See my usual foresighted article on the CNN/Gloria Borger use of "tax reform" to mean "tax increases", described so incoherently by Borger as to make it obvious she had no idea what she was talking about (other than she knew she was trying to follow the Obama position, as she knows CNN--The Liar Network--wansts here to do.). How do I know this analysis of mine was correct, besides the fact I am almost never wrong? Well, I listened to Obama's ten minute speech on Monday, with great resulting pain tto my brain, and he said the SAME THING as Borger--just not as obviously incoherent, although just as obviously deceptive.
Does this prove a secret tryst between Borger and Obama? I have to admit that I don't think Michelle Obama has anything to worry about. This is a matter of Borger, and CNN, trying to put out pro-Obama propaganda, and just being incompetent at it (not that Obama is so much better, if you are paying attention, but that is my job: to call your attention to these things you should see for yourselves).
Remember that Borger said that the "super committee" would neeed to look at "tax reform" closing of looopholes so that "top rates" could be reduced an Repubicans convinced to thereby agree to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the "rich". Don't read that sentence too many times. It will just cause your brain to hurt. The sentence merely shows that Borger realized that "tax reform", in the teminoloyg of Obama and CNN, is merely a code term for "tax increase". But she made the mistake--maybe because she is not too bright---of confusing REAL tax reform with the Obama deception. It is nonsense to talk about taising tax RATESon the "rich" with real tax reform, or to talk abut the "Bush tax cuts for the rich", because the whole idea of real tax reform is to REPLACE the present tax system with a fairer tax system, with LOWER TOP TAX RATES. Borger got the "lower top tax rates" right, but then suggested that it still made sense to talk about the "rich" paying higher tax rates. Incoherrent. Go see the previious article, with Gloria Borger in the title, for a fuller explanation.
Well, what did Obama say about it on Monday? Obama, like Borger, called for "tax reform" out of this super committee (out of Congress, in other words). Obama made clear that he was using the same deception as Borger, and using "tax reform" as a mere code term for "tax increases"--INCLUDING increases in tax RATES on the "rich". What Obama did not do--as is typical of Obama, since he always makes absurd assertions without details--was try to describe AT ALL what he meant by "tax reform". Now closing tax "loopholes' will increase taxes on SOME of the "rich"--maybe most. But when Obama talked about the wealthy payig "their fair share" (an absurdity, when 50% of the people in the country pay no income tax at all), it is not remotely possible that Obama meant that he wanted to LOWER the top tax rate on the "rich" in exchange for eliminating "tax expenditures" (the Obama Debt Commission approach, which Obama REJECTED). Nope. For Obama, this is all DECEPTION. He is merely using "tax reform" to LIE about what he wants to do--to try to get "credit" for favoing "tax reform", when all he really favors is tax increases (both eliminating "loopholes" OBAMA does not faovr, and raisng tax RATES on the "rich"). You can see why Borger is a mere sycophant, and not the Liar-in-Chief. She just does not quite understand the full deception here, and got confused and incoherent trying to explain HOW "tax reform" really justifies increasing tax RATES on the "rich".
What is the problem with "tax reform"--aside from Obama and CNN cynically using it as a mere propaganda term really meaning "tax increases"? IF you cut all of the tax CREDITS (like green energy credits, the earned income tax credit, and numerous other tax credits), you MIGHT be able to get enough extra revenue from "tax expenditures" to lower tax the top TAX RATE for corporations and indivduals (without increasing the deficit). But you can see that Obama has no intention of doing that. He has proposed MORE tax credits, and it is absurd to suggest he would agree to eliminateing the "earned income tax credit", even though it is just a welfare payment.
