negotiated a deal that resulted in more debt and higher taxes, on this ZoNation.Saturday, December 29, 2012
Charles Krauthammer - Obama Does NOT Care About The Debt
Charles Krauthammer
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Labels:
Charles Krauthammer,
Debt Ceiling,
Fiscal Cliff,
Sean Hannity
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Austin Hill - In Washington - The Goal Is Control Of Private Wealth
Are the President and the Congress trying to send our economy in to a recession?
They’re probably not trying to, no. But with the current governing philosophy in Washington, a recession has become an acceptable means to a necessary end. And the intended “end” doesn’t necessarily entail economic growth and prosperity.
That sounds harsh, I know. But think it through with me. Because as the nation’s media has been obsessed about the “fiscal cliff” and whether or not the President and congressional Republicans will work out an agreement to forestall it, insufficient attention has been paid to how the President and congressional Democrats have augmented their agenda in the past couple of weeks. Journalist Ron Scherer was, as far as I can tell, the first to catch on, with a story he published at Yahoo! News and in the Christian Science Monitor.
Sherer noted in a November 30th news story that in the midst of the “fiscal cliff” tax rate negotiations, President Obama had added a little extra talking point to his campaign for higher taxes on “rich” people. While promoting his tax hike plan in Ohio that day, he slipped in a little “oh, and by the way let’s do another $255 billion stimulus package.” Scherer surmised that the President was proposing more stimulus spending as a means of “offsetting” the impact of his own proposed tax hikes.
But what, precisely, would need to be “offset,” if President Obama’s tax hike agenda prevails? The President just completed a successful re-election campaign claiming that raising taxes on “rich people” would be good for the economy, yet it now appears that he wants more stimulus spending as a means of saving our economy from his own economic policies. This would seem to be, at the very least, a tacit admission from the President that raising taxes on individual people – even those awful “rich people” among us – does, indeed cause a slowdown in economic activity, and may very well bring about a recession.
So what if officials in our government chose to pursue neither of these agendas? That is, what if we did not deploy governmental power to confiscate greater proportions of wealth from private individuals (that is, what if the government didn’t raise income taxes), and what if our government didn’t spend more tax dollars to “stimulate” the economy? If the tax hikes were eliminated, then perhaps the need for a stimulating “offset” would be eliminated, as well.
That’s a plausible idea, if the country’s agenda is economic growth and prosperity. But that is not the agenda of President Obama and his party. By taking more money away from “rich”people and by spending more money on “stimulus projects,” the President is able to control more wealth that is currently in possession of private individuals, and then re-distribute that wealth to people whom he believes are deserving of it and spend it on things that are important to him.
Shortly after the President began his new stimulus push, former Democratic National Committee Chairman (and former presidential candidate) Howard Dean made some extraordinary remarks of his own about the economy. In an interview at MSNBC, Dean stated that he wants the across-the-board income tax increases entailed in the “fiscal cliff” scenario, and welcomed the resulting outcome. “Will it cause a problem?” he asked rhetorically. “Yes. There will be a short recession, and it will be painful.” Yet despite this “painful recession” that Dean believes will ensue, he nonetheless expressed exuberance for the higher tax rates and the cuts in military spending that will result as well.
That was an amazing admission. For Dean, it seems that a recession is an acceptable means to the intended end: government control of private wealth. In this scenario, it doesn’t matter so much that working individuals and families often lose jobs, careers, and homes in recessions. Those are unfortunate things, sure, but when the goal is government control of the economy, personal prosperity ceases to be a priority.
If this sounds far too conspiratorial, consider the report last week about the President’s squabble with non-profit charities. In a December 13th news story, the Washington Post reported that the Obama Administration was leveling a threat to the leaders of high-profile charity groups: either publicly support the President’s tax hike plan, or face the possibility that the President will seek to reduce tax deductions for charitable contributions.
We’re talking here about long-standing, reputable groups like the American Red Cross, United Way, the Salvation Army, and World Vision. And yes, if charitable donors couldn’t deduct the amount they donate from their income taxes, they probably wouldn’t donate as much – which would hurt charitable groups. But again, the goal of the Administration is controlling private wealth, and the prosperity of private individuals and organizations is not a priority.
A majority of Americans seem oblivious to the President’s economic control agenda in Washington -either that, or they’re comfortable with it. Multiple polls show the President is regarded as more trustworthy on economic issues than his political opponents in Congress are right now. And pollster Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports recently found that only 54% of Americans still believe that economic prosperity is more important than economic “fairness” (“fairness” being the promise of politicians who seek to control private wealth and re-distribute it).
Will America return to a pathway of prosperity? Or have we resigned ourselves to the President’s will for our lives?
Austin Hill
They’re probably not trying to, no. But with the current governing philosophy in Washington, a recession has become an acceptable means to a necessary end. And the intended “end” doesn’t necessarily entail economic growth and prosperity.
That sounds harsh, I know. But think it through with me. Because as the nation’s media has been obsessed about the “fiscal cliff” and whether or not the President and congressional Republicans will work out an agreement to forestall it, insufficient attention has been paid to how the President and congressional Democrats have augmented their agenda in the past couple of weeks. Journalist Ron Scherer was, as far as I can tell, the first to catch on, with a story he published at Yahoo! News and in the Christian Science Monitor.
Sherer noted in a November 30th news story that in the midst of the “fiscal cliff” tax rate negotiations, President Obama had added a little extra talking point to his campaign for higher taxes on “rich” people. While promoting his tax hike plan in Ohio that day, he slipped in a little “oh, and by the way let’s do another $255 billion stimulus package.” Scherer surmised that the President was proposing more stimulus spending as a means of “offsetting” the impact of his own proposed tax hikes.
But what, precisely, would need to be “offset,” if President Obama’s tax hike agenda prevails? The President just completed a successful re-election campaign claiming that raising taxes on “rich people” would be good for the economy, yet it now appears that he wants more stimulus spending as a means of saving our economy from his own economic policies. This would seem to be, at the very least, a tacit admission from the President that raising taxes on individual people – even those awful “rich people” among us – does, indeed cause a slowdown in economic activity, and may very well bring about a recession.
So what if officials in our government chose to pursue neither of these agendas? That is, what if we did not deploy governmental power to confiscate greater proportions of wealth from private individuals (that is, what if the government didn’t raise income taxes), and what if our government didn’t spend more tax dollars to “stimulate” the economy? If the tax hikes were eliminated, then perhaps the need for a stimulating “offset” would be eliminated, as well.
That’s a plausible idea, if the country’s agenda is economic growth and prosperity. But that is not the agenda of President Obama and his party. By taking more money away from “rich”people and by spending more money on “stimulus projects,” the President is able to control more wealth that is currently in possession of private individuals, and then re-distribute that wealth to people whom he believes are deserving of it and spend it on things that are important to him.
Shortly after the President began his new stimulus push, former Democratic National Committee Chairman (and former presidential candidate) Howard Dean made some extraordinary remarks of his own about the economy. In an interview at MSNBC, Dean stated that he wants the across-the-board income tax increases entailed in the “fiscal cliff” scenario, and welcomed the resulting outcome. “Will it cause a problem?” he asked rhetorically. “Yes. There will be a short recession, and it will be painful.” Yet despite this “painful recession” that Dean believes will ensue, he nonetheless expressed exuberance for the higher tax rates and the cuts in military spending that will result as well.
That was an amazing admission. For Dean, it seems that a recession is an acceptable means to the intended end: government control of private wealth. In this scenario, it doesn’t matter so much that working individuals and families often lose jobs, careers, and homes in recessions. Those are unfortunate things, sure, but when the goal is government control of the economy, personal prosperity ceases to be a priority.
If this sounds far too conspiratorial, consider the report last week about the President’s squabble with non-profit charities. In a December 13th news story, the Washington Post reported that the Obama Administration was leveling a threat to the leaders of high-profile charity groups: either publicly support the President’s tax hike plan, or face the possibility that the President will seek to reduce tax deductions for charitable contributions.
We’re talking here about long-standing, reputable groups like the American Red Cross, United Way, the Salvation Army, and World Vision. And yes, if charitable donors couldn’t deduct the amount they donate from their income taxes, they probably wouldn’t donate as much – which would hurt charitable groups. But again, the goal of the Administration is controlling private wealth, and the prosperity of private individuals and organizations is not a priority.
A majority of Americans seem oblivious to the President’s economic control agenda in Washington -either that, or they’re comfortable with it. Multiple polls show the President is regarded as more trustworthy on economic issues than his political opponents in Congress are right now. And pollster Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports recently found that only 54% of Americans still believe that economic prosperity is more important than economic “fairness” (“fairness” being the promise of politicians who seek to control private wealth and re-distribute it).
Will America return to a pathway of prosperity? Or have we resigned ourselves to the President’s will for our lives?
Austin Hill
Does Barack Obama Want America over the Fiscal Cliff?
The president may deliberately be driving America over the fiscal cliff because on Jan. 1, there are five major tax increases for ObamaCare, and the whole discussion of the fiscal cliff has been about the Bush tax cuts and sequestration, but a third piece of it is the trillion dollars in tax increases over the next decade to pay for ObamaCare.
Ninety percent of the tax increases passed for ObamaCare will show up after January, so the next two and four years have a series of tax increases, independent of this fiscal cliff thing coming, that will be very damaging to the economy, especially since the president refuses to stop spending so much money, which has accounted for this debt.
Ninety percent of the tax increases passed for ObamaCare will show up after January, so the next two and four years have a series of tax increases, independent of this fiscal cliff thing coming, that will be very damaging to the economy, especially since the president refuses to stop spending so much money, which has accounted for this debt.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Crystal Wright - Time for GOP to Push Obama off the Fiscal Cliff
Republicans need to stand for something and start defending conservatism not apologizing for it. Whether we’re talking about economic or individual prosperity, conservative policies work. When Presidents Reagan and Clinton cut taxes, government revenues increased and economies boomed. When babies are born to married couples, their chances of succeeding in life grow exponentially as opposed to falling into a life of poverty and crime, if they are born to single moms.As Mitt Romney remarked in his NAACP speech, a Brookings Institution study found kids “who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until 21 before they marry and then have their first child, the probability of being poor is two percent. And if those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76 percent.”
When parents are given choices to escape failing public schools with programs like vouchers, their kids’ chances of finishing high school and going to college increases. The Republican Party supports policies that promote an opportunity society versus a government dependent society. Living off welfare and food stamps won’t buy you a home in the suburbs or send your kids to college. Yet Democrats make their pursuit of an ever-growing role of government in our lives sound chic, fulfilling and something to aspire toward.
Congressional Republicans have allowed Democrats and President Barack Obama to use the fiscal cliff battle to paint Republicans as the party of bad while falsely positioning Democrats as the party of good. There’s nothing good about a person or nation living beyond his or her means and that’s what Democrat policies persistently pursue.
As expected, Republicans have lost control of the narrative just like Mitt Romney did during the election because the party won’t stand on terra firma and defend its principles. America doesn’t have a taxing problem we have a spending problem and are living in debt denial. Republicans need to remind Americans that our nation is marching down the path of Greece and Spain both with a 25% unemployment rate unless we reign in our spending.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), entitlement programs of Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are nearly solely responsible for blowing up our deficits in the next 75 years. This is why we need bold entitlement and spending reform and tax reform of the kind Rep. Paul Ryan proposed in his budget plan, The Path to Prosperity. As Bob Woodward’s The Price of Politics notes, CBO confirmed Ryan’s budget would cut $4.4 trillion from the deficit over ten years.
Thanks to Obama’s penchant for spending on his favorite things like the failed stimulus, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank, the president has taken the debt from $10 trillion in 2009 to over $16 trillion in four years. President George W. Bush spent that in eight years. As Senator Rob Portman noted in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, our “national debt now tops $130,000 a person” and allowing the $800 trillion in Bush tax cuts to expire for higher earners only pays for “nine days of spending.”
Why aren’t House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell getting their people in line and hammering away at these facts?
Why isn’t the GOP reminding Americans that the $3.2 trillion in Bush tax cuts Obama wants to protect for 98% of Americans “was proposed and put into law largely by Republicans.” So if Obama admits we can’t afford to hit the middle class with tax cuts then it wouldn’t be good to hit 2% with $800 trillion in tax cuts either because this group includes small business owners, who create jobs and put money back into the economy.
Moreover, why isn’t the GOP reminding Americans as Portman wrote only 4% of the $12 trillion of in deficits accumulated from 2002-2011 was due to tax hikes on the rich or that Obama’s $3 trillion budget increases spending by $1 trillion over ten years. Curiously, Obama’s relentless quest to make higher earners pay more in taxes would only pay 7% ($80 billion a year) of Obama's $1 trillion yearly deficits.
