President Barack Obama keeps talking about folks paying their “fair share.” It’s nothing but a bunch of mumbo jumbo.
Way back in July 2011 ThinkFY posted this piece about President Barack Obama’s call for the wealthy to pay their fair share during the debt limit stand-off with the House Republicans. It was an appropriate post tackling the whole issue about so-called grand compromises, tax hikes and entitlement reform. Worth a read if you have some spare time.
Now back to business. With the sequester in effect, President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats continue to call for tax hikes – on top of the $600 billion they already raised at the end of 2012 – it seems appropriate to revisit this false notion that the rich don’t pay their fair share.
Let’s consider some facts just published by The Associated Press that Democrats will find very inconvenient:
In about a half-hour from now, President Barack Obama will blast Republicans for not striking a deal to avert the impending spending cuts known as sequestration. The President and his allies will push the theme, once again, that Republicans only look out for the well-to-do and don’t care about the poor and middle class.
“According to a White House official, Obama hopes to aggressively pressure congressional Republicans, depicting the choice over the sequester as one between protecting healthcare and national defense or protecting tax loopholes for the wealthiest Americans.” (Justin Sink, “Obama To Press GOP On Sequester Deal As Deadline Approaches,” The Hill, 2/19/13)
From the study’s introduction:
To keep the U.S. Senate firmly within their clutches, Senate Democrats are playing the blame game again. They have successfully built a narrative – aided and abetted by the establishment media – that “Washington is broken” because Republicans are partisan, intransigent obstructionists.
As the following research study outlines, the current dysfunction that has left “Washington broken” begins and ends with Senate Democrats, specifically Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Unless you live in a hole or just pay no attention whatsoever to what is going on, you know by now that President Barack Obama kicked-off his reelection campaign this weekend with stops in Columbus, Ohio, and Richmond, Virginia.
By now you’ve heard that Senator John Kerry (D-MA) was on NBC’s "Meet The Press" yesterday morning and tried to lay the blame for the decision by Standard & Poor’s (S&P) to downgrade our nation’s credit rating on the Tea Party. I posted the video clip earlier here if you haven't seen it.
Others have been attempting to blame the Tea Party as well. For instance, Democrat National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said of John Kerry’s assertion, “truer words [have] never been spoken,” and went on to call the Tea Party “tyrants.”
President Obama’s political mastermind David Axelrod said “this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.”
In the wake of the widely expected downgrade of America’s credit rating by Standard & Poor’s, Democrats are predictably trotting out their tried-and-true call for tax increases.
“Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade the nation's credit rating reinforces Democrats' call for increasing tax revenue, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Friday.” (Jamie Klatell, “Reid: S&P Downgrade Backs Dems’ Call For More Revenue,” The Hill, 8/5/11)
I hate to say I told you so, but, I told you so. Back in February, Republicans proposed spending cuts, including $50 million to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). At the time, U.S. Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY) played on the heart-strings of football fans everywhere warning the 2011 season could be lost without more funding for the NLRB.
I called B.S. on the claim, pointing out that the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA), a union, would decertify in order to pursue an anti-trust suit in court against the NFL. By decertifying the union, the NLRB would have no jurisdiction over negotiating the lockout, the end of the anti-trust suit or a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
On Saturday evening, I was at Brabo enjoying a cocktail, preparing to take a seat with friends and have dinner. As we sat in the small bar, in walked U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), accompanied by her security detail.
Now, before I go further, I am not about to take issue with an elected official and national political figure going out for dinner and enjoying a Saturday evening. However, it did strike me as odd, given the timing. I did tweet about the encounter, and noted at the time that while the country faces a “supposed financial Armageddon”, Pelosi is dining at a fairly upscale restaurant, rather than working to solve the potential crisis.
Pelosi wasn’t hashing out an agreement over dinner with Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), or even strategizing with one of her colleagues from her own party.
On the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) actually had the audacity to say that Democrats were responsible for balancing the budget in the 1990’s and using the surplus to pay down the debt.
The fact of the matter is, Republicans controlled the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate after the Republican Revolution in 1994 and they are the ones who balanced the books.
And as for Democrats working to balance the budget in the future? You need only look at their record from the 1990's and their recent vote this year to know where they stand. Democrats opposed then, as they do now, a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Democrats in the House and Senate overwhelmingly opposed a balanced-budget Constitutional Amendment in the 1990’s. In the Senate alone, more than 30 Democrats voted at least four times against a Constitutional Amendment mandating that the government have a balanced budget every year.
Back in February I wrote this piece about a then-looming government shutdown coming courtesy of do-nothing Senate Democrats. I’ll recap the main thrust so you don’t have to go link-surfing: at the same time Democrats were thinking of everything they could to pin blame on Republicans if the government were to shut down, Democrats were completely incapable of any leadership. An example:
“Under Republican leadership, the House has cast over 140 votes so far this year. The last came on February 19th at 4:30 in the morning. The Senate, run by Democrats? 25 votes, the last being February 17th at 8:30 in the evening.”