The American Spectator : Should We Raise Taxes on the Rich?

Text Size

Special Report

Should We Raise Taxes on the Rich?

By Peter Ferrara on 11.14.12 @ 6:08AM

None of this makes any economic and moral sense — unless one is as ideologically blind as our re-elected president.

Barack Obama says that now that he has been re-elected, that means a majority of Americans agree with him that taxes should be raised on “the rich,” so that they would pay their “fair share.” But that policy makes no sense from any reasoned perspective.

Obama’s Tax Increases, Your Unemployment
On January 1, the tax increases of Obamacare become effective, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which President Obama refuses to renew for the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses (the plain English translation of “the rich”). That means the top tax rates of nearly every major federal tax will soar.

The top two income tax rates will jump by nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate will skyrocket by nearly 60%, the tax on dividends will triple, the Medicare payroll tax rate will skyrocket by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers, and the death tax will rise from the grave with a 57% rate increase. These are not proposals. They have already been enacted into current law.

This is all on top of the U.S. corporate income tax rate, which at nearly 40% on average, counting state corporate taxes, is already the highest in the world under Obama, except for the socialist, one party state of Cameroon. Even Communist China has a 25% corporate rate. The average in the social welfare states of the European Union is less than that now. In Canada, which has been booming since Obama became President, the federal corporate rate is 15%, compared to 35% in the U.S.

In the global economy, America’s businesses are uncompetitive with this enormous tax disadvantage. But under President Obama, there is no relief in sight. Instead, Obama spent his first four years barnstorming the country continuing to call for still more tax increases. Now Obama is already talking about a new carbon tax. So much for all his promises of no tax increase on the middle class “in any form.”

Obama says that his tax increases would not affect 97% of all small businesses. But that top 3% of small businesses earn 91% of all small business income, and employ 54% of the total private sector U.S. workforce, as reported in Investor’s Business Daily on November 9.

Obama’s economic plan as of today is to continue the policies of the first term, except to add these comprehensive tax rate increases. Obama’s policies have already produced the worst economic recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Adding these comprehensive rate increases will only mean further downturn, sharply slashing the incentives for productive activity by reducing what producers can keep out of what they produce. The result will be less productive activity, particularly the savings and investment that are essential to creating jobs and increasing productivity and wages and incomes.

With the economy barely growing at all, the further enormous drag on the economy from all these rate increases will only tip it all back into recession. I started writing about that a year ago, especially in my short Broadside book published by Encounter, Obama and the Crash of 2013. But now even the Washington establishment is coming around to the same view, especially the Congressional Budget Office. Adding to the contractionary forces are Obama’s explosive second term regulatory costs and restrictions, which in particular will burden the economy with crippling energy costs, and the Fed’s wild monetary policies laying the groundwork for renewed inflation and recession.

Renewed recession will mean unemployment soaring back into double digits, the deficit exploding to over $2 trillion, shattering all world records, and exploding federal debt accelerating America on the expressway to Greece. This will only hurt the middle class, working people and the poor the most. The rich can live off of what they have, and liberate their money by investing it overseas.

What Is Fair About That?
But aren’t these tax increases necessary to make sure the rich pay their fair share? Shouldn’t they pay the same tax rates as everyone else?

The CBO reports the latest compiled data from the IRS. In 2009, the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all federal income taxes, three times their share of income at 13%. In 1981 when President Reagan entered office, the top 1% paid just 17.6% of federal income taxes. So after nearly 30 years of Reagan Republican tax policies cutting income tax rates, by 2009 the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1% had more than doubled. That resulted because at the lower rates, the rich took their money out of tax shelters and invested it, contributing to the economic boom, and reporting higher incomes earned as a result. This is why Jack Kemp always used to say, if you want to soak the rich, cut tax rates.

Also in 2009, the top 20% of income earners, those earning more than $74,000, paid 94% of federal individual income taxes, 85% more than the share of national income they earned. Yet, the middle 20% of income earners, which can be considered the true middle class, paid 2.7% of total federal individual income taxes on net that year, while earning 15% of before-tax income. And the bottom 40% of income earners, instead of paying some income taxes to support the federal government, were paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of federal individual income taxes on net. That also was primarily the result of Reagan Republican tax policy over nearly 30 years, cutting taxes on the middle class, what the liberal/left calls the working class, and the poor.

