by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, TAXES
The NY Times is reporting the following tidbits about Obama’s campaign :
1) President Obama has spent more campaign cash more quickly than any incumbent in recent history
2) The price tag: about $400 million from the beginning of last year to June 30 this year, according to a New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission records, including $86 million on advertising.
3) With less than a month to go before the national party conventions begin, the president’s once commanding cash advantage has evaporated, leaving Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee with about $25 million more cash on hand than the Democrats as of the beginning of July
Let’s couple these points with a recent report from the Hill:
The president spent $58.1 million in June despite bringing in just $45.9 million, meaning his reelection effort ran a deficit of more than $12 million dollars for the month. And the president spent an whopping $32.2 million in television ads, along with $4.5 million in online ads, over the 30-day period. The Romney campaign, by contrast, spent $10.4 million over that period on advertisements.
The total national debt is $15.8 trillion, increasing nearly 50% from the $10.6 trillion in debt when Obama took office. Additionally, the debt held by the public is up to $11 trillion from $6.3 trillion when Obama began his presidency, which is a 75% increase. Though it is commonly cited that Obama accumulated more public debt than all the other prior presidents combined, he falls $1.7 trillion short right now — though that is not too far off.
Another interesting statistic is that calculating the federal spending debt as a percentage of the GDP yields that Obama is higher than the last five presidents. The Office of Management and Budget statistics show that the debt percentage increases were: Reagan, up 14.9%; Bush 41, up 7.1%; Clinton, down 13.4%; George W. Bush 43, up 5.6%; and Obama, up 21.9%. Thus, Obama’s spending debt increases exceeded that of the last five presidents.
So right now, Obama’s campaign spending is the highest in recent history, and his campaign posted deficit spending last month. We know that his campaign is sending out multiple donation pleas daily to his supporters, just as Obama is talking about raising the tax margins in order to generate more government revenue. The most ironic part is that Obama is more than happy to attend and accept $35,000+ a-plate fundraising dinners, but then at the same time excoriates “millionaires and billionaires” and the “top 2%” for the sake of election class warfare rhetoric.
I guess these expensive campaign fundraisers is Obama’s interpretation of making sure the wealthy “pay their fair share” (to him).
UPDATE 8/6: The Washington Times is reporting Obama is hitting up Hollywood for cash again. Aren’t they the top 2%?
UPDATE x2: This on top of reports that Romney and the GOP raised $100 million in July, while Obama raised only $75 million
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
After being caught by surprise on Tuesday at a press conference, Jay Carney admitted he did not know that Ohio military base — to which President Obama would be flying and landing — on August 1, would be closed due to defense cuts.
So how does the Obama crowd spin cover this gaffe? Well, they whip out their “blame the GOP” and “blame the wealthy” playbooks, of course! (AKA “paying their fair share”)
“What is holding us up right now is the Republican refusal to have the top two percent [of earners] pay their fair share,” Zients said in response to a question from Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.).”
At least one lawmaker rightfully called out Jeffrey Zients, director of OMB who made the remark. Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio responded in kind,
“We’re not usually in the habit of hearing such partisan comments in what is really a bipartisan committee,” Turner said. “We don’t usually hear people throw around ‘Republican’ and ‘Democrat,’ but you have, very, very well. I want to commend you on your broken record of partisanship.”
“Zients’ comments are pretty brazen in light of the $800 billion in wasted taxpayer dollars that was supposed to (but didn’t) stimulate the economy and which were, in effect, paid for by $800 billion in defense cuts,” said Gary Schmitt, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “And is he really suggesting the country’s national security be put at risk because the administration want to raise taxes (on more than the top 2 percent) in order to save PBS, Amtrak, and the Education Department?”
The possible military cuts (sequestration) would cut troops at several levels, affect medical benefits, military housing, and more. This would happen if $1.2 trillion in budget cuts are not found. As part of the “automatic trigger” put in place from the failed Super Committee last year, President Obama endorsed and signed the sequester plan.
But instead of offering alternative solutions to avoid this from happening on January 2nd, unlike the Republicans and the Ryan Plan, Obama and the Democrats have not offered another option. Resorting to the same old tired class warfare rhetoric doesn’t solve any real problems; it only makes the White House look more desperate as the campaign season limps along.
by | ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
Class warfare is a key component of Obama’s policies and re-election rhetoric. The components of such a tactic are easily recognized: 1) the political opponent will hurt those among us who are most vulnerable (elderly, poor, etc); 2) the political opponent does not care about the “middle class”; 3) the political opponent wants to benefit those most advantaged (the rich/elite). The third point of this strategy is the one that is most popular with Obama, as he continuously and intentionally rails against “millionaires and billionaires” in order to separate that particular population from mainstream America.
