What Ronald Reagan said…

This post is in response to some videos surfacing that claim Reagan promoted the same kind of tax policy that Obama does now. I believe the key difference (and an important one) is in the beginning of the second paragraph:

What we’re trying to move against is institutionalized unfairness. We want to see that everyone pays their fair share, and no one gets a free ride. Our reasons? It’s good for society when we all know that no one is manipulating the system to their advantage because they’re rich and powerful. But it’s also good for society when everyone pays something, that everyone makes a contribution.

After all, we’re all citizens, equal in the eyes of the law, and equal in the eyes of God. You’re given a lot of benefits when you’re born in the U.S.A, but you’re given a responsibility, too, a responsibility to do your part and become a contributing member of the American family and an equal partner in America, Incorporated. When you pay your taxes, you buy your shares. And every year you get to vote on who should be on the board of directors.

There is more that illustrates the differences between Reagan and Obama and I don’t think it does Obama any favors to try and make the comparison.

Here is a video of the speech I quoted above. I did not find footage from the video used in the “Buffet Rule” video to check the context of those remarks.

 

Tax Cut?

A payroll tax cut sounds good and I suppose it is good for families in the short term, but it defunds social security.

I favor tax cuts (or a simplified tax code, at least) and a serious overhaul of social security, but supporting a tax cut that defunds social security while showing commercials of the other side pushing granny off the cliff is a little disingenuous, don’t you think?

Posted from WordPress for Android

 

Perry To Pitch Scrapping Tax Code, Offering Optional 20 Percent Flat Tax

“Gov. Perry’s plan will reduce taxes for everybody and grow the economy and not pit Americans against each other like President Obama is doing,” Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner told Fox News. [emphasis added]

via Perry To Pitch Scrapping Tax Code, Offering Optional 20 Percent Flat Tax | Fox News.

 

 

Battle in Vt. Statehouse over how to spend your tax money

The state budget is about $4.7 billion. If you just look just at state money, state spending is down about 3.5 percent from last year. But with federal funds, overall spending for the state budget is actually up.
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=14314336

This article only skims the surface over how the two (three, really) sides are positioning themselves in the budget debate. The Progressives want to raise income taxes (on the “wealthy”, for now), the Republicans want to leave taxes alone and focus on finding a balanced budget through spending cuts, and the Democrats want a mixture of taxes and spending cuts. On the surface it seems like the Democrats are taking the middle road. But that is hardly the case when you consider the above paragraph. Their position is that they don’t really need to balance the budget because we’ll just get more from Washington D.C.

Here is a key statement:

But Democrats have the votes to pass whatever plan they want.

So, what will the Democrats do with this power? We’ll find out soon, I imagine.

Posted from WordPress for Android

 

Vt. House ready to raise a slew of taxes

The Vermont House is ready to raise a slew of taxes impacting everyone from homeowners to hospitals.

via Vt. House ready to raise a slew of taxes – WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-.

You might think that this would lead to a critical piece on taxes and how the taxes might have an impact on the residents of Vermont and the economy. You would be wrong. Instead, capture the near-breathless manner intoned to share this bit of good news (the very next line):

The entire revenue package raises more than $28 million in new taxes.

Wow! Isn’t that great! New taxes will raise more than $28 million! Gee, that’s swell! (Sorry to all you saps who will have to pick up the tab for that $28 million.)

Here is the big problem I have with that first paragraph: it assumes that all spending patterns/behaviors will remain the same once the taxes take effect. It’s a bad assumption and poor reporting.

If you tax Product A (i.e. raise its price), then it will probably lead to some change in purchasing habits of those who bought Product A at a formerly less expensive price. They may buy less of Product A, they may switch to a competitively priced version of Product A (found in a different market?), or they may stop purchasing Product A altogether.

If I had the time to follow this up when all was said and done, then I suspect I would find that the revenues that they hope to raise from these increased taxes will not reach their proposed $28 million mark.

Well, at least governor Schumlin comes out against a certain tax; the cigarette tax:

“It seems to me illogical that we would ask a factory worked making 9,10,11 dollars an hour to pay 27 cents more for a pack of cigarettes and then tell the dentists who refuse to see Medicaid and Medicare patients that they are off the hook,” said Gov. Peter Shumlin, D-Vermont.

Can you say class warfare?

