I don’t quite understand what all of the hubbub is about on Capitol Hill when it comes to taxes. Taxation seems to be the one thing at which Congress is really good. After all, they’ve been taxing our patience for years.
It seems that the Party of “Yes We Can” … “Can’t” anymore. It’s funny how that happens when freedom intervenes in the form of an election and a monopolistic majority is emasculated into a soon-to-be-forgotten relic of the past. No problem! The Democrats will just have to switch hats with the Republicans and become the Party of “No” … just like they were when Nancy Pelosi served as the Minority Leader from 2003-2007. I distinctly remember her announcing, as she assumed that mantle, that she would oppose whatever the Bush Administration was proselytizing at the time because “that’s what the Opposition is supposed to do.” Welcome back, Nancy!
Apparently, many of the outgoing Democrats have already switched hats … and why not? It’s not as if they’re going to be relevant after January 5th. On a positive note, the Party that was going to establish a new level of bipartisanship in Washington can continue to meet behind closed doors and draft legislation unilaterally; the meetings just won’t be as big and the legislation will probably never make it to the floor. I say this because I believe the Republicans will probably need to be given a lesson in humility as well. John Boehner may “get it,” but there will be others who don’t. We’ve already seen an attempt to eliminate pork from the diet of our political menu fall short, and now we’re seeing how strong-armed tactics continue to prevail.
I love the rhetoric. Again, the Party of “Bipartisan Accord” can’t even seem to get along with itself. The President tried to broker a reasonable resolution to the impending expiration of the Bush tax breaks and got slammed for it. My personal favorite was when a few Democratic Senators did their Andy Warhol “thing” in a press conference this past week. Among them, Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) likened the attempt at reaching a bipartisan agreement to terrorism: “Do you allow yourself to be held hostage and get something done for the sake of getting something done, when in fact it might be perverse in its ultimate results? It's almost like the question of do you negotiate with terrorists." Well, almost …except that no one got tortured, killed, or had their body desecrated as is the case with terrorist hostage situations. Who could blame Bob for a little hyperbole?
Then, there’s Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who tried to smooth things over by saying, "I'm trying to figure out how anyone can keep a straight face and say they are for deficit reduction when they insist on a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, completely unpaid for. If they think it is okay to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because they are going to pout if we don't give more money to millionaires, it really is time for the people of America to take up pitchforks." Nice try at establishing a higher level of bipartisan accord, Claire … and thanks again for trying to reinforce a class-divide for political purposes.
So, let’s look at what the tax debate is all about to see if the Common Sense Czar can bring some clarity to it. At its core, it calls for a simple extension of the Bush tax cuts for two more years. A failure to do this would seemingly jeopardize the fragile economic recovery we are presently trying to navigate. Seems simple enough to me!
But wait! This means treating Americans equally … at least to the degree that the present tax cuts would remain in place. We can’t have that! If we treat everyone the same, we won’t be able to exploit class warfare for our political gain. We just can’t allow that to happen. After all, no less of an authority than Thomas Jefferson, stated in the Declaration of Independence that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created with disproportionate responsibilities based upon their ability to pay, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness upon whatever basis of distribution we elitists in Washington shall deem to be appropriate.” Oh, I know what you’re saying … those aren’t Jefferson’s words. Of course, you’re right. I deleted the phrase “by their Creator” because President Obama seems predisposed to do it whenever he quotes the Declaration. I’m pretty sure the rest of the quote is correct because that’s what opponents of the solution seem to be focusing upon.
You see, the rich should pay more … because they can. How else can we reduce the massive debt that Congress has irresponsibly incurred on our behalf and on behalf of our children? You can’t seriously expect them to curb their spending! I thought they sent us a clear message on that issue when they refused to eliminate earmarks.
So let’s focus on the relevant issue: how can we disproportionately tax a small segment of the electorate without losing campaign funding? I know! Let’s set a fictitious level of income that sounds high to most people … as long as there aren’t enough votes or political donations in that small segment of society to meaningfully impact our base and financing. That’s where $250,000 a year comes into play. It just feels right. So, let’s run with that premise and see how it goes.
An adjusted gross income of $250,000 a year sounds like a lot of money. After all, it’s twice as much as $125,000. Speaking of which, the $250,000 applies to couples filing jointly (i.e., one very successful spouse … or two hard working but more modestly successful spouses). So, if you’re single and making $125,000 … congratulations … you’re rich! What … you don’t consider someone making $125,000 to be rich? Well, let’s check into that.
