Dangerous territory here. I’ve decided to opine about the debt ceiling ObamaDrama, knowing there’s a chance, albeit a small one, that the issue could be resolved by the time you read this.
My safest route is just to cover some of the aspects of this debate that haven’t seemed to make their way into the media reports — not the mainstream media reports at any rate.
Let’s deal first with President Barack Obama’s unwavering insistence that there be tax increases to raise the debt ceiling.
Perhaps some of you think that Obama’s demand for tax increases is based on his belief that the country needs the extra revenue. Well, you would be wrong.
Just hop into your way-back machine and remember two conversations our Dear Ruler had relating to his philosophy of taxation. One was with Joe the Plumber, the other with Charlie Gibson.
Talking to Joe, Obama said that we needed to raise taxes to “spread the wealth around.” Not to increase revenue, but to take the money away from the people whom he feels didn’t deserve it or don’t need it, and then give it to people who do.
In the Gibson conversation, Obama agreed that an increase in capital gains taxes would not necessarily lead to increased tax revenue for the federal government; but that the increase was necessary out of a sense of “fairness.” Once again, the money was in the hands of people Obama did not believe deserved it, and it was his job to make things fairer.
Consider, then, the probability that Obama’s insistence on raising taxes on the evil rich is not based on a desire for revenue, but rather on his disdain for those who have worked hard and acquired wealth.
Then we have the question as to whether we are facing a spending problem or a revenue problem. Obama has increased government spending to about 25 percent of GDP, a historical high, since his coronation, yet today he can’t find a way to cut spending by 5 percent. In fact, throughout the debt-ceiling debate Obama has not put forth one specific spending cut. His game is to wait for the Republicans to suggest an area where spending might be cut, then to go into attack mode.
Oh, and just where has Obama promised that any additional revenue from tax increases would be used for debt reduction? Answer: He hasn’t. Something else for you to ponder: Throughout this entire debate you have been hearing that there are really only two solutions to our debt impasse. We can either raise taxes or cut spending. Actually, that’s not the way we balanced the budget in the 1990s. Then we did it with simple economic growth.
Perhaps you remember the dot-com revolution. Yup, the revolution eventually went bust, but for a while we were balancing the budget with increased tax revenues from a growing economy while Republicans held down spending increases.
It can be done again. Grow our economy by 5 percent per year for 10 years and you can generate an additional $1.7 trillion in tax revenue without raising taxes or closing so-called loopholes. Raising the taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year, as Obama is proposing, would raise about $700 billion, and that’s only if those tax increases don’t prolong our recession as many experts believe they would.
The problem here is that it is very hard to grow a private sector economy with a president who is openly hostile to business. Robert Lucas Jr., a University of Chicago 1995 Nobel laureate in economics, points out that our recovery from the Great Depression was drastically delayed by “FDR’s demonization of business.” Sound familiar? Remember — Obama is on record as referring to the private sector as the “enemy.” FDR wasn’t that strong.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was right. A solution to our spending and debt crisis is not possible so long as Dear Ruler is in charge.
Listen to Neal Boortz live from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. weekdays on AM 750 and 95.5FM News/Talk WSB.
His column appears every Saturday. For more Boortz, go to boortz.com
