President Obama has run annual deficits of more than $1 trillion every year since he was sworn in, and that is using Beltway Math to ignore the accumulation of unfunded liabilities. Yet he insists that his negotiating positions regarding the fiscal cliff are from concern for a “balanced approach” to the problem of the national debt. So we need more revenue, so the country will only borrow $1.2 trillion instead of $1.3 trillion? And reducing spending is only in the discussion as a vague maybe?
This is so transparently political posturing that only the liberal mainstream media could be gullible enough to allow this to be the context of the discussion. And yet, John Boehner can only counter with weak compromises to plunder a slightly modified set of the country’s producers, and let Obama and the media set the conversation parameters about “fairness.”
Who was leading the Republican argument 12 years ago when a self-vacating tax cut was foolishly agreed to? Oh, yeah: John Boehner. Thank you, Beltway Republican establishment.
Why can Republican leadership not revert to Constitutional principles for their arguments? The government only has a right to income when, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It needs the funds to protect our Creator-guaranteed liberties. Obama should not take money from producers until he explains why he needs the revenue; no one should be asked to defend why our pursuit of happiness should not be taken from any of us.
The only possible reason Obama wants to raise taxes is because he has a Third World (or socialist) view of wealth: the Rich (colonial imperialists) got that way because they stole the resources from the Poor, and need to have their undeserved gains “spread around a little.” And for Obama, all of America is rich compared to the other children he played with in Indonesia, so any action that destroys America’s prosperity is justified restitution for past wrongs. Like crushing businesses while the nation hovers on the brink of recession.
So quit ceding the argument that raising taxes on the rich is necessary to defend the country’s credit rating, because no credible taxation could materially contribute to resolving that problem (our debt exceeds GDP). Republicans should be insisting on spending cuts as a pre-condition to any authorization for the government to continue operating (that is the House’s job, according to the Constitution). Maintaining the current tax rates is not a “tax cut,” and holding to planned growth in spending is a “spending increase,” not a “cut”.
And if John Boehner cannot appreciate, express and win on those arguments, he should be replaced by someone more competent as soon as possible.
Robert F. Klaus