So the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the rich actually pay far more than their fair share of federal income taxes. Is President Obama ignorant of these indisputable facts, or is he trying to deceive us to achieve his left-wing extremist goals?

President Obama is proposing increases in federal income tax rates to make the rich pay their fair share, so it is proper to look at what share of total federal income taxes are paid by different income earners. But even if we look at all federal taxes, and not just income taxes, the story is not very different.

In 2009, the top 1% paid over 22% of all federal taxes, again while earning 13% of the income, again according to official IRS data, as reported by CBO. Moreover, because of the weak economy, that is down under President Obama from the nearly 27% of all federal taxes paid by the top 1% that resulted from booming Reaganomics by 2007.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (52) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

oldeham| 11.14.12 @ 6:46AM

Never, never let the facts get in the way of the 'agenda'.

Rhoetus| 11.20.12 @ 11:03PM

I object to salami slicing citizens under all circumstances, I believe in equal treatment before the law. Progressive taxation is the root of all political evil.

Rhoetus| 11.20.12 @ 11:05PM

Although Mrs. Bobbitt doing it to Boy Clinton would be poetic justice.

Darin| 11.14.12 @ 7:01AM

Companies are already getting ready for Obamacare by reducing hours to under 30/week (where Obamacare defines "full time employment") to avoid the health care tax/penalty. Currently, this is in the service industry (restaurants), but look for it to expand to companies with a few hundred employees that currently provide health care. Companies have to do this to survive - it's Business 101. If anyone in the Obama administration knew what it took to run a business, they'd understand.

Appleby| 11.14.12 @ 7:05AM

As I keep telling my youngest sister, who believes the rich should be punished for being rich when she's not, the rich have Options. Oh, and most of the Really Rich know how to fly under the radar; because they were not always Rich. The Sports and Hollywood Trash will suffer the most, and serve them right, because people will discover that they can easily do without both groups when the pinch comes. The Sports and Hollywood Trash cannot do anything else but what they do. The Really Rich can...and I am guessing a majority of these people already have a Plan. Dear Leader is going to try to put out the fire by throwing the middle class into it, but what do you do when you've looted everybody left and burned the place to the ground? Who's going to build on disputed ground? It's not going to be fun, boys and girls...but it will be fascinating in a creepy and morbid way...

Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 12:11PM

Tax what you wish to have less of. If you want lower tax collections, raise taxes.

PolishKnight| 11.14.12 @ 3:48PM

I'm not agreeing with the morality of it, but the fact is that it is possible to raise tax rates AND tax revenue because they have done this in Europe.

Granted, that won't balance the budget.

Occam's Tool| 11.15.12 @ 12:03AM

And their unemployment is higher than ours; their innovation is pathetic; and we pay for their research advances in Medicine if there are any. Europe sucks.

Mars the Avenger| 11.15.12 @ 8:11AM

My feelings exactly.... And, who is it that decides what is fair? Some pointy headed mandarin in Washington DC? Spare me. Preferably, I would repeal the 16th Amendment. Failing that, a flat tax of 10% would be appropriate.

PolishKnight| 11.15.12 @ 1:55PM

It doesn't sound like it sucks too badly. If they're getting us to pay for their research advances, that has to be a point in their favor as compared to us funding a welfare state for Latin America. And their innovation isn't entirely pathetic. In many ways, they are far more modern than us. France was on the internet in 1980!!!

And unemployment? Thanks to Obama, we're not that much worse off than them. Even Greece's debt per capita is a fraction of ours. And overall, Europe has one thing going for it that we don't: It's full of Europeans who don't need to commit cultural suicide to get their leftists elected (although they're doing so anyway, kind of funny.)

Overall, we've got a real mess here as this last election demonstrates. Let's not try to cheer ourselves up out of it. This is not the America of 1980.

