Obama can't justify limiting deductions for groups that get no return on federal dollars already
Monday, March 9, 2009 at 4:20PM 
The document that lives in infamy.As though the business sector needed another reason to wring hands all ‘round, President Barack Obama’s tax assault on the “rich” is just another nail in the coffin for an already overtaxed upper middle class. Obama not only has the wrong idea on who is really "rich," he's clueless at the raw deal the real taxpayers are already getting.
As I pointed out in a recent column, some income groups the president defines as rich already do more than their share when it comes to paying the federal money mongers. I wrote: “Once your adjusted gross income reaches $100,000, your taxes rise substantially. The income group ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 paid 20.4 percent of total taxes, the largest percentage of any group. Close on this group’s heels is the $200,000 to $500,000 group. They paid 17.3 percent of total taxes. These are the two groups who paid the most in total, though earners making more than $1,000,000 have a higher tax rate liability.” Now I do realize this is hard for Obama to understand. After all, it seems to be a Democratic tradition to avoid paying taxes.
None other than former Clintonite, ABC pundit George Stephanopoulos, says charitable contributions would also be limited for the “rich.” He quotes White House pundit warrior Robert Gibbs who attempts to justify the lost deductions: "A middle-class family donates $1 to charity, they get 15 cents off their income tax. Bill Gates donates $1 to charity, he takes 35 cents off his income tax.”
No definition, as usual, on what the prez and company mean by “middle class.” The term is rarely used by economists.
Calling again on an organization I’ve praised on a level only my children recognize, I point you to The Tax Foundation. Using that expert nonpartisan source, I explained tax recipients vs. taxpayers: “Who received the lion’s share of all tax benefits, via entitlements? According to The Tax Foundation: ‘Using a microdata model we estimate the distribution of federal, state and local taxes and spending between 1991 and 2004. We find households in the lowest quintile of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while households in the middle quintile received $1.30, and households in the top quintile received $0.41. Overall, tax payments exceeded government spending received for the top two quintiles of income, resulting in a net fiscal transfer of between $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion between quintiles.’ Note this was accomplished by none other than Democratic president Bill Clinton and Republican president George W. Bush.
Now Obama is supposed to be a constitutional expert. Within the document that establishes the foundation for our laws, there is the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It seems to me now is the time. Someone needs to inform our president that those who work hard enough to earn more than $200,000 in a year are not guaranteed they will see that kind of success in subsequent years. For another, those of us hell bent on not relying on the federal government—those of us bound and determined to not be construed as “vulnerable”—should not be penalized for what we have gained. We already receive a pauper’s return on the money we hand over to the treasury each year. The government has done a whale of a job redistributing income already.
Congress, if the members have any sense of ethics, will not listen to the president on this latest idea to further gouge an income group that is already gouged. Congress is supposed to represent all of us, not just the president. There is an excellent alternative for taxes—the Fair Tax. Obama should have his people read about it. Better yet, have them talk to the folks at The Tax Foundation. They actually know what they're talking about when it comes to taxes and they won't lie about it.
And if there’s a conservative anywhere in Washington—I do not care a whit whether you're a Dem or GOPer, do your job. Tell your spendthrift colleagues to cut spending. Our government has overspent for years, and it didn’t start with Bush ’43. Government tells us to use less gas, to eat less food, to use less of everything. Well government needs to do the same thing. Walk the walk if you are going to talk the talk.
And if you’re a voter and your representative doesn’t come on board with cost-cutting, if our current president cannot bring himself to fulfill that line-by-line budget promise he made as he serenaded you during the campaign, I suggest you change your vote come election time. Because right now the change we are getting is definitely not what we need.
We have built a government we cannot sustain and two branches of government want to expand it even more. And it doesn’t take an Ivy League education for a person to understand that.
I’m betting a bunch of PTA moms could do a better job running our government than elected officials have done for quite some time. We sure as hell do a better job of paying our taxes than a number of officials in our current Congress and administration.
Reader Comments (2)
Just like Democrats raising taxes because they themselves don't pay them, they have no problem taking away charitable tax deductions because they themselves DON'T MAKE CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONS.
I'd say that's likely based on reports published on occasion by media. What infuriates me is that the feds aren't the only ones hitting people up--consider all the other taxes we pay. And the money is not being spent wisely. There is no oversight--our current banking plight confirms that. We hear the Bush bashers and our former president deserves some criticism.
But those clowns in Congress deserve a lot of criticism as well--look what the Democrats allowed Freddie and Fannie to become over the last two years. That's the narrative that isn't being shared by establishment media.
And much of conservative media is like bland toast these days. IMO.
Thanks for commenting--best, Kay