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 debt.
The total tax increase would be several trillion dollars. Hm, raising taxes -- especially a BIG increase like this -- in a struggling economy? Not a good idea, says...Barack Obama (from the past):
Funny how things change, isn't it? But let's dig a little deeper. Obama says his plan is all about taxing the rich. Never mind the fact that taxing the rich simply won't fix the problem. The fact is that he's going to have to tax the middle class, where the real money is, while making the middle class think he's taxing only the rich:
It's not just millionaires who'd pay more under President Barack Obama's latest plan to combat the deficit.
Air travelers, federal workers, military retirees, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries and people taking out new mortgages are among those who would pay more than $130 billion in government revenues raised through new or increased fees.
There are other ways it would hit the middle class, too, from explicit taxation on families or small businesses earning more than $200k a year to smacking millions of families as being 'rich' when they're really just normal folks receiving dividends on investments.
It's the same old class warfare gig he's been peddling since he stepped into elected office years ago. In fact, it's really, really similar to the first big stimulus plan he proposed right after taking office:
Obama’s new jobs plan looks remarkably like his $830 billion 2009 economic stimulus package. According to Al Hunt the latest Obama job plan stimulus includes tax cuts, infrastructure spending, unemployment benefits extension and direct aid to state and local governments.
So, if the last stimulus for $800+ billion didn't do squat to help the economy, the obvious natural choice is to push through another one for half that, right? No? Well, you're clearly wrong, because that's precisely what's happening. The RNC put it this way:
If you really want to break it down, here's the short version of his new plan:
But never mind the 47% of Americans who don't pay any income tax at all. It would be unfair to include them in any measure of what's fair, don't you think?
Anyway, isn't it good that he's at least leaping into action to do something? Um, not really:
Everybody remembers the urgency of President Obama's attitude toward the awful jobs situation.
Back in early August, Obama said the jobs situation was so urgent that he was going to give another speech about it -- in a month or so, in September after his vacation on Martha's Vineyard.
And then in September the president announced he would give his major jobs speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 7. But he neglected to check with congressional leaders first. And they suggested the 8th. So, since it was their House, the 8th it was.
"Tonight," the president said in the first 34 of his 4,021 words to a national television audience that night, "we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that has made things worse." ...
The president was in such a hurry to get this new spending going, everyone remembers, that during that address he said the phrase "right now" seven times. He didn't actually mean right now that night because the NFL season was opening a few minutes after his remarks.
But Obama did want to show how really urgent he said the situation was, even though it had taken him 961 days as president to say them. And even though from Day #1 of the brief Obama Era polls had shown jobs and the economy were the No. 1 priority among voters but he pursued healthcare and financial reforms first. And even though unemployment had been at or above 9% for 26 of the last 28 months.
So, given the president's professed urgency, the next day, Sept. 9, everyone asked where was his jobs legislation?
And, well, it seems the urgent jobs bill hadn't actually been written yet but should be ready in a week or two. When the laughter died, the White House said on second thought the legislation would be ready for a photo op the next Monday.
Well, here we are on the next Monday after that next Monday and we've just learned from the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, that actually it seems that body won't really be seriously getting into the legislation for a while yet. The Senate has some other more important business to handle. And then there's this month's congressional vacation, which in Washington is called "a recess," like elementary school.
Here's the revealing exchange with a persistent host Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union:"
CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?So, as of right now, "right now" uttered on Sept. 8 really means sometime at least one month later.
DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to...
CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?
DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month.
Good thing the president's own Democratic party controls the Senate. Because, otherwise, there might be some kind of silly, unnecessary delays in deliberating Obama's urgent jobs bill that he says will surely help the nation's unemployed millions if only those Republicans don't connive to slow things down.
Whew, it's a good thing we've got his leadership on this tough issue! But even more than that, this is the bazillionth time he's focused on the 'urgent' issue of jobs. Observe:
- December 2009: “Entering an election year, Democrats sharpen focus on jobs” Unemployment rate: 10.0%.
- January 2010: “Obama to focus hard on economy after Democratic loss” Unemployment rate: 9.7%.
- February 2010: “Democrats Seek to Push Ahead $15 Billion Jobs Bill, With More Steps to Come” Unemployment rate: 9.7%.
- March 2010: “Jobs Bill Signed Into Law by Obama” The first of
many… err, one? Unemployment rate: Unemployment rate: 9.7%. - April 2010: “Obama election-year jobs agenda stalls in Congress.” Unemployment rate: 9.9%.
- May 2010: “The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.” Remember this when you hit the second July 2010 entry. Unemployment rate: 9.7%.
- June 2010: “Obama Urges Quick Vote to Spur Jobs” Unemployment rate: 9.5%.
- July 2010: “Harry Reid stresses job-based agenda” Unemployment rate: 9.5%.
- July 2010: “President Obama signs Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010 into law.” Yes, that’s the same thing as the May entry. Apparently, extending unemployment benefits counts as job creation. Also, remember this when you see the unemployment rate in May 2011. Unemployment rate: 9.5% (obviously).
- August 2010: “Obama Calls for ‘Full-Scale Attack’ to Revive Struggling Economy” Unemployment rate: 9.6%.
- September 2010: “Senators Urge Reid to Focus on Jobs, Adjourn Early” …Yes, that one’s unkind of both me and the Nevada GOP, but it was too funny to pass up. Unemployment rate: 9.6%.
- October 2010: “Obama to focus on jobs, economy on India visit.” This, a month after the Democrats failed to get an outsourcing bill past their then-59/41 majority. Unemployment rate: 9.7%.
- November 2010: “Reid: Jobs Are Priority #1 For Democrats” Unemployment rate: 9.8%.
- December 2010: “Obama & Labor Unions Meet to Plan Job Creation.” Based on this RedState report; Jim was as cynical about the likelihood of that happening as we were. Unemployment rate: 9.4%.
- January 2011: “Obama Address to Focus on Jobs, Cutting Deficit, Unity.” Unemployment rate: 9.0%.
- February 2011: “Jobs Message to Go Home With House Democrats” Unemployment rate: 8.9%.
- March 2011: “Democrats’ central message on jobs might not be enough” Unemployment rate: 8.8%.
- April 2011: “Democrat rips Obama for not focusing more on jobs.” Unemployment rate: 9.0%.
- May 2011: “Dems target unemployment benefits bill” Unemployment rate: 9.1%. Yeah, that was some real impressive job creation that came from paying people to not work for longer, there. And would it be mean of me to remind people that we were promised by the Obama administration to be between 6 and 7% unemployment at this point? …Yes, it would probably be mean of me.
- June 2011: “Obama Announces ‘All-Hands-On-Deck Strategy’ To Boost Private Sector Hiring” As I put it at the time: “Now watch this drive.” Unemployment rate: 9.2%.
- July 2011: “Democrats Focus on Jobs, Continue to Urge GOP to Work Together On Balanced Agreement to Pay America’s Bills, Reduce Deficit.” You dirty terrorists, you. Also: we’re all waiting for the July numbers on Friday: who wants to bet that they’re going to be any better than June’s?
- August: 2011: The Democrats plan to focus on jobs!
Good thing he's here to save the day.
But don't worry. Despite not having enough time between vacations to put forward an actual jobs bill, Obama did have plenty of time to propose a bunch of new czars that can control your life through regulation without having any election accountability to the American people. Good news, huh?
It is interesting to note that Obama's getting considerable heat from the liberal Left, too. In fact, he's never polled lower in a Gallup poll of self-described liberals, his hometown newspaper is calling for him not to run for re-election, and there's even talk of him facing some primary challenges. I know, it's hard to believe that anyone could be unhappy with Barack Obama for not being liberal enough, but that's another story all to itself that really speaks to the twisted mindset that is liberalism in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment