All posts in Taxes
Mitt Romney is making it hard to get behind him. But we have no choice. I will enthusiastically vote for Romney in November, at this point because Obama holds the gun that is pointed at our collective head. Unfortunately he appears to be a tone deaf simple politician who lacks understanding when it comes to the great issue of our time, namely, freedom. But he’s all we’ve got and he’s far far better than the alternative.
And who knows. Maybe he’ll eventually rise to the occasion.
Here’s a piece from Powerline on the topic:
When the Mitt doesn’t fit
Romney campaign strategist Eric Fehrnstrom appeared on MSNBC yesterday (video clip below). What is a top Romney campaign adviser doing on MSNBC? Nothing good, as it turns out.
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd extracted Fehrnstrom’s concurrence with Obama that Obamacare’s mandate is not a tax. Taking Fehrnstrom as Romney’s spokesman, we can conclude that Romney begs to differ with Obama’s lawyers (i.e., Obama in court) and with the Supreme Court: it’s not a tax.
What can we learn from this? I offer a multiple choice question.
(a) Romney is not the ideal candidate to don the mantle of opposition to Obamacare.
(b) Romney’s political instincts are lacking on a key campaign issue.
(c) Romney’s campaign requires an overhaul.
(d) Romney isn’t much of a Power Line reader.
(e) All of the above.
This is a long but good write up that is worth reading. Hinderaker is no conservative radical but he is sound, relatively unemotional and clear-thinking. I like his approach.
It Was Always a Tax
Yesterday I posted the rather pathetic video of White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew on Fox News Sunday, where Lew struggled to deny that the Obamacare mandate is a tax, and that the Supreme Court upheld it only as such. When confronted with footage of the administration’s lawyer telling the Court that the mandate is a tax, Lew acted as though he had never heard such a thing before.
In fact, the Democrats have always argued that the Obamacare mandate is a tax, and as such is constitutional. During the debates in Congress, they emphasized this point when the law’s constitutionality came under attack. Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said:
Mr. President, our committee and the HELP Committee have given a lot of thought to the provisions in this legislation. We also gave a lot of thought to the constitutionality of the provisions—how they work and the interrelationship between the power of Congress and the States and what States will be doing, particularly under the commerce clause and the tax-and-spending powers of the Constitution.
It is very strongly our considered judgment, and that of many constitutional scholars who have looked at these provisions—and many articles have been put in the Record—that clearly these provisions are constitutional. The commerce clause is constitutional, the tax-and-spending clause, and the provisions clearly are constitutional.
Mr. President, the bill before us is clearly an appropriate exercise of the commerce clause. We further believe Congress has power to enact this legislation pursuant to the taxing and spending powers.
These were always the Democrats’ two arguments. It is worth noting that they were not arguing in the alternative; there is no inconsistency between the two theories. They always claimed that Obamacare was constitutionally justified by both the Commerce Clause and the Tax and Spend clause. Read more…
This ad ran in the Panama City, FL newspaper in February.
He’s still blaming Bush:
“[Republicans] run up these wild debts and then when we take over, we’ve got to clean it up.”
We are now one step closer to becoming slaves to the IRS.
This is a truly despicable thing to do considering that these former citizens followed the appropriate rules at the time, paid the tax, and moved on with their lives. Now Uncle Sam wants to go back in time to unilaterally change the deal, and expect everyone to abide even though they’re not even citizens anymore. The arrogance is overwhelming.
More importantly, this bill is also a major deterrent for people who are thinking about renouncing US citizenship today.
The passage of this law will undoubtedly cause many people who were considering expatriation to abandon the idea altogether as the thought of being permanently barred from entry is too much to bear.
It’s truly extraordinary that the Land of the Free has deteriorated to the point that the government must now resort to threats, coercion, and intimidation in order to keep its most productive citizens inside.
From Sovereign Man.
Schumer and the Dems are OUTRAGED that someone would even think of moving out of the USA in order to reduce their tax bill. So they’ve got a brilliant idea. Let’s go hostile and hold them hostage!
They might consider an alternative: Lower our capital gains rate.
Now that’s a novel idea. They might even find that people would actually consider moving here to do business. The notion!
Let’s see, American…financial security…American…financial security. Think I’ll take the money. See ya
Facebook co-founder joins the ranks fleeing America’s tax system. Bloomberg reports:
Renouncing citizenship is an option chosen by increasing numbers of Americans. A record 1,780 gave up their U.S. passports last year compared with 235 in 2008, according to government records.
Income-tax rates for top U.S. earners will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent next year, and rates on capital gains and dividends also are scheduled to rise unless Congress blocks the increases.
“It’s a loss for the U.S. to have many well-educated people who actually have a great deal of affection for America make that choice,” said Richard Weisman, an attorney at Baker & McKenzie in Hong Kong. “The tax cost, complexity and the traps for the unwary are among the considerations.”
I can already hear Axelrod and Carney dismissing this as an anomaly and completely unrelated to their economic plan. Biden, like a good pet, will hustle out and shout that people are leaving because of Bush and about how he just talked last week to an old friend who said he wasn’t leaving. Good boy, Joe. (It’s fun just imagining the conversations they must have with Joe in the White House.)
Now that Barry is invoking Jesus Christ to support his policy decisions, it’s fair game to consider other things that Jesus said. Of course from a theological point of view, we need to consider if he is a Jeffersonian, or more aptly called Obamanian, in picking and choosing the words he likes and jettisoning those he doesn’t. Or does he swallow the whole thing lock stock and barrel.
Let’s be safe and not veer off into the words of that old fogey Moses (even though Jesus did like to quote him) or the rabble-rouser Paul. After all, they made very clear how they would view Obama’s evolution. Oh wait, evolution might open a whole other can of worms. So we won’t go there now.
Jesus wasn’t always so explicit. But since the president is inspired by his teachings on gay marriage–what were those again?–he must be supportive of his other, more direct, words on things. I like the one about the rich man and his vineyard where he says:
Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?
Maybe we’ll see some evolution on this issue too. But you know, ever since I left the water I’ve not been so good at holding my breath.
Is it not unprecedented the lack of coverage of our current President by Saturday Night Live? Or by any other comedy acts for that matter.
Why is that? Clearly it’s not for lack of material.
We live in the most boastful, arrogant, shameless–and mocking–country in the history of this planet. Since the advent of radio and television, no candidate or president has been spared media ridicule as has Obama. Sure Leno and Letterman have offered up some innocuous good natured ribbing–so long as it didn’t approach actual satire.
Respect for the President and the Office of the President is one thing. But clearly–as Dubya, Bill, George H Dubya, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon can attest–that’s never stopped SNL before. SO WHY THE KID GLOVES?
The truth is that there are very few out there who aren’t either self-serving wannabe Machiavellians or cowards at heart. They either are humorless about themselves and cannot tolerate the ridicule of one of their own (e.g., Maher/Stewart) or they are too cowardly to risk the scorn (how could you?!) and accusations (racist!) of their peers that comes with laughing publicly at their Great Hope.
Contrast this attitude with Reagan and Bush’s (both senior and junior) willingness to find the humor in many things that were inherently funny, even when it involved themselves.
Unfortunately Obama and his disciples feel the same way about comedy as they do about taxes: it’s funny as long as it comes at the expense of the other guy.