Obama, Spending and Taxes: The Fraud of the "Balanced" Approach

Read the previous article, about how the analysis of government needs to START with the appropriate size of government, and the appropriate amount government should be able to TAKE from its citizens, and still leave us a free market, a free economy, and a free people.


There are basically two principles here:


1. Government spending should be LILMITED to no more than 18% of GDP. It is now cloe to 25%. That spending needs to be REDUCED. You can see that has NOTHING to do with a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction. Spending is the problem.


2. The maximum tax RATE--individual or corporate, whre you need to pretty much keep those rates the SAME to avoid Wall street and business GAMES around what kind of entity you do business and how that entity spends its money--should be no more than 25%. That is an amount low enough to get the ecoonomy moving and pretty much make TAX AVOIDANCE not worth the candle (except for those obsessed people willing tospend more to avoid tax than the money they save).


Notice that neither of the above dIRECTLY involves tax "loopholes", or all of this tax spending in the tax code. That is because the Obama approach to "deficit reductoin" is a FRAUD. Obama does NOT want to reduce the deficit in a way that leads to a government of appropriate size. Indeed, Obama does not care about rfeducing the deficit AT ALL. He just wants to MAINTAIN SPEDNING, or increase it, while SAY:ING he has "solved" the deficit problem over a ten year period. He almost directly said that about two press conferences ago. For Obama, closing "tax loopholes" is merely a way to argue for MORE SPENDING. Again, spending should be LIMITED to a percentage of GDP, and that has NOTTHING to do with tax loopholes. The number is the SAME on spending--looked at correctly--no matter how many tax loopholes we "cloes".


IF we can cap spending at 18% of GDP, and there STILL is a deficit problem, we might need to take a look. Until we do that, however, it is absurd to use "closing" tax loopholes as a "deficit reducton" device. It merely encourages MORE SPENDING, and will not necessarily raise any more revenue. And it often results in a MORFE COMPLICATED tax code, rather than a less complicated tax code, because of all of the exceptions, caveats, and additonal "loopholes' put in each measure supposedly "dlosing loopholes" for the prupose of deficit reducton. The whole idea here is GROWTH, and that means SIMPLIFYING the tax code, with LOWR RATES and essentially NO special tax credits and loopholes. Tings like mortgage deductions are a different problem beyond the scope of this article, other than to say a ELIMINATING the mortgage deduction on for the "rich' is a DISGUISED tax hike on RATES. That is NOT true of tax credits tailored to picking winners and losers, such as the "green" tax credits and ehanol subsidies.


You shold get th eidea by now, and it is how conservatives should look at it--and generally do, except when they are not really conservatives. It makes no sense at all to reduce the deficit by "closing tax loopholes". When we close tax loopholes, which conservatives want to do, we do so as part of REDUCING TAX RATES in a revenue neutral manner. Yes, this DOES mean "reducing tax rates" for the "rich", because the "rich" are paying almost all of the income taxes NOW. But it reallly does not represent a net tax reduction for the "rich", if we USE the closing of tax rates to SIMPLIFY the tax system and LOWER the rates. Taht is what OBAMA'S debt panel proposed. IF we do this, AND reduce spending to 18% of GDP, that shoul dset this country up for explosive growth. If we use the "closing of tax loopholes" to keep our SPENDING high, then we are defeating the whole purpose here. And we may well not RAISE any real revenue at all, as we hurt the economy.


Furterh, Obama's plea to raise taxes on the "rich" is a FRAUD. Not ony does it COMPLICATE the tax system, as it tries to make an ever fewer number of people slaves to us all (like Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez--not to mention Hannity and Limbaugh), but Obama has NO intention of reducing spending. The TAX INCRESES are not only designed to allow MORE SPENDING, but they are REAL. The spending "cuts" are NOT REAL. They are scheduled for the FAR FUTRRE, and Obama does nto expect them to take place. However, the tax increases can be passed into law NOW, and WILL go into effect unless lrepealed. That is almost always not ture of the spending "cuts", which usually represent just "caps" or "goals' which are subject to being ignored by future Congresses. Remember, the DEBT CEILING is a LAW that people are supposed to PLAN not to violate. Instead, the Presideent AND Congress have been PLANNING to vioolate the law. A budget is required BY LAW every year. The senate has not passed a budget in more than TWO YEARS> This is all FRAUD. The tax incrfeases, if Republicans manage to BETRAY us, WILLK probably go into effect. That is what history shows us. The alleged FUTURE spending "cutgs" will NOT ever go into effect. And tax "simplification" will NEVER occur.


Message to Republicans: Remember, as far as I am concerned, by are a DEAD PARTY WALKING--dead FOREVER to this blog--if you betray us on this. Further, I have specifically warned you about a SPECIFIC BETRAYAL that weill make me as mad as I have ever been at Republicans, and that is damn mad (Peter Finch mad, as in "Network"). Republkcans have shown a tendency--even some conservatives--to buy into this idea that this "simulus" welfare payment labeled a "payroll tax cut" is a "tax cut" that might be used to "offset" tax increases. Forget it. I am telling you now, you McConell Republicans, that if you buy into that FRAUD, I will NEVERF forgive you for it. Nope. Thre will be NOTHING you can do. lYou will be DEAD to me FOREVER. That "payroll tax cut" is merely an Obama/Democrat GIMMICK that represents a direct tax espenditure and a LIE. When Obama himself says we should stop these gimmicks, this would be an ATROCITY--a BETRAYL on the scale of Benedict Arnold by Republicans.


You can see the problem Republicans have here (the politician kind). They WANT to betray us. They are just not sure--correctly--that they can get away with "politics as usual" anymore. By the way, I have decided that I will NOT vote for Tim Pawlenty, under ANY circumstances--even against Obama--for President of the United States. I BELIEVE Michele Bachmann on the debt ceiling (she will never vote for increasing it), even though I don't think she is really thinking it entirely through. But I do NOT believe Tim Pawlenty, when he says he thinks that the debt ceiling should NOT be raised (apparently under any circumstances) .I believe that is opportunism, pure and simple. I guess there is some way Pawlenty could convicne me he is sincere, and you can never be sure the mainstream media is givnig you anything close to the correct story, but this kind of "politics as usual" is something I cannot accept. I don't think Pawlenty wil win the nomination--saving me this particular dilemma, but I don'st wee how I can presently vote for the cynical "politics as usual" guy I perceive him to be.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).