Besides the obvious baseness of such an argument coming from the President of the United States, it is critically important to note that he doesn’t actually ever define a millionaire or billionaire. The amount of true millionaires and billionaires are so few in number, that taxing them more – as Obama plans to do – will not help with any significant deficit reduction. His assertion is pure dishonest political speech because you cannot possibly create enough revenue from the millionaire/billionaire population even if you were to tax them at 100%. Our fiscal situation is so dire in this country that an increased tax on this group in any large or small amount solves nothing.
Unfortunately, none of this matters to Obama. He intentionally throws the labels around so that they conveniently fit whatever emotive language will coerce voters and supporters to rally behind his outrageous fiscal policies. It is classical class-warfare: antagonizing lower socio-economic groups against the “rich”.
Obama has stated his intent to raise the marginal rates on the top income earners, (aka the “rich”, “wealthy”, or “top 2%”). Yet according to the IRS, the threshold for this bracket is actually 200K for individual taxpayers or 250K for married couples. These incomes are certainly no where near millionaire or billionaire amounts.
Since there is a clear federal definition for a group of taxpayers whom Obama is targeting for tax increases, Obama really has no right to say millionaires and billionaires as a collective for the highest income earners. But he uses the generic terms anyway. By making it sound like one kind of people, it pits the average/middle-class against “the other guy”. And if he actually tried to define that other guy instead of resorting to generic terms, it would include a lot of people who would be upset to be included.
History shows us that higher tax rates results in less – not more – tax collections. Democrats like to wax poetic about the high rates of 70% and even 91%. What they fail to comprehend or deliberately don’t explain is that at those times, there were an enormous amount of tax shelters such as real estate, so that people could legally lower that taxable income and would not have to actually pay the outrageous tax rates.
With the IRC reforms of 1986, Reagan reduced the tax rates to 28% in exchange for getting rid of the tax shelters. As a result, the amount of federal income collected was more at 28% and a clean tax code than at 91% and tax shelters, because at 28%, it really wasn’t worth the time, cost, and effort to hide money. If the tax rates are going to rise again – in addition to state and local tax hikes – the tax burden in this country will be staggering. People will do one of two things: 1) start finding ways not to pay it like they did when the rates were outrageous or 2) stop working and investing so much because it’s just going to get taken away from them. When that happens, it’s not good for the economy.
Blindly going after “millionaires and billionaires” (who earn $200,000 or more) is simply a tactic Obama uses to pit classes against one another for political gain. Imposing higher taxes on that segment of the population most able to invest in and aid our recovery is true economic ignorance. Why take additional money from those taxpayers who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully and give it to the government and politicians who have proven their ability to mismanage and squander income?
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
Our taxes built that.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Roads and bridges? Internet? Built by capital revenue provided by taxpayers and business owners, not the faceless “government”
Without the hard work and innovation by our citizens, wealth could not have been created. That wealth provides the thriving economy and tax revenue to pay for all the functions of government (necessary and unnecessary) — be it it infrastructure, education, or technology.
Obama seems to have forgotten that part…until he needs more taxes for his deficit spending and expansive government programs. Only a self-absorbed government bureaucrat could argue that their existence justifies everyone else’s existence.
Facts are stubborn things. Yes, we built that.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
From Investor’s Business Daily:
The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration.
and more:
In addition, while job growth has been very weak during the recovery, the total number of people who’ve dropped out of the labor force entirely has exploded, climbing 7.3 million since June 2009, and IBD analysis of BLS data show. Some of them aged into retirement, but most either signed up for disability, stayed in school, moved back in with parents, or just quit looking for a job.
But, don’t forget, Obama predicted 5.6% unemployment by this time with the stimulus
AEI Obama Stimulus
There’s not much else to say here….add your commentary below!
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Alan Krueger, Chairman Of the Council of Economic Advisors, soothed Americans on his White House blog post regarding the unemployment numbers released today.
As the Administration stresses every month, the monthly employment and unemployment figures can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available
Did you know that the White House said something similar the month before?
June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
And the month before?
May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
And so forth. Like a parrot.
March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the
context of other data that are becoming available.”
February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”
January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”
December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.”
June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
Parrots repeat the same thing over and over ad nauseum. But they can’t read. Maybe the White House figures that people won’t really read their blog too closely either. Isn’t the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY
Daniel Mitchell had a spot-on piece over at Cato, showcasing the punitive effects of raising income tax rates too high in England. The lower-than-expected revenue receipts have stymied certain politicians and economists — those who don’t understand or believe in the Laffer Curve.
The documented results of higher-tax policy will also be seen in the United States should the Bush tax cuts expire and government spending continue unrestrained. Below is the summary of England’s money debacle:
let’s now take a closer look at David Cameron’s tax increases. They’ve been in place for a while, so we can look at some real-world data. Allister Heath of City AM has the details.
Something very worrying is happening to the UK’s public finances. Income tax and capital gains tax receipts fell by 7.3 per cent in May compared with a year ago, according to official figures. Over the first two months of the fiscal year, they are down by 0.5 per cent. This is merely the confirmation of a hugely important but largely overlooked trend: income and capital gains tax (CGT) receipts were stagnant in 2011-12, edging up by just £414m to £151.7bn, from £151.3bn, a rise of under 0.3 per cent. By contrast, overall tax receipts rose 3.9 per cent.
Is this because the United Kingdom is cutting tax rates? Nope. As we mentioned in the introduction, Cameron is doing just the opposite.
…overall taxes on labour and capital have been hiked: the 50p tax was introduced from April 2010 (and will fall to a still high 45p in April 2013), those earning above £150,000 have lost their personal allowance, CGT has risen to 28 per cent, many workers have been dragged into higher tax thresholds, and so on. In theory, if one were to believe the traditional static model of tax, beloved of establishment economists, this should have meant higher receipts, not lower revenues.
So what’s the problem? Well, it seems that there’s thing called the Laffer Curve.
…there is a revenue-maximising rate of tax – and that if you set rates too high, you raise less because people work less, find ways of avoiding tax or quit the country. The world isn’t static, it is dynamic; people respond to tax rates, just as they respond to other prices. Laffer told a gathering at the Institute of Economic Affairs that this is definitely true in the UK today – and the struggling tax take revealed in the official numbers suggest that he is right. Tax rates and levels are so high as to be counterproductive: slashing capital gains tax would undoubtedly increase its yield, for example. Many self-employed workers are delaying incomes as much as possible until the new, lower top rate of tax kicks in.
Allister’s column also makes the critical point that not all taxes are created equal.
…higher VAT is also damaging growth, though it is still yielding more. Some taxes can still raise more – but try doing that with income tax, CGT or corporation tax and the result is now clearly counter-productive. These taxes are maxed out; they have been pushed beyond their ability to raise revenues.
Last but not least, he makes an essential point about the role of bad spending policy.
The problem is that spending is too high – central government current expenditure is up by 3.7 per cent year on year in April-May – not that taxes are too low. The result is that the April-May budget deficit reached £30.7bn, some £6.2bn higher than a year ago.
While imposing higher taxes on the “wealthy”, “millionaires and billionaires” or “top 2%” makes for good presidential election season rhetoric in the US, England has proven the folly of such policy. Additionally, government spending must be reigned in, not expanded with more “programs”.
Why take additional money from those taxpayers who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully and give it to the government and politicians who have proven their ability to mismanage and squander income?
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
Signaling a slow down in the global economy is affecting U.S. manufacturers, June numbers showed production was down.
The trade group of purchasing managers said its index of manufacturing activity fell to 49.7. That’s down from 53.5 in May. And it’s the lowest reading since July 2009, a month after the Great Recession officially ended. Readings below 50 indicate contraction.
Though growth rates are already sluggish — 1.9% in January-March — the latest manufacturing numbers indicate growth is closer now to a mere annual rate of 1.5%.
Manufacturing Downturn — WSJ July2, 2012
This is not good economic news, which could worsen depending on the unemployment figures due out this week.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM
The sage Don Boudreaux share the following quote this morning on his website, Cafe Hayek:
“[S]ince profits and losses reflect the success or failure of the entrepreneur in adjusting production to consumer demand, the profits of a competitive (in the Austrian sense) industry can never be “too high” or “too low.”
Followed by his spot on commentary:
Right. To disparage profits earned in competitive markets is to disparage success at arranging for resources to serve consumers well; and to disparage unusually high profits is to disparage success at arranging for resources to serve consumers unusually well.
Put differently, to disparage unusually high profits is to imply that society is harmed whenever entrepreneurs and businesses rescue it from uses of resources that are especially wasteful compared to new, highly profitable uses.
Sadly, though, because such disparagement scores political points with many who are economically unaware – or who embrace envy as a sound justification for public policy – there’s always an abundance of politicians willing to issue such disparagements.
Not much more needs to be said. Boudreaux succinctly captures the essence of free-market enterprise and the benefits of profit to society, the individual, and businesses. To punish success, as our government seeks to do, does irreparable harm to the economy and stifles creativity, investment, growth.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
Politico is reporting the quiet release of the White House’s annual salaries report.
Obama is doing his part to grow the economy and add jobs, because the numbers are UP:
A quick review found the White House payroll appears to have grown since last year, going from $37.1 million in 2011 to $37.8 million in 2012. The number of employees listed also grew — from 454 last year to 468 in 2012.
White House officials did not immediately respond to a message seeking explanation of the growth. Overall, the payroll has shrunk since 2009, when it totaled $39.1 million.
You can see the full report here:
The lowest paid positions (3), are $41,000, just slightly below the average median income for the U.S. This excludes (2) positions listed at $0.00, because it is unclear of the nature of the position (intern, etc).
The highest paid positions (20) are $172,200, and are all assistants to the President
There are 139 positions at or above $100,000, out of 466 — which is roughly 29%
There are 3 Calligraphers, who make between $85.9K and $96.7K
There are 2 Ethics Advisors, who make $136K and $140K
Jay Carney is paid $172,200 to lie to the American people as the Press Secretary.
Your tax dollars at work!
