From the Wall Street Journal comes explanation of how Barack Obama plans to pay for new entitlements promised during his Presidential campaign. Using government power to redistribute wealth from those who earn it to those who don’t is not only bad economics that hurt everyone but it is immoral and Unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers created the U.S. Constitution to LIMIT the Federal Government and would be appalled at how the Federal Government is involved in taking from the wealthiest and giving to entitlement recipients.
Article follows:
Reviving Redistributionism
New data from the IRS will be out in a few weeks on who pays how much in taxes. My contacts at the Treasury Department tell me that for the first time in decades, and perhaps ever, the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%.
But Barack Obama has decided the rich still don’t pay enough. He would redistribute the tax burden even more heavily on small business owners and the entrepreneurial class (two-thirds of the tax filers in the highest income tax bracket are small-business owners.) The nonpartisan Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodge has just crunched the numbers on the Obama plan and concludes that “more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.
“Sounds fair, no? Only 1.13 million taxpayers, out of some 128 million, would end up paying higher taxes, according to the Obama camp.
But in the real world, who ends up paying a tax is not just the person on whose tax return it falls. History has demonstrated time and again that raising tax rates on the wealthy in the name of “redistribution” leads to so much income shifting, reduced work and investment, and redeployment of money into tax shelters, that the rich usually pay less, not more taxes, at higher rates. The burden of paying for government shifts to others, including some who may not file an income tax return at all – because they no longer have jobs or no longer earn enough to pay income tax.
Economist Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University has shown that in 1970, when the highest tax rate was 70%, the top 1% shouldered 16.7% of the income tax burden. Today the top tax rate is 35% and the same class of taxpayers pays a whopping 39% of the burden. The worst way to “soak the rich,” Mr. Hubbard finds, is to raise tax rates.
Somebody needs to give the Obama campaign a refresher on all this. The Tax Foundation’s Mr. Hodge wonders: “Can a tax system so focused on redistribution be compatible with economic growth?” Probably not but the Obama brain trust wants to give it a try anyway.– Stephen Moore
I appeared on the KUNR Nevada Newsline radio show on June 27th, 2008. At times the debate gets somewhat contentious between myself and former Nevada Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman. Contentious means that it is interesting.
Not only do we discuss the Special Session of the Nevada Legislature but by listening to this broadcast you can hear a distinct comparison between an individualist philosophy of self-reliance and a philosophy of reliance on government.
RENO, NV (2008-06-27) On this edition of Nevada Newsline, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons has called a special legislative session to address a 250 million dollar shortfall in the state budget.
Just ahead, host Brian Bahouth takes your calls for a discussion about the special session that is just getting underway in Carson City. Our guests are former Nevada lawmaker, Democrat Vivian Freeman and one-time Assembly Candidate, local businessman and political blogger, Republican Richard Disney.
Also this hour, some Nevada Republicans will be holding another state convention in Reno this weekend, they say, to conclude unfinished business from the first state convention that ended in mayhem back in April. The state Republican party does not sanction this weekend’s gathering, but organizers say delegates chosen this weekend will be going to the national convention in September. We’ll be taking your calls for a conversation with long time Republican leader Mike Weber. Enjoy the show.
But it’s not only about the price of oil. Other costs are a factor — though they’ve remained relatively stable.
For example, federal and state taxes added 40 cents to a gallon of gas in the first three months of this year, roughly the same amount as they added four years ago.California’s 63.9 cents of tax is the nation’s highest, Alaska’s 26.4 cents the lowest. How the money is used varies from state to state, though the federal take helps to build and maintain highways and bridges.
Marketing and distribution costs — the tab for delivering gasoline from refiner to retailer — were 27 cents to start the year, only 6 cents above the cost four years ago.The cost of refining added 27 cents to a gallon in the first quarter of this year, a nickel less than what it added in 2004, according to the Energy Information Administration.That refining occurs at sprawling industrial complexes across the U.S., with most of the biggest along the Gulf Coast. Barrels of crude arrive each day by pipeline, ship and barge. The refineries, by heating, treating and blending the raw oil, turn out products like diesel and lubricating oil.And, of course, gasoline.
It is a shame that government officials at all levels cannot see that lowering gasoline taxes would help every American where it counts most…in the pocketbook! Story follows:
Sun Jun 15, 8:44 AM ET SAN DIEGO - If there’s pain at the pump in the U.S., Mexico may just have a remedy. A gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in San Diego retails for an average price of $4.61 a gallon. A few miles south, in Tijuana, it’s about $2.54 — even less if you pay in pesos.ADVERTISEMENTMore and more people appear to be taking advantage of the lower price.”I used to buy exclusively in the U.S. before gas started really going up,” said Patrick Garcia, a drama teacher at an elementary school in San Diego who lives in Tijuana. “Since then, I’ve been buying all my gas in Tijuana.”The lower prices mean a U.S. motorist could save almost $54 filling up a two-year-old Ford F150 pickup with a 26-gallon fuel tank in Mexico.The differential in diesel is even greater, selling at $5.04 a gallon in San Diego County and $2.20 in Tijuana.Paul Covarrubias, 26, who lives in Chula Vista and works in construction in San Diego, crosses the border each week just to refuel his dual-cab Ford F-250 pickup.”I fill it up with diesel in Tijuana for $60,” he said. “It would be almost twice that in San Diego.”Gas is cheaper in Mexico because of a government subsidy intended to keep inflationary forces in check.Still, international gas-buying trips don’t make sense for everyone. The wait getting back into the U.S. at the border in Tijuana frequently takes longer than two hours and cars can burn about a gallon of gas for each hour they idle.
Nothing like a drink tax to enrage constituents! Of course in a down economy what is the first knee jerk reaction of most politicians? Well raise taxes of course!
Just when we thought fuel prices were too high…don’t worry, they’re the Government and they’re here to help! (In the best Foghorn Leghorn inflection) Prices to go up that is.
The Lieberman-Warner Bill currently pending in the Senate would, if passed, do three primary things:
1. Raise taxes regressively (which means hitting the poorest the hardest).
2. Raise gasoline prices.
3. Create a new massive “IRS style” agency to track carbon credits and emissions.
Mrs. Clinton was quoted not long ago saying that she has “a million ideas, but America can’t afford them all.” This video illustrates the Collectivist nature of Hillary Clinton and some examples of why we cannot afford to have her as president.
Mrs. Clinton came out with a campaign commercial recently that literally shows Hillary Clinton playing the roll of national parent or nanny dispensing government largess in the form of gifts wrapped in bows. She even has the gall to show that a tax-cut is possible while throwing the $45 Trillion plus dollars down a rabbit hole for “gifts.”
To use government power to force people who produce to provide “gifts” for people who do not produce is immoral.
Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons has been bludgeoned with multiple accusations by his opponents in politics and in the press even at the national level. After just participating in a conference call with Governor Gibbons, I am convinced of his commitment to uphold his pledge not to raise taxes on the people of Nevada. It is the no tax commitment that put Jim Gibbons in office and it is refreshing to see a politician stick to his guns on such a key issue. Governor Gibbons signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). I asked Gibbons if putting his commitment not to allow the raising of taxes in writing has helped stem the tide of ravenous legislative tax raisers and other big critics of his stand. The Governor’s reply was that signing the Tax Pledge does not mean much unless the person signing it holds a commitment to the principals The Pledge represents. Governor Gibbons mentioned that many politicians run to sign the Tax Pledge during election campaigns but then claim not to understand what they were signing as they propose or vote for legislation to raise taxes. Governor Gibbons assured me and the others on the conference call that to him the Tax Payer Protection Pledge is not just a piece of paper but actually reflects his core principals. Governor Gibbons said, “There is no need to raise taxes when state revenues have increased by about 15%.” Bravo Governor Gibbons!
I have thought for some time that since Governor Gibbons is taking so much flak from “Tax and Spend Republicans” and the media that he must be doing something right. If the main stream media loves a politician, the tax payers better watch out!
The Nevada Legislature has about a week left of the regular session remaining and it looks like Governor Gibbons has won a stunning victory. It was announced yesterday that the legislature has put together a compromise budget that does not raise taxes. Now if only the compromise will hold until the Legislature goes home. Will Rogers was quoted as saying, “The only time a man’s life, liberty and property are safe is when Congress is NOT in session.” There is no better illustration of those words than the events of this legislative session. The pervasive “nanny state” tone of most of the proposed bills this session does not bode well for Nevada being able to keep its reputation as the “last free state.”
Despite an increase in collected state revenues of about 15%, the clamor to raise taxes again against the wishes of the voters has been deafening at times. The biggest and many times, the only, resistance to increased taxes this session has been the threat of a gubernatorial veto. When the Legislature goes home in the next week or so, we can all breath easier, at least until the next session starts in January 2009!
Upon recently re-reading a quotation uttered by Barry Goldwater, my thought was that his quote is not nearly famous enough. In fact I think it has been purposely expunged from the memory of legislators at the state and federal levels.
The quotation is this:
“I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
Barry Goldwater
In recent weeks, I have had several email discussions with some Nevada State Legislators and repeatedly the legislators have attempted to justify their actions to increase taxes and spending as simply being “needed” or that their constituents “wanted” the increased spending. I would think that a legislator’s oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Nevada would be sufficient to override the inclination of legislators to curry favor by taking from each according to his abilities and giving to each according to his needs.
For too long, this Marxist justification (it was actually popularized by Karl Marx, check it out) has been used by legislators from both major political parties to curry favors from special interest groups and to buy votes from constituents.
Evidently a legislator’s oath of office is not enough. Perhaps it should be mandated that each legislator upon assuming office must recite the Barry Goldwater quote above just so that it is in the public record that they know the words.
The most disconcerting development is that an increasing number of Republicans have cast off the attempt to even appear as though they stand for limited government, restrained spending and lower taxes. Recently Assemblyman John Marvel seems to have made backsliding on promises not to increase taxes part of his platform. Senator Dennis Nolan smiles and smoothly explains that side-stepping the signature requirement to put a tax-hike on the ballot really IS good for the public. It is sad to say that both of the legislators above won their seats by claiming to be conservatives.
![[Barack Obama]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GL956_Obama_20080508114852.gif)