Adjusting for inflation, that’s the equivalent of $9,897 a year in 1929 (I picked 1929 as an index just in case all this economic recovery stuff doesn’t work). Gee, that doesn’t seem to be all that much. No problem! The Democrats can just start referring to the 3.1 percent of households that presently earn $125,000 or more (and pay approximately 48 percent of our taxes) as “millionaires and billionaires.” Yeah, that’s the ticket. If the Republicans are stupid enough to try to preserve the tax cuts for the “rich people” in the “upper tax bracket,” the Democrats can just generically refer to all those in that bracket as “millionaires and billionaires.” That will reinforce the “Robin Hood strategy” that I describe in my book, The Left isn’t Right / The Right is Wrong. You know, “rob from the rich and give to the poor” … or in today’s jargon, give to the “middle-class” … because the “poor” are no longer fashionable since they don’t donate or vote in large enough numbers to matter to either of the major parties. And just as an aside for all the politicians out there who have problems with decimal places: $1 million dollars is 4 times as much as $250,000 and $1 billion dollars is 4,000 times as much. So, if I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a trillion times, please call me if you’re going use numbers to label people … or if you’re thinking about spending tax dollars.
Hey, while we’re on the subject of adjusting for inflation … how about adjusting for the cost of living? The Common Sense Czar has this theory: it costs more to live in Manhattan than it does to live in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Let’s check that out!
According to various cost-of-living calculators that are available on the web, if you live in Manhattan, you’d have to earn $639,671 to have the same buying power as a household with $250,000 of adjusted gross income in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Said another way, a household that earns $97,707 a year in Fort Smith has the same buying power as one that earns $250,000 in Manhattan … pre-tax. Remember: the Manhattan household is considered to be “rich” and can be taxed well in excess of the rate that would apply to the “middle-class” household in Fort Smith. It’s even better if you’re single and living in Fort Smith because you only have to earn $48,853 to enjoy the same tangible rewards as your counterpart in Manhattan … plus, you can avoid the stigma of being called “rich.” How cool is that? So, let’s hear it for Fort Smith, Arkansas! Of course, even though they’re getting screwed, New Yorkers will probably chalk it up as some sort of compensatory adjustment for not having to live in Arkansas.
This raises a critical issue: when should society judge a person to be “rich?” And don’t give me any of that namby-pamby “you’re rich if you’re happy and you have your health” stuff. We’re talking money here! It’s an important issue because it allows the parties to isolate you into a minority status that even the Left won’t defend. No one wants to stand too close to the “rich” from a political perspective … unless they’re looking for campaign contributions. Then, every fat cat on Wall Street is apparently a friend of the Republicans, and every over-paid celebrity in Hollywood who couldn’t get a job outside of their “craft” is a devotee of the Democrats.
At this point, I have to express a degree of sympathy for the President. The bastion of bipartisanship, transparency, and accountability is now caught in the middle. From a “bipartisan” standpoint, he isn’t getting a lot of sympathy from the Republicans for all of the wonderful “bridge-building” he did during the first two years of his term. They continue to rebuke his current efforts in that regard. Perhaps they would have been more receptive had he merely placed an olive branch in their hands during the first half of his term rather than trying to shove the entire tree up their collective orifice.
And now, the President doesn’t even have the support of the Left. For some reason, he’s at least temporarily abandoned all hope of “redistributing the wealth” to the degree that we all earn the same amount, drive the same cars, and eat the same food. While I say, “Vive la liberté,” the more progressive among us seem to think that Obama has lost his Presidential Ayers … uh … I mean his Presidential airs! He needs to get his swagger back. He needs to tell Americans what they think … like he did with Health Care Reform. He shouldn’t cave into the Republicans just because he’s going to be running for reelection next time around and saw what happened to his brethren in November when they ignored the will of the people. To paraphrase a Latin Proverb: “A fool learns by his own mistakes; a wise man by the mistakes of others.” Rest assured, President Obama isn’t a fool and his conciliatory motivation is quite “transparent.”
So, what should he do to resolve the current tax dilemma? Well, I think the answer is obvious. He should play to his remaining strength: accountability. After all, it is the Bush tax cuts that are causing his political headaches. So … he should just hold Bush “accountable.” It’s not like he hasn’t done that in the past, so we’re all conditioned to accept it. Yes, that’s definitely the way to go. It’s all Bush’s fault! Order is restored, and the government can get back to doing what it does best: taxing our patience.
(Next time: Tax Credits for Green Initiatives … but only if no one earns $250,000 because of them.)
*****
Copyright © 2010 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.