Or perhaps you smell an acrid, nicotine-flavored smoke coming from the back rooms of Shumlin’s office. (I am merely making a conjecture that his opposition to the cigarette tax could be motivated by a less pure motive like protecting a financial supporter. I don’t know if he has any ties to any tobacco companies. Wouldn’t it be interesting if he did…) The one tax where the health nuts in office actually want and expect to change purchasing behavior and the governor comes out against it. Huh?

Here’s the best part (in my humble opinion)…

Meanwhile, back on the House floor a small group of Progressives and Democrats tried to raise the income tax. The group wanted an income surcharge on the state’s highest earners.

“There are times when a legislative body has to step up and step up to the plate and become the social conscience of the people who are going without many necessities,” said Rep. Paul Poirier, I-Barre City.

But the House leadership and the governor strongly opposed the measure– 23 members supported the surcharge, 117 voted no– a strong victory for the governor and House Speaker Shap Smith, as a tax package makes its way through the Legislature. But many on the House floor believe they’ll be debating taxes again.

They (Shumlin & Smith) want to raise taxes all over the board in an attempt to raise $28 million and because they vote down a proposed income tax surcharge on the state’s “highest earners” we’re supposed to see that as a victory? Way to go boys. Thanks for sticking up for the taxpayers!

 

5 airlines won’t charge for carry-on bags, senator says

First of all, whoop-ti-do!  If a carry-on fee is reprehensible to you, then don’t fly the airline that charges you one.  Cased closed.

This, however, gets me goat:

New York Sen. Charles Schumer said Sunday that American, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, US Airways and JetBlue Airways each have committed to him that they would not institute fees for carry-on bags. He said he was hopeful other carriers would follow suit.

via 5 airlines won’t charge for carry-on bags, senator says: Rutland Herald Online.

Why do airlines, private business entities, have to commit anything to Charles Schumer?  They have to commit to him just because he’s a senator?  What the heck?  Is he in charge of setting fees for airlines, now?

I would have to do more research, but in article that Rush Limbaugh read on the air last Thursday he uncovered the real reason behind the carry-on fees being used by Spirit Airlines in Florida: the government doesn’t (or can’t…not sure which) levy a tax on fees.  In other words, the government can tax the sale of the ticket, the cost of the fuel, and just about everything else that goes into making an airplane trip possible, but they can’t tax a fee for a bag.

So, Spirit Airlines, I presume, has introduced the bag fee and lowered their ticket prices to negate the tax implication of providing customers with the service that they demand.  It may even be a win-win for the customer and the airline.  The customer pays the same (or slightly less) for a trip to reach their destination and the airline keeps more of the money from the transaction for itself.

I hope that Spirit Airlines doesn’t cave and I wish that the electorate would stop tolerating senators who think that an entire industry must answer to them for how they go about making their businesses work.

 

The Taxman Cometh…for your plastic bags!

“They’re an environmental hazard, and they’re made of foreign oil,” said Sen. Robert Hartwell, D-Bennington. Taxing them at 10 cents apiece would raise an estimated $6 million to $9 million.

Oh, dear.  Is it possible that most grocery shoppers don’t really care whether a bag is environmentally friendly or made from foreign oil?  Even so, all Sen. Hartwell’s cries are intended to do is evoke emotions for both the environmental crowd and the energy-independence crowd at the same time.  Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

I have no idea how much it costs to produce a plastic bag in the bulk that a grocery store would need, but my guess is that by 10 cents would nearly double the price they pay and you would end up with one of a few possible results:

• stores refuse to carry them to avoid the tax
• stores charge more to customers who use plastic bags (who in turn shove as many items into one bag as possible causing potential difficulties in the parking lot)
• stores spread the cost of the tax across the spectrum of goods and while no one really notices, everyone pays for the environmentally insensitive and foreign oil addicted shopper

But Democrats who control the Legislature have been singing from the same anti-tax hymnal as Republican Gov. Jim Douglas this year, with both saying tax increases would hurt any hope for economic recovery.

It is good that common sense sometimes prevails.

“I say bag the bag tax,” said Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, a Putney Democrat and candidate to replace the retiring Douglas.

It would be very unwise of Sen. Shumlin to support this tax and I’m pretty sure he knows that.

