I guess we can’t blame Obama and his merry band of Marxists for assuming, after the major con job they pulled off in 2008, that the American public is dumber than a box of rocks; however, as Grover Norquist points out in this excellent piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, we’re on to the scam:
During the 2011 debate on combining tax hikes and spending to reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion, Scott Rasmussen’s polling found that 75% of Americans were convinced that any deal in Congress would actually increase taxes on the middle class.
Even with the president promising to tax only the rich, why did 75% of Americans believe they were the ultimate targets of any threatened tax hike? The history of trickle-down taxation over the last 100 years and the last two Democratic administrations suggests an answer.
The Alternative Minimum Tax was imposed in 1969 because 115 households investing in municipal bonds reportedly paid little or no federal income tax. This tax on the rich who were paying what the president and others call a “fair share” now affects four million households. On Jan. 1, 2013, it is set to hit 27 million more—raising an estimated $120 billion, according to the Obama 2013 budget. In 40 years, a tax on 115 households will have grown to threaten 31 million.
The personal income tax, brought courtesy of the 16th Amendment, also promised to be a tax on the wealthiest Americans. It began in 1913 with a top rate of 7% and hit only those with a taxable income of $500,000 or more. (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, that would be $11.5 million now.) Today, roughly half of American families pay the personal income tax.
Politicians at the state level have also played trickle-down taxation. Maine imposed an income tax in 1969, and the tax that once only hit folks earning more than $308,000 in today’s dollars now hits Mainers with a rate of 8.5% and kicks in at $19,950. Almost everyone in Maine is now “rich.”
Give the One credit. As he famously admitted in 2008, he believes in increasing taxes EVEN IF doing so would REDUCE funds to the U.S. Treasury, all in the interest of “fairness.” Translation: the function of the federal government is to redistribute wealth and equalize outcomes, so tax increases has nothing to with paying for the legitimate, Constitutionally-mandating functions of government or reducing the crushing federal government debt. That’s what he believed then, and that’s what he believes now. He and his mouthpieces admitted as much last week, which is why the following, also from Mr. Norquist’s piece, is a serious warning none of us can afford to ignore:
One other reason voters of all incomes may keep a firm grasp on their wallets is that Mr. Obama’s proposed budget for the next decade calls for spending all money raised on his planned tax increases on the rich. Yet despite higher taxes on “them,” it never, ever gets to balance. The president’s budget increases the national debt by $6.7 trillion in a mere 10 years. So to actually balance the budget, Mr. Obama will be looking for $6.7 trillion (to start) to come out of the hide of . . . guess who.
Democrats have demonized Mr. Norquist for challenging members of Congress to make a pledge to the American public not to vote for tax increases. This piece makes it crystal clear why he is on their Enemies’ List. Cockroaches scatter when you shine a light on them.