The Liberal Solution to Everything: Hike Taxes

The liberal panacea for America’s ills is to raise taxes on job creators, small businesses, and family farmers. Turn on the news or read a newspaper, and liberals are out in full force decrying conservative “intransigence” for refusing to accept massive tax hikes on job creators so they can offset yet another reckless spending binge.

Want a new bridge? Tax job creators. Want to hire more teachers? Tax small business owners. Want more police and firefighters? Tax family farmers. Want a tax cut? Tax someone else.

None of this is about reducing our debt and deficits, as they claim; it’s about continuing the status quo of increased spending while pretending that the job creators have the money to pay for everything we could possibly want. How many times do conservatives need to hammer the point that simply taxing those making more than $1 million won’t cover even one of President Obama’s deficits? The idea that we can just take more money from them and pay for everything is ludicrous. The math does not work.

According to press reports (CQ, sub. req’d), “Democrats say theirs is a winning political argument.” Governing based on political strategy is not a winning strategy, especially if you are seeking good policy. And their “political” approach to governing is selective; they have not actually changed direction and supported the repeal of Obamacare.

But this idea of governing based on political strategy is exactly what formed President Obama’s September jobs plan. Even though nearly every single item in that plan had already been tried by this administration (and judging by the 9.1% unemployment, they clearly failed), the President still travels the country trying to drum up support. And since conservatives have successfully elevated the need to rein in spending, the President found a way to offset his spending (not exactly the same thing).

That’s right, tax hikes. His entire $447 billion jobs plan would have been paid for through new taxes on job creators. Why? Because President Obama thinks that only government creates jobs. When the full jobs package failed, the President conceded it could be broken up and voted on separately, each with its own paid-for:

  • $35 billion – funding teacher and first responder jobs for one year, paid for by taxing job creators
  • $60 billion – infrastructure spending, paid for by taxing job creators

While the super committee was trying to come up with solutions to lower our debt, liberals actually came up with a plan that got to the minimum $1.2 trillion reduction entirely through tax hikes! Now they also had some “spending cuts” on top of that, but as admitted by John Kerry, last week, those were phantom cuts.

Now, the President is pushing hard to extend and expand the payroll tax cut from this year. Liberals are trying to frame the debate to make it appear as though conservatives want to raise taxes. White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett even said:

“There are no reasons why we should see taxes go up if Republicans are willing to act. They’re the ones that don’t want to raise taxes, so why would they allow — come Jan. 1 — for taxes to go up on these hardworking Americans?”

Now read that again. It’s all political spin, and it belies that fact that the administration is seeking to pay for this by taxing job creators. Raise taxes on one group. Lower them on another. This is literally income redistribution. They are taking money from one group and giving it to another. How are Americans not up in arms about this?

The bottom line is this: our government has grown too large.

It has taken over various sectors of our economy (energy, financial, healthcare). Massively bloated bureaucracy continue to grow year after year. The only solution that liberals offer is to tax job creators more. When the math doesn’t work, will liberals then turn to the middle class to bolster government coffers?

A history lesson is important, too. When Ronald Reagan was President, he “compromised” with liberals and agreed to higher taxes in exchange for spending cuts. Guess what happened? The tax hikes went into effect immediately and spending was never cut; in fact, it increased. The same thing happened to George H.W. Bush in the early 90s, who then got attacked for breaking a campaign promise!

But too many in Washington refuse to accept this reality. Instead, they are claiming that conservatives are being ridiculous for not “compromising” on a “balanced” approach. Compromise, to liberals, means doing things their way. And balanced, to liberals, means massive tax hikes.

Are we really going to fall for this again?

Finally, some context: the federal government now spends roughly $3.5 trillion a year, but thanks to a terrible economy, it only collects $2.2 trillion in revenues.  They need to increase revenues by $1.3 trillion just to cover one year’s deficit. Democrats on the so-called super committee were suggesting about $1.3 trillion in taxes over TEN years.  Their math doesn’t work!

Please Share Your Thoughts