Why aren’t Republicans reminding Americans Obama's budgets are so out of control they never passed Congress? Obama’s cliff bargain of $1.6 trillion in tax hikes on the rich is the same cost of “the three entitlement programs in 2012,” (p. 379, The Price of Politics) but Obama refuses any reforms to entitlements or cuts in government spending. In ten years Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will cost $3 trillion.
“The single biggest threat to the future of this country—there’s nothing even close—is the unsustainable path we’re on, driven by excessive generosity beyond our ability to pay . . .on very popular programs,” said McConnell, (p.364, The Price of Politics). Why aren’t Republicans telling the American people this story?
If Republicans cave into Obama’s demands to punish higher earners with tax hikes while all other earners enjoy the lower Bush tax cuts, the GOP will lose all credibility with the American people. Looking to the 2014 mid-term elections and the 2016 presidential election, Democrats will campaign against untrustworthy Republicans. “They said they were for lower taxes and raised taxes. Their presidential nominee Mitt Romney changed his positions like the wind to suit the political climate. What does the Republican Party really stand for?”
It’s time for Republicans to stand, deliver and let Obama face his own cliffhanger. America has a spending problem, not a taxing one. Do or die. The moment is now!
Crystal Wright
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Crystal Wright,
Democrats,
Fiscal Cliff,
Republicans
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Steve Green - Fiscal Cliff Reality - Everyone Is Rich - Your Taxes Are Going Up
When the Democrats say that they are going to raise taxes on the so-called rich, what they don't tell you is that "rich" applies to households earning $75,000 a year. Hear why as Stephen Green brings you a recap from the Sunday shows, where the pundits discussed the likelihood of tax increases, entitlement reform and more.
Labels:
Fiscal Cliff,
Obama Taxes,
Raising Taxes,
Steve Green,
Taxes
Monday, December 10, 2012
Steven Crowder - FISCAL CLIFF - OH NOES!!
As “FoxNews’ brightest, funniest young Conservative mind,” Steven Crowder is a mainstay in the worlds of television, comedy and writing.Before being brought in as one of FoxNews’ youngest contributors on record, Steven began his career in entertainment starting with voicework in children’s cartoons (most notably voicing the character of “The Brain” on the hit series “Arthur”) along with acting in both television and film.
Friday, November 23, 2012
PJTV Trifecta - Will the GOP Allow Obama to Raise Taxes on the Rich?
House Republicans must decide whether to raise taxes on the rich or not. Should the GOP give Obama what he wants just to prove to America that his economic policies won't work? Find out as Trifecta discusses the looming fiscal cliff.Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Approaching the Fiscal Cliff - Analyzed by Jedediah Bila - Ed Butowsky - Sean Hannity
“Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012, when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.
Labels:
Barack Obama Economy,
Fiscal Cliff,
Jobs and Economy
Friday, November 16, 2012
Fiscal Cliff - The Economics
U.S. President Barack Obama will hold his first press conference today (Wednesday 11/14/2012) since winning re-election and will state his case for a whopping $1.6 trillion in tax hikes to fight the fiscal cliff.Democratic and Republican policy makers returned to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday with just seven weeks left to come up with some sort of compromise. If the two opposing sides fail to reach an agreement and the nation falls off the cliff, a recession in 2013 is guaranteed, the Congressional Budget Office has warned on a number of occasions.
Negotiations with congressional leaders will convene Friday.
But while Washington takes its time to argue over the fiscal cliff, businesses can't wait any longer.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
FISCAL CLIFF Versus POLITICAL WILL
“Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012, when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.Among the laws set to change at midnight on December 31, 2012, are the end of last year’s temporary payroll tax cuts (resulting in a 2% tax increase for workers), the end of certain tax breaks for businesses, shifts in the alternative minimum tax that would take a larger bite, the end of the tax cuts from 2001-2003, and the beginning of taxes related to President Obama’s health care law.
At the same time, the spending cuts agreed upon as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011 will begin to go into effect. According to Barron's, over 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget and Medicare are in line for "deep, automatic cuts."
When it is all said and done, the expectation is that the average American household will be paying $2,000 to $3,000 more in taxes each year—leaving them with $2,000 to $3,000 less to spend in our consumer driven economy.
The Fiscal Cliff -- Everything You Need to Know Explained
The U.S. Budget - A Visual Perspective
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
PJTV News Break with Scott Ott - General Petraeus Steps Down as Benghazi Probe and Fiscal Cliff Loom
Suspicions arise as General Petraeus steps down just as he was expected to testify before Congress about the September 11 attacks on the U.S. Embasssy in Benghazi. Plus, President Obama has called for a meeting with Republican leaders at the White House to smooth the way for Fiscal Cliff negotiations. Catch these stories and more on the PJ News Break with Scott Ott.Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Austin Hill - Job Creation Nation: America Faces Harsh Realities In 2013
The political conventions have passed, the August jobs report is out, and many Americans are said to be “giving up hope.”
So how can we jumpstart our greatest engine of economic growth – the American small business market – and get our economy growing again?
Regardless of which presidential candidate wins this November, in 2013 Americans will have to focus on saving, and expanding, the small business marketplace. The sector of our economy that makes up nearly 60% of the entire American private sector workforce, and creates between 60 and 80% of all new jobs, has been under attack over the past few years by politicians who have created lots of bad laws.
And if Americans are serious about expanding actual employment (rather than merely expanding government welfare and entitlement programs), then we will have to make better choices at the ballot box, and hold our elected leaders responsible for making serious changes. To start, let’s consider consider this harsh reality: the so-called “fiscal cliff” is real, and President Obama’s proposed solution to it is potentially lethal.
Under current federal law, both income tax rates and Social Security tax rates are set to rise dramatically on January 1st of 2013. Along with these tax increases, a dramatic reduction in government services will take hold at the same time.
This confluence of private citizens having more of their money taken away (higher taxes), and a reduction of government services (which means that private citizens will have to fill the gap and spend more of their own money) is expected to trigger a new recession next year. As a means of preventing a “double dip,” both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress have proposed that taxation rates be frozen where they are at, and held steady in 2013.
But President Obama has insisted that taxes should be raised on so-called “rich people” next year, and has refused to do what most economists and many members of his party have said is the one thing that could save us from another downturn.
And with the President polling as well as he is, it seems apparent that millions of Americans are far more excited about his “make the rich pay” rhetoric than they are aware of the consequences of his proposals. Obama supporters may get their wish in November, but it will come at a painful price – a price that all of us will pay.
And here’s another harsh reality: Americans need to get comfortable with other people’s financial successes. Since the early days of his first presidential campaign in 2007, Barack Obama has been pouring fuel on the fires of resentment and envy towards the wealthy. As a political strategy this has worked well for the President, but as government policy this has been bad for all of us.
The President’s tax-hike push is a perfect example, as many of America’s small businesses are set-up under the I.R.S. code as “Sub-chapter S” corporations. These are businesses wherein the company profits are reported to the I.R.S. directly as personal income by the business owners and are subject to personal income tax rates – and many of these business owners are being targeted by President Obama for an income tax-hike.
If the President gets his wish, and the government begins confiscating more money from the owners of Sub-chapter S corporations, by definition this leaves less money in these corporations for hiring and expansion. Thus Americans have a choice to make – do we want to employ our President for another four years so he can satiate the hatred some of us have towards “the rich” and take away more of their money? Or would we like private business owners to have money available to employ more of us? From the way things appear right now, we probably can’t do both.
And here’s harsh reality number three: Americans have to stop Obamacare from wiping-out small businesses. A central feature of this law is the mandate that businesses provide healthcare insurance to their workers. It sounds great – workers will now be “guaranteed” health insurance – but once again, the “make somebody else pay” approach is heaping more weight on the shoulders of small business owners.
Americans must decide how serious they are about job creation – even if it means that some jobs won’t include health benefits. If we honestly want employers to employ more, we must force the Congress and the President to fix this devastating component of Obamacare next year.
And here’s yet another harsh reality: Americans must stop making small businesses a scapegoat on illegal immigration. Roughly two-thirds of Americans want our national borders secured and a coherent immigration policy, yet for over a decade Washington has refused to do the former and has scarcely attempted the latter.
Amid the frustration, businesses have become the target of Americans’ wrath. If business owners would simply quit hiring illegals -so the reasoning goes -the illegals would go away.
Mitt Romney has pledged that, if elected, he will seek to require American employers and workers to register with the federal government’s “e-verify” website, as a means of policing the problem. But this adds even more bureaucratic burdens to small business owners, and ignores our failed immigration policies and un-secured borders.
Do we want politicians who merely tell us what we want to hear? Or do we want leaders in our government who can actually enable businesses to grow? Americans must become more discerning-and face some harsh realities.
Austin Hill
So how can we jumpstart our greatest engine of economic growth – the American small business market – and get our economy growing again?
Regardless of which presidential candidate wins this November, in 2013 Americans will have to focus on saving, and expanding, the small business marketplace. The sector of our economy that makes up nearly 60% of the entire American private sector workforce, and creates between 60 and 80% of all new jobs, has been under attack over the past few years by politicians who have created lots of bad laws.
And if Americans are serious about expanding actual employment (rather than merely expanding government welfare and entitlement programs), then we will have to make better choices at the ballot box, and hold our elected leaders responsible for making serious changes. To start, let’s consider consider this harsh reality: the so-called “fiscal cliff” is real, and President Obama’s proposed solution to it is potentially lethal.
Under current federal law, both income tax rates and Social Security tax rates are set to rise dramatically on January 1st of 2013. Along with these tax increases, a dramatic reduction in government services will take hold at the same time.
This confluence of private citizens having more of their money taken away (higher taxes), and a reduction of government services (which means that private citizens will have to fill the gap and spend more of their own money) is expected to trigger a new recession next year. As a means of preventing a “double dip,” both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress have proposed that taxation rates be frozen where they are at, and held steady in 2013.
But President Obama has insisted that taxes should be raised on so-called “rich people” next year, and has refused to do what most economists and many members of his party have said is the one thing that could save us from another downturn.
And with the President polling as well as he is, it seems apparent that millions of Americans are far more excited about his “make the rich pay” rhetoric than they are aware of the consequences of his proposals. Obama supporters may get their wish in November, but it will come at a painful price – a price that all of us will pay.
And here’s another harsh reality: Americans need to get comfortable with other people’s financial successes. Since the early days of his first presidential campaign in 2007, Barack Obama has been pouring fuel on the fires of resentment and envy towards the wealthy. As a political strategy this has worked well for the President, but as government policy this has been bad for all of us.
The President’s tax-hike push is a perfect example, as many of America’s small businesses are set-up under the I.R.S. code as “Sub-chapter S” corporations. These are businesses wherein the company profits are reported to the I.R.S. directly as personal income by the business owners and are subject to personal income tax rates – and many of these business owners are being targeted by President Obama for an income tax-hike.
If the President gets his wish, and the government begins confiscating more money from the owners of Sub-chapter S corporations, by definition this leaves less money in these corporations for hiring and expansion. Thus Americans have a choice to make – do we want to employ our President for another four years so he can satiate the hatred some of us have towards “the rich” and take away more of their money? Or would we like private business owners to have money available to employ more of us? From the way things appear right now, we probably can’t do both.
And here’s harsh reality number three: Americans have to stop Obamacare from wiping-out small businesses. A central feature of this law is the mandate that businesses provide healthcare insurance to their workers. It sounds great – workers will now be “guaranteed” health insurance – but once again, the “make somebody else pay” approach is heaping more weight on the shoulders of small business owners.
Americans must decide how serious they are about job creation – even if it means that some jobs won’t include health benefits. If we honestly want employers to employ more, we must force the Congress and the President to fix this devastating component of Obamacare next year.
And here’s yet another harsh reality: Americans must stop making small businesses a scapegoat on illegal immigration. Roughly two-thirds of Americans want our national borders secured and a coherent immigration policy, yet for over a decade Washington has refused to do the former and has scarcely attempted the latter.
Amid the frustration, businesses have become the target of Americans’ wrath. If business owners would simply quit hiring illegals -so the reasoning goes -the illegals would go away.
Mitt Romney has pledged that, if elected, he will seek to require American employers and workers to register with the federal government’s “e-verify” website, as a means of policing the problem. But this adds even more bureaucratic burdens to small business owners, and ignores our failed immigration policies and un-secured borders.
Do we want politicians who merely tell us what we want to hear? Or do we want leaders in our government who can actually enable businesses to grow? Americans must become more discerning-and face some harsh realities.
Austin Hill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


