In his speech last night, the President said a couple of things that just drove me crazy.
“The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code.”
“the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions.”
“the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures.”
I hate politicians exactly because of this type of insane, dishonest and arrogant language. Has no one read “1984”? Does no one understand what it means when the Government starts to say things like “War is peace” or “Love is hate” or “taking money is reducing spending”?
“Reduce spending in the tax code” means raise taxes. Now to the President’s credit, he did mention that others might say “we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes.” But is that the same as saying in multiple places, with emphasis, that he wants to “reduce spending in the tax code” instead of saying he wants to raise taxes? Why not just say it? Taking our money is not reducing spending, its increasing taxes, its taking our money. This President is so political and disingenuous he makes George Bush look like a good President. And that is from someone who not only voted for Obama but contributed significantly to his campaign. What a mistake.
Now to the more substantive issues. Obama has shown himself more and more to be a “populist” in the worst sort of way. A rabble rouser. An inciter of mobs. Tax the rich. Who could argue with that? Who can argue that Warren Buffet and Barack Obama shouldn’t pay their “fair share.” Except, as we all know, that isn’t the truth. That isn’t who will be paying and that isn’t who will be provided disincentives from making money.
I live in California and I admit it, I make a good salary and I am probably in that 2% which sounds so great. I certainly can’t cry poverty. But the truth is I am not like those people. I can’t afford a private jet. I have to work. In Orange County, CA, I live in an apartment because buying a house in a decent neighborhood for under $1 million is damn near impossible. I work 50-60 hours a week for a salary. Since I have no house I have no deductions and because I live in the great State of California my tax rate is increased by 10%. No “reducing tax spending” on me Mister President, you’re already taking almost half my salary. And under the Obama plan you will make me work half time for the government. What is my incentive for doing so? Why work? I’m in my fifties. Maybe I should just retire on my savings and call it a day? Why should I spend half my time working hard, staying away from my family, sitting in an office, in order to pay for a government that is badly run, inefficient, accomplishes little and treats me badly? What incentive do I have. Hell, with what I have saved over the years, I could get a lower paying job that goes 9-5, has no stress and allows me time to enjoy life and I would get to pay less.
And I am not the worst example by any means. What incentive does a young entrepreneurial hard working smart kid have? How many will be discouraged by the fact that they have to work 24 hours a day and be treated poorly by the government, told they are just like Buffet and should therefore pay for the abuse, inefficiency and stifling regulation that makes their business difficult to begin with? How many will simply turn away? When will democrats learn that taking money gives people less incentive to work for that money? When will they realize how arrogant they sound when they talk about taking more of that money as “reducing spending.”
Listen buddy, you are taking our money. In our book that is increasing spending, not reducing it. What do you think? That its your money to begin with and leaving it our hands is “spending”? There is no “spending” in the tax code. There is only taking. It’s our money and you are taking it. If you take more of it, you are increasing spending not decreasing it. And after you take it, you waste it and give the people who need it much less than you take from us. It’s highway robbery. If the US government was a charity, I wouldn’t give, not because I don’t believe in the cause, but because the administrative costs are criminally high. That’s why I won’t vote for you. Of course I may be staying home if the only alternatives the opponents can give me is Bachmann, Trump or Romney.