Let’s Compare The Dems And Their Idiotic Ideas For Tax Hikes

Even Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos get it! The reporters for the leftist-leaning ABC News finally grew some cojones and asked some hard questions in interviews with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The issue? Taxes.

From Donald Lambro at TownHall.com:

“Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn’t that going to put a further strain on people?” CNBC economic reporter Maria Bartiromo asked Obama a few weeks ago. It’s a question that could define the rest of the presidential election and boost GOP prospects at a time when the No. 1 issue is the economy, dwarfing the war in Iraq.

Picking up on Bartiromo’s pointed question, ABC News anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos also pummeled both candidates last week for their tax policies.

“If the economy is as weak a year from now, as it is today, will you … persist in your plans to roll back President Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier Americans?” Stephanopoulos asked Clinton.

Clinton said, yes, she would raise the top 35 percent marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 “to the rates they were paying in the 1990s” under President Clinton, which would lift them to a confiscatory 40 percent.

“Even if the economy is weak?” an incredulous Stephanopoulos asked.

“Yes,” she replied without hesitation. “I do not believe it will detrimentally affect the economy by doing that.”

The scary part is that she really does believe it. She is so detached from reality that is is pathetic. Here is what the economic experts say will be the result of such a tax hike:

But business advocates and economists dispute that claim, saying it isn’t just wealthier Americans who pay the top income tax rate, but also 25.8 million small businesses, many of them family-run operations, that create about 75 percent of the jobs, according to the Small Business Administration.

Sadly, the Democrats’ agenda doesn’t include small businesses that earn more than $250,000 but do not consider themselves rich. Many, in fact, are struggling just to keep their heads above water.

I queried a number of top economists around the country about [Barck Obama’s] tax plan, and here’s what Glenn Hubbard, the former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and now the dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business, had to say about it:

“Raising capital (gains) taxes is bad at any time — and particularly in a weak economy. The only argument for such a tax increase — since that argument can be neither economic efficiency nor efficient revenue collection — would be a policy of (income) redistribution.”

And that, of course, is what Obama has in mind. He would pay for his middle-class tax cuts in part by taxing the 100-million-member investor class, 50 percent of whom are the middle class. It is income redistribution by the government, pure and simple.

“They claim they do not want to raise taxes on anyone up to $250,000, but more and more ordinary Americans own stocks through mutual funds, IRAs and 401(k) plans at work. A higher capital-gains tax on stock reduces the value of the stock,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

That’s Obama’s plan: relieve the middle class by taxing the middle class. His hold on reality isn’t any better than Clinton’s.

Gibson called him on that:

While Obama promises in one breath that he would not tax anyone below $250,000, with the next breath he says he would raise the $97,000 cap on the Social Security payroll tax to extract money from “millionaires and billionaires” who don’t have to pay beyond that rate.

“But that’s a tax … on people under $250,000,” Gibson reminded the Harvard graduate. “There’s a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $250,000.” Obama, obviously, hadn’t thought of that.

As I said, no grasp of reality in his plans or his thinking.

Hillary’s grasp is still no better:

If that’s not contradictory enough, former Clinton White House adviser Gene Sperling, Hillary Clinton’s chief economic adviser, said that if the United States were still in a recession next year, she would stick to her tax-hike plan, while proposing a temporary economic stimulus.

“Her view would be to add another stimulus through more progressive temporary tax cuts that would have a higher bang for the buck, but she will still revert back to the old top tax rate,” he told me.

So, Hillary’s solution to a recession is to stimulate the economy through some sort of stimulus plan and then tax away the gains in higher taxes.

Honestly, is their anyone out there who can say they truly believe this socialist tripe?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Income Redistribution, Tax Hikes Top Democratic Agenda
Donald Lambro
April 24, 2008


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: