Class-Warfare

 

Tax-rate class warfare backfiring on Democrats?

Share24

posted at 2:15 pm on September 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Democrats hoped to drive a wedge in the electorate with some class-warfare rhetoric on tax hikes coming at the end of the year, painting the GOP as the party of the rich and themselves as the defenders of the middle class.  The Boston Globe reports that the strategy has begun to backfire, thanks to Democrats breaking ranks and the lack of any action at all before the House recess.  Instead of looking like class warriors for the average Joe, they look instead like a pack of incompetents:

President Obama’s urgent call for Congress to immediately extend tax breaks for the middle class was supposed to create a defining Democratic issue and cast Republicans as defenders of the rich on the eve of crucial midterm elections. Now, three weeks later, Democrats are further divided and Republicans are using the tax cut issue to their advantage.
The House and Senate adjourned last night, leaving the central pocketbook issue to be decided after the Nov. 2 midterm elections — and just weeks before the tax cuts are set to expire. That indecision injects more uncertainty into whose taxes will go up, and by how much. …
The tax cut extension is expected to remain a political issue over the next few weeks, but not in the way Democrats had initially intended. Rather than using it on the campaign trail against Republicans, Democrats could find themselves on the defensive as the GOP yesterday began framing the vote delay as an example of government ineptitude and cowardice.

It’s also an example of economic illiteracy, and the Globe itself falls into that same category.  Barack Obama keeps talking about how an extension at the highest brackets will “cost” $700 billion over ten years, but voters are just a little smarter than that.  The tax hikes that Democrats want to impose — and that’s what they are — will cost taxpayers $700 billion dollars over ten years as the government grabs the money from their pocketbooks.  That isn’t money owed to the Treasury, but money that Democrats in Congress want to grab.

It’s also worth pointing out that even if one accepted Barack Obama’s specious argument, which voters clearly don’t, he’s also the same President who demanded $787 billion in a single year.  

That didn’t put people to work in new and sustainable jobs; why should taxpayers of any stripe cough up another $700 billion over the next decade over what Washington already takes?  Private enterprise has a better chance of making that money work in economy-expanding directions than the failed top-down Obamanomics policies have done over the last two years.
Maybe Congress should stop spending so much money rather than demanding more private capital to waste on ineffective command-economy policies.  That, at least, would have the novelty of never having been tried, at least not in recent memory.

Combine the class-warfare hypocrisy and the incompetence with the obvious pusillanimity of skedaddling out of Washington before the election without bothering to confront the issue in a manner for which voters can hold them accountable, and it has all the ingredients of a political disaster.  And if even the Boston Globe can figure that out and reports it, then Democrats have no excuse and no fig leaf left.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/30/tax-rate-class-warfare-backfiring-on-democrats/ 

Kliphnote:  That is all it is, class-warfare.
And, 47% will pay no federal income tax .
And I bet well over half of the Democrats will pay no income tax.
In including many in Obama's administration.

Obama keeps talking about how an extension at the highest brackets will “cost” $700 billion over ten years. Tax the "Rich".

All used to pay down the deficit.

But it would be over $3 trillion if they let the middle class tax cut expire.

If that is not class warfare I don't know what is.

Isn't it strange how the "Bush tax cuts" were all for the rich.

But if they let the middle class tax cuts expire the middle class

will get a tax increase of 50%.

And the Democrats and the media (both the same) said Bush was only for the rich.

Bloomberg

Twelve States Plan Lawsuit Over Obama Health Overhaul (Update2)

March 22, 2010, 12:46 PM EDT

(Adds Virginia suit in the second paragraph, Michigan to list of states in eighth.)

By Pat Wechsler

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- Twelve states plan to challenge the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul passed yesterday by the U.S. House, according to statements made today.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 11 states that will sue “as soon as the president signs the bill,” claiming it places a burden on already cash-strapped states to pay for an expanded Medicaid program and build an exchange so individuals can find affordable insurance. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli also said in a statement his state would sue on the similar grounds.

States nationwide are facing unprecedented declines in tax collections, according to the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, New York, and are cutting spending on these health programs for low-income residents. Florida will have to spend an additional $1.6 billion for Medicaid alone and hire 1,000 new workers to accommodate the overhaul, McCollum said.

“This is a bad bill,” McCollum told a press conference in Orlando, Florida. “That’s a political determination and a practical one.”

He said the mandate for individuals to buy some form of health insurance is unconstitutional. It also infringes on the ability of states to provide other services, such as education, to its citizens because of the cost burdens, he said.

Virginia Lawsuit

Cuccinelli, the Virginia attorney general, said today he also planned to sue the federal government, calling the health bill an “unconstitutional overreach of its authority.

“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” he said in a press release. “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person -- by definition -- is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-22/twelve-states-plan-lawsuit-over-obama-health-overhaul-update2-.html 

Kliphnote: Isn't that great! National Health Care. Buy it yourself.

What a joke. I could have done that, with a lot less then 2400 pages.

And It was going to reduce cost. For who?

The states have to pick up the cost. 

Where do you think they are going to get the money from? 

Us the tax payers. 

New York state taxes are going up, again.

Maybe we should give our whole pay check to the government.

And don't forget, Obama and the Democrats cut $500 billion from Medicare.

Understand this: My pay has been taxed at almost 3% to pay for Medicare.

But they want to increase Medicaid. 

Understand this: Most people on Medicaid pay NO federal tax.

Anyone over 65 years of age, your health care cost will go up.

But if you are on Welfare/Medicaid, it will not cost you anything.

Guess what, most people on Welfare/Medicaid vote Democrat.

Big surprise.

What a joke.