Will Taxing the Wealthy Bring Back Prosperity?

"If wealthy individuals are willing to simply go back to the rates that existed back in the 1990s," President Obama recently said, "then we can solve this problem... "It does not take a lot.”

So is that all it will take to bring our Country back to prosperity?  Is it really that easy?  Well, yes and no.  President Obama has to know that simply going back to the rates as they were in the 1990’s will not create prosperity.  “Clinton signed his tax hike into law in September 1993, the same year he took office. It included an increase of the top marginal tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent; repeal of the cap on the 2.9 percent Medicare tax, applying it to every dollar of income instead of capping it to levels of income like the Social Security tax; a 4.3 cent increase in the gas tax; an increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits; and a hike of the corporate income tax rate from 34 percent to 35 percent, among other tax increases.” (Source: US. Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, “Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills,” September 2006)

So did the Economy boom after the Clinton tax increases as Obama suggests?  No, but we know what Clinton and other Presidents did to created prosperity.  Clinton’s economic boom didn’t happen until 1997 after welfare reform, and especially after the capital gains tax rate reduction.  As Democratic President John Kennedy said, and the Democrats used to know: “An Economy Hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits”.

President Obama's statement when he was a candidate in 2008 discussing the capital gains tax rate shows us why he will never look back to find the real causes of the Clinton boom.  After Candidate Obama was told in recent decades a reduction in capital gains tax rate caused an increase in capital gains tax revenue, Obama was asked why those rates should be raised.  He responded by saying he "would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." 

 

Raising taxes is not fair, nor will it bring back Prosperity.  We have never taxed our way to prosperity.  If President Obama truly wants to bring back prosperity he should reign in spending, cut regulations and lower taxes to create economic growth, more jobs and more tax revenues.  Presidents from both parties have done this in the past and it worked every time it was tried.  If President Obama truly wants to bring back Prosperity he would try it again!

Liking Spielberg's New Lincoln Movie Anyway

I have to admit I enjoyed the new Lincoln film, and had a different view than Jo Ann Skousen, writing "Lincoln: A cautionary tale that tries to be important" for Human Events blog.  She wrote in part:

"In case you haven’t noticed this yourself, I will spell it out: the tactics for pushing the thirteenth amendment as shown in Spielberg’s Lincoln are almost identical to the tactics used by Obama to pass his healthcare bill.  Each was sponsoring a highly controversial bill with far-reaching consequences; each had a Congress divided along party lines; each used high pressure arm-twisting, political patronage, and outright lies to accomplish his goals; and each met vociferous opposition after the bill was passed. Why?  Because they both chose expediency over integrity.  Persuasion and education were needed, not force and deception. When expediency rules, tyranny reigns."

While watching the film I did notice the similarities to the passage of ObamaCare, and I did feel, knowing the liberal leanings of Spielberg and Hollywood that it was an attempt to parallel Obama's tactics to Lincoln's in order to raise Obama up, but upon further thought, I felt the comparison made Obama seem even smaller.  Comparing the passage of the thirteenth amendment to the passage of ObamaCare is like comparing night to day.  The techniques may have been similar, but where Lincoln employed his tactics to free people, Obama employed his tactics to control people.

Two Opposing Views of the Election

Two opposing views from Ann Coulter and John Hawkins on why Republican’s lost the election.  Ann Coulter, writing “Romney was not the problem” on Human Events seems to believe incumbency, too bold a contrast with Obama, and a long hard primary were the reasons Romney lost.  John Hawkins writing “4 Reasons The GOP Would Be Foolish To Dump Social Issues” on Townhall, claims the GOP should not abandon social issues.   

Hawkins makes good points, his best point being how will the GOP replace all the votes lost from abandoning Social issues? 

I have to agree with Hawkins, because it will be hard to replace the quantity of Christian votes lost by Republicans when and if they abandon social issues.  Liberal social policies and Conservative fiscal policies do not seem to have caught on for Libertarians, who have had 40 years to make that case.   

Ann Coulter seems to suggest that Ronald Reagan ran his 1980 campaign as a moderate, whose main themes included not cutting taxes too much.  I remember the 1980 campaign much differently.  I recall the campaign as one where Reagan presented a contrasting vision of a stronger, freer America who was going to unleash the American people to pursue their dreams.  I am pretty sure if Reagan’s major campaign theme was “not to cut taxes too much” as Ann seems to imply by one of Reagan’s debate responses, he would have lost to the “second-worst president in U.S. history” just like Mitt Romney lost to the “the worst President in U.S. history”, as Ann Coulter describes Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama respectively.

John Hawkins seems to have the correct view in my opinion.  Read both and see for yourself.

Do we need another Bush?

A Politico article I was reading called "A new Bush rises" got me thinking. 

  

Although I like and admire the Bush family, I feel we have had enough of them on the National political scene for a while.  I am sure we can find other good people to run for office, and I hope Jeb Bush decides not to run in 2016.  Besides, George H.W. raised taxes, and George W. overspent.  I think we have an opportunity now to find some new leaders who can do an even better job.

How can we be trusted to vote?

I want to see us get back to our founding principles instead of continuing down this road where Government makes more and more decisions that individuals should be making for themselves, from the cars we drive to the size soda we can drink, to the light bulbs we can use.  Soon, Governments will be like they were in the past (and like they still are in many Countries around the world today) all powerful, where our rights are given and taken away at the will of the governing elites.  How can we be trusted to vote for our leaders when our “rulers” cannot even let us decide what size soda we can drink?

Getting the United States out of this mess

This blog is dedicated to....

People interested in helping the United States get out of the mess we are in. 

People who:

1)       Love immigrants, but not illegal immigration

2)      Know that punishing the rich will not help the poor and middle class

3)      Know there are as many out of touch, power hungry people in Government as there are in business

4)      Know why our founders wanted limits on their own powers

5)      Don’t think a “balanced approach” equals Real Tax increases, “balanced” by spending increases that are increased less than originally planned

6)      Love the environment, but hate the idea of any form of “Cap & Trade”

7)      Seek to protect against unhealthy and unsafe working and living conditions, but also seek to protect small businesses and individuals by keeping only necessary regulations