Obama to "rich" people: Go to hell.

Obama has released his budget proposal which is basically a soak the rich budget. He is requesting nearly $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 10 years, with 2/3 of that coming from individuals making over $250,000 a year. I must have missed that day in economics class where they discussed the benefits of raising taxes during recessions. Plus, it seems plain that there is no way that simply raising taxes on only those individuals who make more than $250,000 a year will be able to pay for all of this.

Oh ho, you say, those tax increases only start in 2011, giving us 2 years before taxes impact taxpayers. Two points- 1) the stimulus bill is supposed to allow the american worker and investor do what it's supposed to do, create jobs and products. Now, what sort of incentive do you have if you know that in 2 years if you make more than $250,000 a year, your taxes are going to go up? Wouldn't you, instead, just do enough so that you don't break that barrier? And wouldn't that slow down any potential growth that the administration expects over the next two years? Why would someone make a much needed investment today when in two years they may see their taxes go up if the investment is successful?

To that point, 2) the Administration's budget expects growth to occur over the next two years so that they can raise taxes, increase government spending, and cut the deficit. As the AP acknowledges, "if recovery doesn't materialize as quickly as the White House has forecast, Obama will be unable to make good on meeting his spending targets while also keeping a pledge to try to significantly reduce the annual deficit — expected to be a staggering $1.75 trillion for 2009 — to $533 billion by the end of his term." The administration can blame the Bush years all they want- at some point the Administration is going to have to own up to their own misguided attempts on the economy and its so-far disastrous effects.

In total, the administration's budget runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion for FY 2009, with a $1.17 trillion deficit for 2010. This all comes on the heels of Congress passing a $789 billion porkulus bill. Nevertheless, Obama claims that he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, thanks to all of that mis-guided spending. Wouldn't a good starting point have been to not pass a bill that simply adds more debt to the future? Not to mention all of his new spending proposals for mortgage holders and his ill advised march to universal health care? I don't know. It seems to me that if your goal is to cut the deficit, wouldn't not increasing spending in the first place be the logical first step? All this trickeration comes to is that the administration is stealing revenue and growth from the future to pay for their big government spending programs now.

If the american consumer and their spending is the main driver behind the economy, isn't it a good idea to let the consumer keep more of their money, instead of the government taking it away? Why should we think that the government is any more capable at solving this than the people? As John Maynard Keynes once said: "It is a mistake to think businessmen are more immoral than politicians." And the batch of politicians that currently make up the Democratic majorities in Congress more than prove Keynes' point.

In fact, Congressional Democrats don't seem at all inclined to live up to their rhetoric- case in point, "Leading Democrats on Wednesday appeared to brush aside President Obama’s suggestion that they sacrifice earmarks in the federal budget, arguing Congress knows better than “faceless bureaucrats” how to spend taxpayer money." Yes, it would have just been easier to say Roland Burris, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and John Murtha, to name a few.

Finally- while I'm loathe to generally link to him, Dick Morris makes some very good points in this column in The Hill:

Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain’t Iowa.

Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.

....

So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles.

For someone who was elected under a banner of hope and change, he's sure has been doom and gloom ever since he was elected. As Robert Samuelson noted: "Politics cannot be removed from the political process. But here, partisan politics ran roughshod over pragmatic economic policy. Token concessions (including the AMT provision) to some Republicans weakened the package. Obama is gambling that his flawed stimulus will seem to work well enough that he'll receive credit for restarting the economy -- and not be blamed for engineering a colossal waste." There is nothing new or hope-worthy about partisan politics, other than a new politician is moving their lips.