Worse. The Obama Debt Commission, in an effort to find thigs it thought MIGHT get passed, looked to the most popular deductions. For example, I saw a report that the biggest tax "exenditure" is the failure to include empoloyer provided health insurance in INCOME. In other words, you don't have to report that BENEFIT as income to you, even though it clearly comes within the ordinary definition of income. Now it is true that ObamaCare--containing some of the biggest tax expenditures of all, AND a massive new entitlement that will bankrupt us--willl do away with employer provided health insurance (most of it, anyway) pretty quickly. Still, do you really see Congress passing a law counting this as INCOME? What aobut the mortgage deduction? What about the charitable deduction (self-defeating, if the government cuts back on charities as it cuts back on government services)? It is unlikey that Congress will touch the really POPULAR deductions. As I have previuosly stated, elliminating, or even reducing, the mortgage interest deductin will likely complete the DESTRUCTION of the housing industry. And trying to eliminste these deductions ONLY FOR THE RTICH defeats the very concept of REAL TAX REFORM, with a SIMPLE and FAIR tax system. It is one thing to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for EVERYONE. It is quite another, class warfare, insanely compicating, unfair thing to give the deduction to SOME and not to others. Nor is it ture that there is somehting wrong with a mortgage interest deduction for a $500,000 house. That is a matter of LOCATION. The MEDIAN house in Boston, or most of California, may be $5000,000., In El Paso, you get a MANSION for $500,000. My older daughter--hardly "rich", although not poor--just bought a $500,000, 1300 sq. ft. condo in Boston. Is it "fair" to deny her a full mortgage interest deduction, while someone may pay $400,000 for a 4000 sq. ft. MANSON in El Paso? Noep. DISCRIMINATING in deductions and credits, based on income, is a DISGUISED INCREASE IN TAX RATES. It is a COMPLICATIONI of the tax system, and not a simpification.
Oh. One minor pint. If Republicans agree to a comoplex tax system imposing all kinds of extra taxes on the "rich" by discriminatory limitation of deductions and credits, then that is yet another means of the Republican Party becoming DEAD to me. You can see that these peole--those trying to deceive, like Borger and Obama--can TRY to complicate this so mucyh that I will be confused. Message to Republicans: You CANNOT DO IT.--cannot fool me on thsi. I WILL call you on it, again and again and again.
Conservatives almost universally faovr "tax reform" that REDUCES TAX RATES at the top. That generally includes eliminating as many SPECIAL tax loopholes as possible, But giving some people deductions, and limiting those deductions for other people, UNDERMINES this concept. It is NOT SIMNPLE. It is the OPPOSITE of simple. I can't even begin to give you an idea of how much I oppose it, and how much I will work to dEFEAT any Republican who goes along with it. Alan Simpson, this means YOU. (By the way, Alan Simpson is NOT a "nice' man--being pretty much an asshole--takes one to know one here.) Simple means simple: the Roanldd Reagan concept of a FEW, LOW tax rates applied uniformly.
That is the other problem with "tax reform". Ronald Reagan DID it, and his tax structure was not bad (28% top rate, a 15% rate, and a 0% rate). What happened? Come on. You know this one. People like Obama and Borger--to include Bill Clinton--eventually decided that there is an EASY way to raise taxes. RAISE THE TAX RATE OF THE "RICH" (which Obama wants to do anyway), Look at what happens. You ELIMINATE all of these "tax expenditures", so the "rich" pay MORE. THEN you RAISE the rates that were the trade off for getting rid of the deductions/credits!!!!! Neat, huh. You can see why I call myself a cynic.
It is easy to despair here. And you should see why I will CRUCITY any Repubican who agrees to a deceptive raise in taxes here. I DO faovr "tax reform", but I see the pitfalls. We really need a revolution in the way our country thinks abut this. One party is gong to have to WIN, and the other party is gong to have to LOWE. The Public is not going to be able to have it both ways. The apraoches are too different yep. I AM syinag that the media, incluidn gFox people like Greta Van Susteren, are STUPID It is NOT a mattter of "working togehter" for the good of the coutry. These approaches cannot be reconciled. REal, simple tax reform cannot be altered into something else, and then called "macaroni". You have to go one way or anothe.
Needless to say, my way is the right way But you should be able to see why I would be willing to comproise on details, but NOT on approach. The idea that you can COMBINE tax increases on the "rich" with "tax reform" is absurd. You can RESTRUCTURE the tax code, and increase taxes on INDIVIDUUALS getting unfair tax breaks. This , however, is NOT the same as the idea that the "rich" jsut have to be soaked for all of the extra revenue we may need to fund the Big Government that I oppose.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) This is especially bad for a long article like this, which is also fairly complex. Still, my insight is wroth it. Don't you agree? DO NOT ANSWER THAT.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment