Growls

In a page 4 “politics” story in today's Washington Times, Susan Crabtree writes that President Obama is seeking “a one-year extension of tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year.”

CNS News put it this way in their lede paragraph:

“President Barack Obama today proposed allowing the income tax rates enacted in the Bush tax cuts of the last decade to expire at the end of this year for people earning more than $250,000 and at the end of next year for everyone else.”

But Matt Cover also noted in his story for CNS News that:

“This tax proposal differs from the one Obama called for six months ago in his 2013 budget. In that document, Obama said that the lower Bush tax rates for Americans making less than $250,000 per year should be made permanent.”

One year vs. permanent? Hmmm, no politics involved there, though. We’re sure.

The editorial staff of Investor’s Business Daily addresses the issue of fairness and taxing the rich today, writing:

“If you still think raising taxes on the rich is fair, you might want to consider a few things.

“First, raising taxes on the rich won't make even a small dent in our $1 trillion plus annual deficits. So as a fiscal policy, it's useless.

“Second, many of the top 2% earning families already face marginal tax rates as high as 35%. The top 2% pay nearly 50% of all income taxes, but take home less than 30% of all U.S. income. Is that fair?

“The "rich" Obama wants to increase taxes on are the job creators and entrepreneurs. The top 2% of earners report 66% of all pass-through business income, 25% of all net business and professional income, and 85% of all partnership and S Corp. income.

“They're business owners. Tax them at a higher rate, and you'll have fewer new businesses and fewer jobs. It's the middle-class that will suffer, not the rich.

“Voters should reject the siren song of "fairness" and "get the rich." It will only bring misery — and poverty.”

But, as IBD points out, the issue of fairness “makes no sense whatsoever — either from the standpoint of fiscal responsibility or even Obama's own past statements on taxes.”

And finally at American Thinker today, Gary Burk makes this discerning observation in case you have an income:

"Twice in his brief speech he pointed out that we need to enact this cutoff because "we cannot afford to spend on tax breaks for the wealthy."  Those words should frighten and arouse anyone who has an income.  They are not ill-chosen words; they are a look into the very political and economic heart of the current president and his regime.  Allowing income earners to keep a portion of their money is considered by them to be spending by the government.  In other words, all of your money is theirs to spend.  They spend it on their special programs, their cronies, their allies and their adoring lapdogs.  They spend some of it on the producers in order to keep the well flowing."