Monday, October 10, 2011

FOD 2011.10.10

When Dear Leader introduced his most recent deficit reduction plan - you know, the one characterized by taxing the rich (Still not sure which one? It's the one based on the Buffet Rule.) - anyway, when he introduced it he said "This is not class warfare - it's math."

He was wrong on both counts.

Over the past few weeks the Occupy Wall Street cockroaches have received his tacit blessing, encouraging further class warfare.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) completed an analysis of obama's 'original' jobs plan (the one with the Buffet Rule, which is so bad it's even opposed by his own party) and the revised version proposed by Senate democrats.

In either case, the math just doesn't add up.

On Oct. 7th the CBO issued a report comparing obama's Buffet Rule plan to the Senate dem's 5% surtax on millionaires (defined as anyone with annual income exceeding $1 million, from any source, including capital gains and dividends). The results showed that in either case it would take ten years - TEN FRIGGIN' YEARS!!! - to pay for what the government spends in four count 'em four months.

Yes, you read that right. Ten years of tax increases to offset four months of government expenditures. Maybe it's time to try something radical, like, oh I don't know ... maybe cutting spending???

From the CBO:
Honorable (*cough cough choke choke*) Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Leader:

As you requested, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the budget impact of S. 1660, the American Jobs Act of 2011, as introduced in the Senate on October 5, 2011. CBO and JCT estimate that, in total, enacting S. 1660 would decrease deficits by about $6 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see enclosed table). That estimated deficit reduction of $6 billion over the coming decade is the net effect of $447 billion in additional spending and tax cuts in titles II through III and $453 billion in additional tax revenue from the surtax specified in title IV.

S. 1660 is similar to S. 1549, the American Jobs Act of 2011, as introduced in the Senate on September 13, 2011. Provisions in title I, II, and III related to both federal revenues and spending are identical for the two bills. The only difference between the bills is that S. 1660 replaces the provisions in title IV (Offsets) of S. 1549 with a surtax of 5.6 percent, starting in 2013, on a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income in excess of $1 million (or $500,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return), indexed for inflation. JCT estimates that title IV of S. 1660 would increase revenues by $453 billion over  the 2012-2021 period, whereas title IV of S. 1549 would increase revenues by $450 billion over that period.
Another way of interpreting the CBO report is that after netting the increased revenue of either plan (somewhere in the neighborhood of $450 billion over a ten-year period) against the estimated cost of obama's jobs plan ($447 billion over a much shorter timeframe) the country basically breaks even. And keep in mind that obama's jobs plan is just a rehash of previously failed policies.

Under either interpretation - the increased taxes either pay for four months of government or for obama's bogus job plan -the obvious question is "Why bother?"

Oh yeah, it's that whole 'pay your fair share' thing. Since the libs have never provided a definition of "fair share" (other than "more") we're back to class warfare.

Not math...


JT said...

I was having a conversation with my 17-year old, who is really 'getting' her economics class - my 8-year old Princess, listening in, heard us deriding the 'fair share' phrase, and pointed out that I repeatedly tell her that life isn't always fair. Third graders could lead better than Blowie.

CenTexTim said...

I'm glad to her the 17-year-old is getting eco. I've always thought that applied economics should be a required course in both high school and college - and a prerequisite for elected office.

kerrcarto said...

The only problem with the guys analogy is Robin Hood was stealing from the government and giving it back to the people.

CenTexTim said...

kerrcarto, my understanding of Robin Hood is that he took from the rich - not just Prince John, but barons, bishops, and the like - and gave to the poor. Taxing the rich at arrowpoint, as it were.

For more info on Mr. Hood go here.