House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown, was a bit less blunt. “I wouldn’t say it’s high on my list of priorities this year.” He added of the bags, “We reuse them as garbage bags at home.”

If speaker Smith still holds his position in the legislature next session, don’t be surprised to see this tax again.

Backers, led by the Vermont League of Conservation Voters and the Vermont State Employees’ Association, say the tax likely would cause people to switch from plastic bags back to paper or, better yet in their view, to canvas and other reusable bags.

Well, I’m not surprised about the Vermont League of Conservation Voters (although I had not heard of them until today), but what stake does the VSEA have?  I found this comment on their website:

Unions, environmentalists and (judging by the AP story) the public support generating revenue through a plastic bag fee, but legislative leaders are unwilling to even entertain the idea. It’s possible the fee could generate $6-$9 million for Vermont, while helping our environment.

I love the parenthetical thought, “judging by the AP story”, as though the AP is a paragon of objectivity (which is questionable) and as though anyone in Montpelier is going to say that they actually like using plastic bags when they know that they could face some kind of retribution either real or imagined.  This statement also gives the VSEA an opportunity to sound bipartisan by lumping all of the legislators together into one group.  Similar to the make up in Washington DC, the Democrats in Montpelier (generally making up the environmentalist crowd) controls the House and the Senate and could easily override a gubernatorial veto without getting a single Republican vote.

Sigh.

via Vt. plastic bag tax proposal seen coming too late: Rutland Herald Online.

 

Taxes down, grumbling up: Rutland Herald Online

Here is the sub heading for the article (as if the headline wasn’t bad enough):

Tax Day rhetoric aside, Americans’ bills are lower than recent years

So, I’m not a student of journalism, but wasn’t one of the core beliefs of a free press to scrutinize the government, not name-call American citizens?

Anyway…here are some quotes from the second half of the article:

The massive economic recovery package enacted last year included about $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. About $232 billion was in cuts for individuals, nearly all in the first two years.

Can you say, campaign finance reform?  Seriously, $232 billion in tax cuts for individuals in the “first two years”?  Does anyone else see this as buying votes, or am I just a partisan hack (easy now)?  Even if you didn’t approach it from the perspective of vote buying, $300 billion over ten years amounts to $3o billion a year.  If you divide that by 300 million, then you get a whopping $100 per capita per annum (I realize that not every American pays taxes…I simplified for my fading math skills sake…oh, and I’ll stop with the Latin, because I don’t really know how to use it properly).  Now, I wouldn’t complain about having to pay $100 less per year in taxes, but how about some real tax reform instead of off-year election planning.

The most generous was Obama’s Making Work Pay credit, which gives individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 for 2009 and 2010. The $1,000 child tax credit was expanded to more families, and the working poor can qualify for as much as $5,657 from the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Extending the $1,000 child tax credit to more families sounds like a good thing to do on the surface, but the likely objective is to get more families (read: gullible voters) to rely on their government).t to provide them with what they need.  They (the Democrat-controlled state) are taking us to Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island with their hard-to-refuse offers of sweets and “free” money, but we all know how that ends for Pinocchio and the boys (is it a coincidence that they are all turned into donkeys?).

There were also credits for qualified families who buy new homes or make energy improvements to existing ones, as well as tax breaks to help pay college tuition or buy new cars.

I assume that the “buy new cars” tax credit is referencing the not-so-successful Cash for Clunkers program.  If so, was that credit really helpful?  Perhaps to the individuals who were already poised to purchase a new car, but economically it was a miserable disaster.

“From investing in small business to buying a home or making it energy efficient, to sending your children to college to buying a car, these tax cuts are helping families and businesses across the country,” said Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo.

And the increased jobless claims are indicative of what, exactly?

For the first time, the Medicare payroll tax would be applied to investment income, beginning in 2013. A new 3.8 percent tax would be imposed on interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.

In 2013, the tax is for people making over $20o,000.  In 2023, at what level will the tax kick in?  $150,000?  $100,000?  A tax on investment like this is disturbing because, in theory, even your savings account could be a target for (additional) taxation.  Where does it stop?  There are many conclusions you can reach from a scenario where the government reaches deeper and deeper into people’s wallets, and none of them are pretty (but they probably don’t involve zombies).

Dennis Miller, on his radio show today, listed off at least a score of things on which we pay tax, either directly or indirectly.  If I can, I will update with a link to that list.

via Taxes down, grumbling up: Rutland Herald Online.

 

Vt. Low on Economic Competitiveness

Vt. Low on Economic Competitiveness – WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-.

The American Legislative Exchange Council says Vermont’s high income taxes, high property taxes, and high labor costs hurt its chances to grow business.

I’m not exactly sure who the American Legislative Exchange Council is (they sound important, don’t they), but they argue that high taxes seems to be a problem for Vermont, eh?  (“Eh?” comes from living so close to Canada, in case you were wondering, eh?)

With a Democrat-controlled Statehouse I doubt we’ll see any meaningful reform in the way of taxes.  In fact, there has been serious discussion about raising taxes here in the Green Mountain State.

 

Cap, now trade?

I received an email from Rep. Peter Welch (D, VT) in response to a call I made to his office to vote against the Waxman-Markey bill (HR 2454), also known as the Cap & Trade bill.  I appreciate the fact that he (via his staff, most likely) took the time to respond to my phone call.  If nothing else, it acknowledges the receipt of the call.

That being said, here is the letter (with my thoughts in blue):

June 29, 2009Dear Mr. Whitman,

Thank you for contacting me about the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454.  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.  (You’re welcome.)

As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee I am playing an active role in charting a new energy future for our country that will strengthen our economy (since when is it your job, or Congress’ job, to chart an energy future?), create new green jobs (how can you, a public official with no access to resources other than the tax revenue of American citizens, create green jobs let alone jobs at all?), and protect working Vermonters and Americans (I am glad that you are interested in protecting Vermonters and Americans, but I think fighting terrorists (al Queda, Hamas), rogue nations (North Korean, Iran) and criminals (Bernie Madoff) should be of higher concern than fighting carbon emissions).  I share your concern that Congress address climate change in a way that ensures that consumers and businesses are not unfairly burdened by measures to control carbon pollution.  (You assume that I want to address “climate change”.  Last I knew the climate has been changing for thousands of years, and I am not particularly interested in trying to assert human will on the climate.)

I voted for H.R. 2454 that sets the goal of cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by the year 2050.  (This strikes me as though we are tilting at windwills – literally as well as figuratively.  Humans exhale carbon dioxide.  Are we going to protect Americans by eliminating another countries population in order to cut on carbon emissions from humans?) Through H.R. 2454, the cost to consumers of transitioning to a prosperous, clean energy economy will be offset by assistance to local utility companies (assistance that comes from taxes), investment in energy efficiency (with money that comes from taxes), and by direct consumer assistance (with money that comes from taxes).  In addition, H.R. 2454 will reinvest American energy dollars currently exported overseas in American jobs and businesses (I am not fooled by the rhetoric that we lose jobs in America when jobs are created overseas – this is another tax).  A recent Congressional Budget Offices analysis of the legislation determined that the overall cost to households will be less than the cost of a postage stamp a day, which does not include the projected financial benefits from increased energy efficiency, national security and green job creation.  (This is a ridiculously impossible analysis. I haven’t had the time to investigate the 300 page amendment added to the bill at 3am the day of the vote, but all of the regulation that it adds will cost consumers more money than 44 cents a day.  Energy efficiency is an excellent goal, but it isn’t efficient to force it on the market when the technology and the demand is not yet there.  Of course, the definition of economics includes efficiency and those who are more efficient succeed.  That we haven’t acheived “energy efficiency” is not a mystery, unless you are talking about the controversial claims of the human impact on “climate change”.  In which case, many questions have been satisfactorily answered.  You also assert that this is a national security matter and I fail to follow the logic.   I don’t recall North Korea having any strategic value to the energy sector of our economy.  They want to “wipe out” the U.S.  You also touch on the green jobs thing again and once more I fail to see how the US Government can create jobs without other peoples money.)

Again, I greatly appreciate hearing the ideas and concerns from Vermonters as Congress continues to debate the most effective approach to address this challenge.  Please continue to be in touch and I hope to see you in Vermont soon.  (I will make the effort.  And I will be working to find your replacement in the meantime.)

Member of Congress

Sincerely,

PETER WELCH

So, the new title I’m suggesting for this bill would be “Capped, now Trade”.  Voting out every member of congress who voted for this bill would be an excellent place to start cutting the carbon emissions coming from Washington DC.