THE US REPORT

Over and over Democratic speeches and media analyses have delivered a whopping lie to the American people—the Bush tax cuts benefited the rich. While it’s hard to pin Democrats down over what exactly constitutes ‘rich,’ I know the Bush tax cuts didn’t benefit my non-rich household. We paid more. We already were paying more after President Clinton’s tax increases (he lied too, campaigning on a premise of no tax increases).

If Sen. Barack Obama wins the White House and the ‘Axis of Taxes’ Democratic Party leaders gain a super-majority in Congress, we will once again see the federal hand dig deep into our two-income household pockets. Remember you read this here. No one else is going to tell you the truth. Here are facts to chew on:

• A largely unreported story by the Wall Street Journal noted: “[t]he latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history…[t]he top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%.” 
• 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.”

What’s even more important is noting that higher incomes are not necessarily repeated year for year. A small business owner knows there are lean times and good times. A salesperson working on commission knows his earnings will peak and dip. The rich paid less after the tax cuts because they earned less income.

So when people hear Obama talk about 4 more years of Bush, the senator might just admit he wants to do exactly what Bush did. Make special note of the top 10 percent in income, earning more than $108,904. That’s a lot of middle class families with combined incomes. And if Obama wins, get ready to fork over more to the lowest quintile, the one already receiving more than 8 times the tax benefits of those in the top quintile.

It’s my opinion Sen. John McCain is probably the only politician in the land that will stand up to the Axis of Taxes in Congress. And why media hides that fact from you, why media will not report the earmarks Obama asked for his first term in Congress (and Biden won’t even acknowledge his), well, that is a question I’d really like to ask media. Wouldn’t you? And by the way, McCain’s earmarks = zero. We cannot continue to grow the federal government at the expense of the economy. Unless you’re at the very bottom of the income range, you will pay dearly if we do.

Do you really want all the wealth in the coffers of the federal government? We've had this argument before, when John Kerry ran for president. Follow the links in 'References' below to see just how hoodwinked 'middleclass' Americans are.

Some transparency might be helpful. The Tax Foundation study also reported, “While tax distributions are widely available, no federal agency currently produces a comprehensive distributional analysis of spending.”