Tag Archives: higher taxes

11 Deceptions About the Tax Debate

Below are the Whitehouse.gov’s “11 Facts About the Tax Debate.”  As usual, they are out of context, disproportioned, deceptive, and out right false briefing points.  Here are just a few reasons why they are nothing more than election year red herrings.  (A fitting expression for such socialist ideals.) WH.gov points are in italics.

1.     Nearly $1 Trillion would be added to our deficit over 10 years under the Republicans’ proposal to continue tax cuts exclusively to households making more than $250,000 a year and to the wealthiest estates.

Only 1 Trillion in 10 years?  That sure is a better than Obama’s plan strapping us with over 10 Trillion more debt in the past 4 years, and much more in the next 10.  Republican tax cuts to those who are producing jobs realistically stimulate the economy.  History tells us that lower tax rates produce greater employment thus greater tax revenue 100% of the time!  Are 100% to 0% not good enough odds?

2.     Only 2 percent of American households will benefit from the Republicans’ proposal to extend tax cuts for those with incomes higher than $250,00 a year.

Actually 100% of Americans will benefit.  Those 2% are the ones investing in America and want to do more so more people can be employed, pay taxes, spend and invest.  All studies of history and economic models show that the sweet spot is about 17% across the board.  I.e. a flat tax of 17% produces the maximum revenue by allowing maximum employment and investment.  Thus we’re killing our selves by trying to squeeze more money than we can afford, which kills our ability to earn more.

3.     Under President Obama’s proposal, only the wealthiest 3 in 1,000 estates would owe any estate tax.

So only the wealthiest 0.3% will pay estate taxes?  He’s bragging about this?  Notice he doesn’t compare it to a Republican plan; a sure sign they have a better idea.

4.     Over the past 4 years, a typical family making $50,000 a year has received tax cuts totaling $3,600 – more if they are putting a child through college.

The White House fails to mention that our average income decreased 3.02% from 2008 to 2010.  For a $50K household, a loss of 3.2% is $1,600.

Inflation due to the Fed creating money, “monetizing the debt,” “QE3,” “printing money,” “digitizing money,” you name it.  Inflation was 4.46% in 2011 alone.  That has lowered the value of $50K by $2,238.

Those two factors alone add up to $3,830.  So even if your “tax decrease” was real, your average $50K family lost $283 per year.  Does the WH call these bragging rights?

They also fail to mention that he’s just Nationalized ALL student loans, (so he can forgive a great proportion of them).  That will cost “average” taxpayers more money.  So there are several ways we all pay for other people’s children to go to school.  Obama said, “those making under $250,000 won’t see a tax increase.”  Yup, they just won’t see it.

5.     5 million families would no longer be eligible for the child tax credit under the Republicans’ tax proposal.

Truth be known, both parties support a modification to the Child Tax Credit.  It is due to expire, so the debate is only which plan to adopt.

Additionally, the Treasury Department reports that illegal immigrants filing tax returns using the Individual Tax Identification Number are receiving more than $1.5 billion each year from the federal government through the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit.  Need a fix?

6.     Because Republican proposals cut the Earned Income Tax Credit, nearly 6 million working families with children would see their taxes increase – averaging $500 apiece.

The WH has cherry picked only the most conservative of many Republican plans.  Many, if not most, do not affect this Credit.  In support of those that do, this Credit pays able people for not working.  We have enough of that.  What is not mentioned is that this proposal also abolishes tax code exemptions and credits for the rich and big business.  Everyone who is able needs to pay something.  It keeps us all responsibly involved in government.

7.     The President’s plan includes almost $700 billion in tax credits to help middle class families pay for health insurance over the next 10 years through the Affordable Care Act.

Somehow we’re to believe we aren’t going to pay the $700 billion.  That $700,000,000,000 comes from taxes.  How many will loose jobs because companies are forced to cut employment or go bankrupt because they have to pay fines, (oops “taxes,” oh no “fees,” wait “taxes,” whatever)?  They’ll have to pay much more just to employ people.  That isn’t going to help employment or the tax base.

Thus Obama Care will increase the number of folks relying on taxes to support them and pay for their healthcare, thus driving that 700 billion estimate off the scale.  This is a “Cloward and Piven” plan, plain and simple.  “Overload the economic system through escalating the need for entitlements by the increased tax load to fund them.  Mr. Obama once taught the Cloward and Piven’s strategy to collapse capitalism.  Now he’s implementing it.

It has become common to name a Law the opposite of its worst feature to mask its true identity, i.e. ”The Federal Reserve” which is private and has no reserves.  Would you vote for the “Unaffordable but Compassionate Care Act”?

8.     The top 2 percent of households, with and average of $800,000, would see additional tax cuts under the Republican plan.

… as would most income brackets.  These wealthy people are already in the highest tax bracket.  This misleading information only mentions the cuts and not the main part of the plan that drastically removes tax exemptions in the first place.  Most Republican restructuring is designed not only to simplify taxes and reduce exemptions, but also to incite job creators.  Read the bills!

9.     Under the President’s plan, income tax rates for high income households would return to the same tax rates as in the ‘90s.  During that period, the United States created 23 million jobs and ran a budget surplus.

Remember the 17% rule?  Higher tax rates actually produce less revenue than lower rates above 17%.  When Bush lowered the tax rate in 2003, the tax revenue actually increased due to greater employment and higher wages.  Even Obama agreed to extend them for that reason.

It isn’t trickle down, it is flow down, and the government needs to be at the bottom of the flow, not the top.  Under the Republican plan everyone’s effective tax rate would be reduced, causing greater employment thus more tax revenue.  Businesses would be incented to locate and operate here in the US rather than overseas.

The government doesn’t create jobs, the people do.  Even government jobs are created out of the people’s tax dollars.  The government doesn’t build anything; we do, to include the government.  When the government uses our money to build inefficient, ineffective, failing, or just plain fraudulent institutions, we pay the price.

For example, the 90s is when the Liberals were most influential at inflating the housing bubble by incentives to lend to those who couldn’t afford those loans and eventually penalizing lenders that did not.  That escalated inflated prices that eventually had to burst.

10.     The President’s plan would continue the 10 percent tax bracket, which allows everyone to pay a 10 percent tax rate on their first $8,900 in income (or $17,800 for married couples).

Notice there is no mention of a Republican plan here, because under the Republican plan, middle-income families of four pay no taxes on the first $39,000 of its income.

So the President is bragging about doing nothing?  I have to admit, doing nothing has been one of his least problematic qualities.

11.     The Republicans plan eliminates the American Opportunity Tax Credit, meaning 11 million families and students paying for college would see an average tax increase of $1,000 each.

Actually there is no tax increase involved.  It means that the $1,000 credit for having a child in college expires December 31st 2012.  Both parties have competing plans for an amended version.  Reality always sounds a little different than WH talking points.

So shall we talk about unemployment?  How about why businesses move jobs overseas?  How about Agenda 21, (disguised as “Sustainable Development)?  Can we discuss how many more doctors will be created under Obama care?  How about illegal aliens; Homeland Security that considers “we the people” a greater threat than rife illegal boarder crossings?  Let’s discuss why the US prosecutes innocent supporters of the GOP (i.e. Gibson guitar), while allowing anything black, or Muslim, or alien, or Occupy movements go unprosecuted, (per stated administration policy).  How ‘bout that Medicare?  Social Security?  Where do those fit in your list to debate?

Barack Obama was right about “Hope & Change.”  Never has America hoped for change more than now.

God bless America.

Taxed in the USA: Cost of Government Rising Across the Country

It’s that time of the year again. Tax time. What better time to be reminded that taxes are still going up in America? Sad to say, there is a trend of state and local tax hikes, from Rhode Island to California, from Kentucky to Washington state. The trend is so strong, in fact, that we might almost call it a silent epidemic.

Let’s take a tour around the country and see for ourselves. We begin in California where the Sacramento Bee recently relayed the following lament about tax evasion:

As Californians put the finishing touches on their income tax returns, tax collectors say the state’s $9.2 billion deficit would drop to zero if all taxpayers submitted what they owe. … In a new estimate, the Franchise Tax Board says that $10 billion in state income taxes go unpaid each year, often when workers receive payments under the table, businesses skirt reporting requirements or people take deductions for which they do not qualify. The state Board of Equalization says an additional $2.3 billion in sales and use taxes go unpaid.

 We should always pay the taxes we owe, and I acknowledge that tax evasion distorts competition between compliant and non-compliant businesses. However, at some point our politicians might want to stop vilifying those who pay less than they owe and consider the rational reasons behind a lot of the tax evasion.

But high taxes don’t just inspire tax evasion – they also lead to tax competition. High-tax jurisdictions lose jobs and investments to low-tax jurisdictions. Oregon has already felt the squeeze from tax competition,as it is losing residents and jobs to Washington state. However, as reported by the Portland-based Oregonian, this has not deterred big-government advocates in the Beaver State from campaigning for higher taxes:

 A union-backed group is deciding whether to move forward on proposed ballot measures that would raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy — and that would certainly re-ignite the bitter tax wars that split the state two years ago. The group, Our Oregon, this week received ballot titles on five tax measures that in many respects resemble the controversial tax package that Oregonians approved in January 2010 after an expensive campaign that gained national attention. Like the latest proposals, the earlier measures also raised taxes on wealthier individuals and on corporations.

 Oregon already has some of the most punitive taxes in the country. The Tax Foundation reports that the marginal income tax rate for a couple in Oregon is 9 percent from $15,500 in annual income. At $250,000 it rises to 10.8 percent and at $500,000 to 11 percent flat.

Not one of Oregon’s neighbors punishes its most productive citizens to that level. Predictably, the CNBC State Business Climate Study for 2011 reports that in overall state economic performance Oregon places 48th of all states.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Oregon lost 1.5 times as many private sector jobs as Washington state, its neighbor to the north. Washington has no state income tax.

Next stop on our Taxed-in-the-USA tour is New England. From NBC Connecticut:

Downloading music, movies, e-books and Apps could soon cost Connecticut residents more as lawmakers consider a tax on digital downloads. The bill, proposed by the General Assembly’s Finance, Review and Bonding Committee, would have consumers pay the 6.35% sales tax on any electronic transfer. Supporters say the bill would level the playing field for brick-and-mortar retailers in the state who are already required to charge Connecticut sales tax to consumers who purchase these products in their stores.

The Tax Foundation’s latest business tax climate study places Connecticut 40th among the 50 states, with property taxes ranking worst in the country. Tax Freedom Day is May 2, latest in the nation. In the 2009 American Community Survey Connecticut ranked in the top third for population loss.  

Some of the U-Hauls leaving Connecticut are headed for Rhode Island. This is a bit surprising, given the fact that The Ocean State’s tax burden ranks just a couple of spots below The Constitution State. However, while the business tax climate is even worse in Rhode Island than in Connecticut, property taxes are marginally less oppressive.  

If you have spent the winter in Fairbanks, Alaska, spending the next winter in Anchorage may not be much better, but it is better…

It remains to be seen, though, how long Rhode Island can keep its edge over Connecticut. That edge is as tiny as the state, and Governor Chafee is pursuing his own package of higher taxes.

In Wyoming there is a campaign under way to raise both the state and county sales taxes. In 2010 yours truly was instrumental in successfully educating the public on the detriments of a proposed ten-cent gasoline tax increase. As a direct consequence of the death of that proposal, state and local legislators are now hard at work to jack up the sales tax. According to economic model simulations by the Wyoming Liberty Group, the tax hikes would cost 6,000 private sector jobs per year.

Over now to Austin, Texas and a recent report from the KXAN news station:

One of the issues City Council could decide Thursday is whether or not to ban plastic bags in the city. …  If this ordinance passes it would mean starting in January 2013, shoppers will be charged 10 cents per bag or $1 per transaction if they need a bag from the store. That would last a year to allow for a smooth transition to a complete ban, one that activists say needs to happen.

More than likely, the city is going to get so addicted to the revenue from this tax that they will extend the “smooth transition” phase indefinitely.

Now on to Washington, DC where, according to the Washington Examiner, the city wants more money from the city’s food trucks:

The D.C. Council’s Committee on Finance and Revenue unanimously passed a bill Thursday that will force food trucks to charge the same 10 percent sales taxes paid by brick-and-mortar restaurants. The measure is expected to pass the full council and will take effect Oct. 1. … Food truck vendors currently pay a flat $1,500 annual fee ($375 per quarter) — the same fee that street vendors near tourist spots have been paying for more than a decade. But many restaurants owners argue this is no longer a fair deal, due to the surge in street food popularity. … As the bill stands, each licensed food truck operator who collects more than $375 in sales taxes on a quarterly basis will continue paying that sales tax to the city.

If the District of Columbia were just out to level the playing field they would adjust the taxes downward for brick-and-mortar food vendors. This is a new revenue source to them.

Across the border from DC is Maryland, where Governor O’Malley is trying to draw even more blood from his state’s taxpayers. It does not seem to be working very well, though:

One of every five Marylanders would pay an average $274 in extra taxes each year under Gov. Martin O’Malley’s income tax plan, higher than the governor had estimated, according to a new report from state budget analysts. In Montgomery County, where roughly 32 percent of taxpayers would be hit by higher levies, the average annual tax increase would reach $334 for 123,537 taxpayers, the state’s independent Department of Legislative Services reported.

The tax hikes won’t generate as much revenue for the state as he was trying to claim: only $130 million, not $182 million as the governor suggested.

Maryland is an excellent example of what drives government’s insatiable thirst for more tax revenues. In September 2007 the state government had 106,800 employees; in September 2011 its payroll had expanded to 112,500, with the bulk of the increase taking place since 2008 – i.e., during the recession. In the meantime, Maryland has lost 102,400 tax-paying private-sector jobs.

The state government in Maryland has increased its spending by 6.2 percent per year since 2005. In the past three years alone, when both the economy of Maryland and of the country as a whole has been in a recession, the state government in Annapolis has grown its spending by a total of 14.4 percent.

The the tax-hike stampede continues to, e.g., Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Washington state and West Virginia.

Of course, U.S. Congress does not want to be left behind when their statist buddies around the country throw tax-hike parties. They have managed to come up with a way to tax businesses for not doing the impossible:

When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law. But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist. … Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year. “It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.

This brilliant move by Congress has opened a whole new can of tax worms. We can now look forward to endless tax policy innovations. Some ideas for Congress to consider:

  • A tax on pedestrians who fail to use all three legs while walking;
  • A fine for the blind who fail to pass the test for a driver’s license;
  • A tax on McDonald’s for serving food in their restaurants;

 This could of course also work the other way, in the form of impossible-to-do tax credits:

  •  A $10,000 tax credit to each Member of Congress who can prove an IQ above 85.

We better stop our Taxed-in-the-USA tour here. But taxes won’t stop going up, at least not yet. To put an end to higher taxes we need to fundamentally change the role government plays in our lives. We need to refocus it on its essential functions: protection of life, liberty and property. Then, and only then, will there be no more tax hikes.

The Swedish Disaster – America’s Future?

If Obama gets re-elected, and if the Democrats gain any more power in Congress than they already have, it is almost certain that America will quickly turn into a full-fledged European welfare state.

Obama’s America is not the America you grew up in. It is not the America you want your children to grow up in.

I know, because I actually grew up in Obama’s America. It’s called Sweden.

For decades, the American left has touted Sweden as a role model for America: its income security system, its universal, tax-paid child care, and of course its government-run, single-payer health care system. From college professors to politicians, liberals have done everything in their power to convince America that they should entrust their and their children’s future to a Swedish-style social democratic welfare state.

God help America if they succeed.

Before I share the true story about Sweden, let me explain how close we are to fulfilling this wet Swedish dream of the left. The federal government only needs to add three more features to the already large American welfare state: single-payer health care, universal child care and general income security.

As I explained in my column last week, the road to a single-payer system is already paved. Proposals for federal, universal child care have been floating around in liberal circles for many years. Thankfully the idea has not yet gotten serious traction here in America, but don’t hold your breath on that. As recently as in 2008 Hillary Clinton made it one of her major issues.

The second biggest trophy for welfare statists, after single-payer health care, is a general income security system. It means, plain and simple, that government taxes us to hand out income replacement checks when we are home from work for a variety of reasons, such as caring for a sick child.

Sweden’s general income security programs are very elaborate. Predictably, they have also eroded workforce participation and raised government dependency to alarming levels.

In 2009 Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) introduced a bill to create a general income security program. It was called the FIRST Act, “Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions”, and gained two dozen sponsors. Thankfully, it never made it out of committee.

That does not mean it won’t come back. Keep in mind how relentless the liberals were in getting a government-expanding health reform done. Behold Obamacare. The idea of a general income security program has strong support by the influential Center for American Progress, whose senior economist Heather Boushey has testified before Congress in ardent support of the act.

One of the most serious problems with the welfare state is that it is socially and economically deceitful. It comes front-loaded with benefits – you get your entitlements from day one – but the true cost does not appear until much later. And when the cost comes, it hits others than those who cashed in on the benefits.

Let me use my own background to illustrate. My grandparents were born in the 1910s into a country that had no welfare state whatsoever. They got married and had children in the late ‘30s and ‘40s, still without a welfare state to take care of them. They lived by the old-fashioned work ethics that has underpinned Western Civilization for centuries: work hard, be virtuous and charitable, and take care of your family. They were poor, but they were still able to feed, clothe, house and educate their children. And they were proud of it.

My mother once said of her upbringing: “We never had time to complain about how poor we were. We were too busy doing our homework.”

As my parents grew up during the ‘50s, the Swedish welfare state started growing. The socialists who ruled Sweden uninterruptedly for 44 years expanded government in all thinkable and unthinkable directions. There was universal child care, and all kids were supposed to be in it. There was socialized health care. Public housing was expanded to such a degree that only families with very high incomes could afford a house.

Private landlords were reduced to a curiosity.

Even when you rented from public housing you got a tax-paid subsidy check toward your lease. You got an annual child benefits check (as opposed to the American tax credit version).

And then of course there was general income security.

In Sweden, the general income security was set up to pay the paycheck for pregnant women, for women who had just had a baby, for women who wanted to stay home with their baby, for anyone who wanted to stay home and take care of a sick child or a relative in need of assistance.

In 20 years’ time, from 1960 to 1980, the size of government as share of GDP went from 18 percent to 40 percent. For my parents’ generation, it looked like Sweden had found The Ultimate Solution to all social and economic problems. They voted passionately to keep the welfare state in place, even when systemic problems began showing up in the early ‘80s.

To pay for its enormous spending, government needed tax revenues. Lots and lots of tax revenues. Local income taxes doubled from 1960 to 1980. The top bracket of the national income tax reached 80 percent and in some absurd cases even topped 100 percent! The value added tax (a complicated European replacement for the sales tax) climbed to 25 percent.

To pay for the general income security system the Swedish government raised the payroll tax year after year. It is now twice as high as the American payroll tax.

Inevitably, this max-tax policy started affecting the free part of the economy. Economic growth slowed to a crawl, private consumption virtually stagnated, and after the recession in the early ‘90s Sweden never recovered from its huge private-sector job loss. Today Sweden has as many private-sector jobs as the country had 20 years ago.

This stagnation in the private sector also shows itself in sharp increases in the actual tax burden. For every $100 a taxpayer paid in taxes in 1990, he paid $143 in 2000.

Again, under the world’s highest taxes the private sector has stagnated. Tax revenues have stagnated as well – but demand for services and entitlements from the welfare state have skyrocketed. This is the work of a combination of reckless generosity from the welfare state and rising poverty due to a poorly performing economy.

In response, Sweden’s lawmakers have instituted perpetual austerity programs. They cut services, reduce entitlements and try to change eligibility rules to lock more and more people out of the welfare state. But they don’t cut taxes to compensate; if they did, they would admit that the welfare state is no longer working.

The price for this perpetual austerity policy is high. Health care services have been cut to bare bones, with, literally, deadly consequences. Patients die of curable conditions at rates that would cause a revolution in America.

When my grandfather got heart problems in the 1990s, after a long life of hard work and putting his faith in the welfare state to be there for him when he needed it, he was admitted to a government-run hospital, courtesy of the Swedish single-payer system. His experience was so terrible that he begged my grandmother: “If I get ill again, please do not send for an ambulance. I’d rather die at home than go back there.”

He passed away peacefully at home. My grandmother, on the other hand, ended up in the harsh, budget-starved hands of a government-paid elderly “care” home. After a traumatic period of neglect, malnourishment and carelessness she died alone, humiliated and abandoned by a welfare state she had put her faith and money into all her life.

Her experience is shared by vast numbers of Sweden’s elderly today. Despite the world’s highest taxes the Swedish welfare state still cannot care for the most vulnerable. Elderly care homes are cutting costs to the point where they impose severe rationing of food, coffee and personal hygiene for their residents/patients.

The rest of the welfare state is in equally bad shape. The general income security system orders cancer patients back to work in the name of cost cutting. What was once created as a compassionate government institution to allow people to get well without the pressure of having to rush back to work, is now a bureaucracy with one single goal: to cut its costs and terminate entitlement payments to individuals as quickly as possible.

All this is systemic and inherent to the welfare state. It brings this destructive ausiterity upon itself. Its confiscatory taxes crush the private sector. Adding insult to injury, the welfare state itself de-incentivizes work: when government promises people all sorts of perks to people, one big reason to work hard is gone.

My parents grew up to enjoy all the perks the welfare state provided for them; my generation, born in the ‘60s, pays the price in the form of low income, perpetually high unemployment, low and stagnant standard of living and a grim outlook on the future.

I left Sweden in the late ‘90s. I have never looked back. The last thing I want is for America to become another Sweden.

There is still time for America to turn the tide on the welfare state. But not much. Only a strongly conservative Congress and a freedom-minded president can safeguard us against being transformed into another Sweden.

Liberals Think The Answer To Every Situation Is Higher Taxes

 How many times must liberals be shown that what they believe and try to force people to practice, via tax codes, is simply incorrect? Two recent occurrences got me thinking about this subject: (1) Obama’s appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast and his call for higher taxes, and (2) Obama’s call, in his State of the Union address (SOTU), the name of fairness, for corporations to pay more taxes.

President Barack Hussein Obama appeared on Thursday, February 2, 2012, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC. Obama did not actually say that Jesus would back higher taxes. But he did say, “I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” Does “give up some of the tax breaks” equate to increasing taxes? If the answer is “yes” (as this article contends) then an examine of tax increases and the resulting consequences is certainly in order.

In 2003, in “The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates,” Dr. Daniel Mitchell offered some historical incite into tax rates and revenue generation in the US. He says that when tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. But when higher tax rates are invoked, economic performance suffers and stagnant tax revenues occur. When lower tax rates are present, lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden, a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians (such as Obama) to support lower tax rates.

In the face of this historical evidence, why do liberals still call for higher taxes?

President Obama said, in his SOTU (at the 3:37 mark), “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” At the 11:48 mark, he said, “No American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax.”  [emphasis mine]  Before all of you liberals start screaming that I am “cherry picking,” or that I took his remarks “out of context,” let me continue. Obama wants to, through the tax code, force businesses to take actions that will reduce profits. If cheaper labor can be found overseas, corporate profits will increase. So he calls for a basic minimum tax to support those whose jobs were outsourced. Increased taxes reduce corporate profit.

The debate over the impact of tax increases currently focuses upon small businesses. Most small businesses use the individual, rather than corporate, tax process. If they make earnings of more than $200,000 or $250,000 a year, under the Obama proposal, their top marginal tax rate would go up. Liberals are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses, including small businesses, the primary job creators in the country. Analysis by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that businesses that employ 20 to 250 people would be most affected.

And who can ever forget Obama’s call, in 2008, for raising capital gains tax? Obama acknowledged that raising the capital gains tax rate could reduce revenues, but he remained interested in raising the rate “for purposes of fairness.”

So liberals’ answer to every situation is to raise taxes. They call for increases in the name of fairness. They have no concern for the consequences of tax increases, particularly on jobs. They have no concern for business profits. They have no concern whatsoever for history. All they believe is that it is “fair” for the rich to pay increased taxes. They never seem to bother with history, to examine the consequences of their actions. Does the phrase, “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see” come to mind?