Von Mises Jr| 11.14.12 @ 7:57AM

It is completely logical if you understand the goal. The goal is fascist control of big business. In order to cement crony capitalism in our economy, it is imperative to get rid of their competition: small business.
Let's take a few examples: first a Wall Street person making six-figures with stock options and a Cadillac Health Care Plan and lots of travel and entertainment expenses. While his taxes may go up, he still has much left over; he is not impacted financially by ObamaCare and has low expenses since the company pays them directly.
Second take a government employee or retiree. They pay a little more in taxes, but their jobs and pensions are more secure with the redistribution. They also get Cadillac health coverage. They retire at 55 and live happily ever after.
Third take a small businesswoman. She probably pays taxes at the individual rate. They are going up substantially. She must buy perhaps a $20K health care plan for herself and employees or get fined $2K per employee if over 50 employees, or risk losing them if they are a very small business. Then they have regulation up to their eyeballs and can't afford the lawyers and accountants to comply. Finally, if they earn more than $250K, selling their business or house triggers a 3.8% tax on the sale price.

Von Mises Jr| 11.14.12 @ 7:59AM

So if a small business owner has their wealth tied up in their business and homes, they automatically plummet in value. If they are underwater on a $2M home, they must pay an additional $76K to sell their property at a loss.
Result:
Wall Street Fat Cats: winner
Government employees: winner
Small Business Owner: big loser

The result is government controlling big business and small business owners going out of business. This is fascism.

Rhoetus| 11.20.12 @ 11:08PM

Everything with the State, everything through the State, nothing against the State. Pretty much sums up today's Washington DC.

GobBluthe| 11.14.12 @ 8:30AM

I favor raising taxes on the rich as it will be a good teachable moment for the American citizen.

First the GOP should oppose any tax increase to position themselves for the aftermath.

Most Americans are convinced the $1 trillion deficits are caused by tax cuts for the rich. When the top rate of 39.6% is restored, revenues in a static world (overly optimistic) will increase about $70-80b per year. The public will see higher taxes on the rich, a slower even yet economy and possibly an even larger budget deficit. The US public has been sold on the notion of a free lunch to solve our fiscal problems. Raising taxes on the top rate, is the first step in shattering that myth. The public will then be faced with massive middle class tax increases, a VAT tax and/or massive spending cuts. The American voter will be forced to grow up and face reality.

JayDick| 11.14.12 @ 11:34AM

You are right on target. And, here's how to do it:

Boehner should continue negotiating with Obama until mid to late December. The negotiations will probably be fruitless, but they must be conducted, for appearances sake. Then Boehner should announce that, at this point, we have only two alternatives available to us; one is to let everything expire, the other is to keep everything except taxes on high-earners. Republicans think both alternatives are bad and will lead to economic stagnation or even recession, but keeping tax cuts for lower income people and raising them for the high earners is not as bad as letting everything expire. Therefor, we will approve the President's proposal even though we think it will have adverse economic consequences. But we will do so only because the other available alternative is worse.

That approach would prevent the Democrats from blaming the Republicans for the subsequent economic problems.

I think it is likely there will be a recession next year no matter what is done within the realm of reasonably likely possibilities. The only question is who gets blamed. Democrats are adept at blaming Republicans and Republicans must take all reasonable steps to prevent this from happening.

Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 12:12PM

The Republicans should simply vote present. Or let the skies fall. They should not vote yes.

Al Adab| 11.14.12 @ 12:48PM

That would be my first reaction also Dr. Occam. Let them stew in their own juices and at least the public would know who gets the blame.

The use of the word moral in the article does point out the underlying fact about the welfare State. None of us have a moral claim to the earnings or wealth of others. Certainly, through our elected representatives, we have agreed to relinquish a portion of that personal property for national purposes. We should and must review those purposes and that portion agreed upon, it was not a blank check to government, in order to put our fiscal house in order and maintain our national principal of limited government.

Warrior| 11.14.12 @ 2:41PM

You should have learned by now that liberal land plays the blame game in one direction. Romney could have stated that Obama has big ears and the media would fact check it with some convoluted explanation as to why it is a lie and Obama's ears are normal. Obama claims that Romney caused a worker in Missouri's wife (or whatever) to get cancer and die and he is praised for exposing the vast right wing conspiracy and rich peoples greed. No matter what happens, someone else or some event will be blamed.

Drunken Sailor| 11.14.12 @ 4:03PM

Exactly Oc, and Al. Give them all the rope they need to hang themselves. It's about time the American public gets a harsh lesson in reality.

merlin| 11.15.12 @ 4:07AM

The republicans should give Obama everything he wants by agreeing to vote present in exchang for a sunset provision on every bill. It will make cleanup easier.

JayDick| 11.15.12 @ 11:28AM

Sounds good to me.

Kwan| 11.14.12 @ 9:38AM

This constant yammering about the rich needing to pay higher taxes is part of the left's subliminal message, that the rich are the enemies of the people, but once Obama and the Commiecrats nationalize the economy we can all Progress Forward and become a truly Egalitarian Society. Which is leftist Newspeak for all becoming equally poor and equally without freedom.

JimH| 11.14.12 @ 9:44AM

What I have never heard from our Fearless Leader nor have I heard it asked of him, is just what is anyone’s fair share and how did BO determine what it was?

Dai Alanye | 11.14.12 @ 9:59AM

It wouldn't bother me to see us soak the rich. So long as, that is, it were done properly. If a new tax policy brought about screams from the likes of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates' father and all the other wealthy who propose increasing income taxes, I'd be entirely in favor of it.

First, though, let's not do it with the income tax. Every tax is also a penalty, and the income tax, in effect, is penalty upon working for a wage. Instead, let the new tax, applicable to billionaires only, be a tax upon wealth--all forms of wealth:
Real estate--including multiple homes, ranches of vast acreage, and islands tropical, temperate and arctic. Also art works of all descriptions whether modern or ancient or displayed via video screen. Any commodity holdings or options thereon from pork bellies to bullion. Investments of all forms, foreign and domestic, including dividends from those types of bonds that are presently tax-free. Also annuities, trust funds, and tax shelters of every form, type and nature. Nor must we forget the value of their memberships in exclusive organizations--from the Bilderbergers to the local yacht and country clubs--nor their wardrobes and items of jewelry and personal adornment, up to cosmetic prostheses and hair plugs.

Dai Alanye | 11.14.12 @ 10:00AM

To put it simply, we should calculate the tax on every red cent of wealth--actual or potential--that they have. It wouldn't need to be a large percentage. I imagine as little as a few percent per year would be sufficient to make them feel excruciating pain in the net balance.

The more this bothers the Buffetts, Gateses, Turners and Soroses--in other words, the left-leaning plutocrats so prone to lecture the rest of us--so much the better. In fact, the efficacy of my proposed measure could probably be determined by the decibel level of their screams combined with the degree of hyperbole in their predictions of the fall of civilization. And if a few conservatives are caught in the net... well, you can't make an omelet without melting some cheese.

Would this solve our deficit problem? Naah! Not directly, certainly, but it might teach a sovereign lesson to those whose influence so deleteriously affects American fiscal policies. If it went through I imagine they'd turn on Obama and rend him limb from political limb for his having brought up in the first place a tax upon the rich.

Occam's Tool| 11.15.12 @ 12:11AM

Actually, eliminate the income tax and go for the wealth tax: say, 1 percent of everything per year from 50 million to 60 million as tax, and keep increasing by 1 percent as the assets go up by 10 million. By the time you hit 100 million you are paying 5 million a year in tax, by the time you are at 200 million 15% is taxed, and everything over 1 billion is taxed at 100 percent. That's ALL YOUR ASSETS.

That would allow people to accumulate a lot of money by hard work, while simultaneously destroying inherited super wealth and kicking Soros' and Buffett's asses for them.

I like.

Occam's Tool| 11.15.12 @ 12:15AM

Or, since all spending must arise from the House, let the Government get slammed, and let the House pass a continuing resolution that pays our military, keeps the Social Security checks going out and Medicare and Medicaid funded, and nothing else. See what Reid and Obama do with that. We control the House. The House is the most powerful member of the most powerful Branch of government. Its power is the most diffuse, but we OWN it.

gene| 11.14.12 @ 10:02AM

Right is Wrong
Black is White
"We've always been at war with Eastasia".
"We've always been at war with "Eurasia".
"The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war"
"The Ministry of Truth with lies".
"The Ministry of Love with torture".
"The Ministry of Plenty with starvation".

Any Questions?

PolishKnight| 11.14.12 @ 10:04AM

As others have pointed out, the wealthy have found ways to shield their wealth. If it's investment wealth, it's especially easy to shield either in the form of simply leaving it where it is (if it doesn't get cashed out, it's not income) or "smurfing" it (hiding it in various trusts that minimize the effect of progressive income taxes.)

Another factor is what I call the "double dip". Many leftists enjoy the best of both worlds knowing that the right will protect them due to ideology. Democrat voting feminists know that right wingers will support traditionalist protection schemes such as welfare or "child" support for the interests of "the children" or because they're "ladies". The leftist wealthy know the right will protect them, so why not bite the hand that feeds them? It KEEPS feeding them?

Maybe making them go cold turkey a while might help a little. In addition, the right which has seemed to care more about the wealthy than about their white male electorate might think about things if they get hit in the pocketbook...

Datsun 2000 Mark| 11.14.12 @ 10:36AM

Peter,
As Steve Bucemi said in the movie Armaggedon "It's time to embrace the horror." I say let Barry raise taxes. If the Republicans were smart (they are not) they would put on Barry's desk a tax increase (for 4 year limit) on the *Super Rich*. Let George Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet pay more. Let's see if Barry will put his tax where is money was?

PolishKnight| 11.14.12 @ 10:50AM

I agree. Call their bluff. The wealthy left is having it both ways and getting away with promising a wealth-tax funded utopia that's not possible while blaming Bush and Republican obstructionists for not giving them what they want.

Also, the wealthy are not taking care of the middle or working class or the Republican base. Nixon signed off on the marriage penalty. If they can't or won't take care of us, then throw 'em to the wolves. Welcome to the jungle! We've got fun and games!

George S| 11.14.12 @ 11:11AM

If anyone is interested, here is why the Obama way is impossible.

The federal budget is $3.6 trillion, or each day the government spends $10 billion.

Corporate income tax receipts were $339 bn.

From the 2009 IRS data you cite and defining "rich" as an income of over $200K per year:

The reported adjusted gross income can be summarized as:

Those earning $50k to $200k -- $3.75 trillion reported income on 41 million returns;

Those earning above $200k -- $1.95 trillion reported income on 4 million returns.

I ran some numbers...

Setting different "top" tax rates on the rich and adding the corporate income tax (and ignoring excise taxes, duties and misc revenue), I then deducted that from the federal budget to determine what the middle class (50-200k) will have to kick in -- since those earning less than 50k do not pay income taxes -- to make up the difference to balance the budget:

At a top rate of 50%, the middle class tax rate has to be 61% of their gross income with no deductions, credits or exemption.

Top rate of 70%, middle class: 50%
Top rate of 90%, middle class: 40%

That's the only way. The middle class will require to pay at least 40 cents of every dollar they earn to balance the budget for one year. At a 90% tax rate over $200k, everyone will stop earning at $200k.

That means everyone will pay ($3.6T budget minus 339bn corporate) a rate of 71% from there on out.

Not included: ObamaCare, interest on the debt.

Kwan| 11.14.12 @ 12:08PM

As our credit rating under Obama deteriorates to ZZZ -lower than Junk Bonds- interest on the debt will reach the point of absorbing all tax revenues. Then the country will need to declare bankruptcy, like every other failed state has done.

JP| 11.14.12 @ 12:09PM

But we will raise taxes only on the "rich", and guess what? Boehner will get the blame - for which he should.

Spoonman| 11.14.12 @ 12:09PM

Peter, nice article and nice statistics to remind people of - but, doesn't Obama and his crew really want something else? Don't they really want the income redistributed from the higher earners to those with lower earnings? That I believe is the real goal - using federal tax policy to accomplish that is the first step - confiscation of income from the higher earners will be next.

Fiscal| 11.14.12 @ 12:29PM

Ferrara continues to show his ignorance when it comes to economics. If you normalize the GDP data for inflation (and to a great extent even if you don't), you'll see that there is virtually no correlation between marginal tax rates and economic growth. Tax cuts do not make the economy grow. In fact, the growth under both Reagan and Clinton was under much higher marginal rates than we have now.

The real issue, then, is not the economic value of taxes, but the fact that the current system is not fair. We have corporate welfare, treating carried interest as capital gains, write-offs for the very rich, and regressive payroll taxation for the very poor. This problem has a relatively simple solution -- make the tax system flat and get rid of write-off's. Incorporate payroll taxes into overall taxation because Social Security is NOT an insurance any more and Medicare is a benefit to everyone. If my calculations are approximately right, this should leave everyone with a tax rate somewhere between 15-20% of income. I'd probably have a threshold of $15k or so as a base since the administration of low income tax returns would have minimal value. That said, the benefit of everyone having to pay into the system would make everyone have some skin in the game.

Of course, fairness would never happen because of lobbying and money in politics. But it is a nice goal.

JP| 11.15.12 @ 9:37AM

The GDP grew in 1980s and 1990s because the nation was much younger than it is now. And spending as a percentage of the GDP was much lower than today. Yes, taxes do matter. Federal spending matters even more.

George S| 11.14.12 @ 1:26PM

So somebody who makes $15,001 can afford to pay $3,000.20 but one who makes $15,000 will suffer a hardship?

Fiscal| 11.14.12 @ 2:29PM

Listen, I think everyone should pay something. But if you do the math, you'd see that the $15K threshold only determines the start of the flat rate. You'd just take your income, subtract $15k, and apply the flat rate. So the person making $15k would pay nothing, and the person making $15,001 would only pay taxes on the $1 -- or about 15 cents. I could be easily pursuaded to have a lower rate for those below $15k, but I can't see economically how the revenues would justify the administration involved. I'd like to make the IRS much smaller if possible -- not larger.

Ronsch| 11.14.12 @ 1:29PM

And yet Mitch McCommunist and John Boner are willing to discuss tax increases to allegedly generate revenue to help "pay the deficit." All the while NerObama continues the worn tirade that got him back in office..."Tax The Rich" and "Pay Their fair Share."

If nerObama gets his way, he will say it is not enough and that the republicans were too easy on the rich. if he does not, he will say the Republicans are covering for their "rich, white friends."

Either way, the repubs are just too stupid to realize the ride they are on...

Fiscal| 11.14.12 @ 2:33PM

Again, the issue is fairness, not rates. You don't argue against rates, you make a proposal that's fair. So far, Republican proposals don't add up because they assume growth that is not supported by the historical econometric data. You don't get fairness by progressive tax rates. You get fairness by making sure the wealthy, and companies, don't get any special tax breaks. Once you start arguing rates, you've lost the argument with the Dems. That's the problem.

JP| 11.15.12 @ 9:38AM

And the wealthy still pay 80% of all taxes.

Rhoetus| 12.12.12 @ 9:49PM

Ronsch: So that they can increase spending? Where are the cuts in spending? Tomorrow, tomorrow is only a day away. ;-)

gatorbait51| 11.14.12 @ 2:59PM

It doesn't make logical or financial sense. What this is truly about is pandering and envy. And, sickeningly enough, it works

Fiscal| 11.14.12 @ 3:08PM

Actually, fella, it does make sense as cap gains rates and deductions make the wealthy pay far below what most of us pay. The tax code is a mess and the "tax the rich" argument makes as much sense -- perhaps more -- than trickle down which as the data shows, has never worked.

BShep| 11.14.12 @ 3:39PM

Whatever you do, don’t let Ben Stein read this article. I think the shock would kill him and then what would wifey do????

Pat_Riot| 11.14.12 @ 5:26PM

I never understand why "journalists" cannot ask those that want "the rich" to pay their "fair share" to define what % is a "fair share" and what is the $ amount of assets makes someone "rich" - those are two simple questions with numerical easy to understand answers if given. Note: anytime a "progressive" is asked this they squirm and try to change the subject and will never answer the question. Please, conservative friends, start asking these questions of anyone that want to raise taxes (they call it revenue)!!!

Intelligent Design| 11.14.12 @ 8:10PM

A good book to read is America Lite - How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats), by David Gelernter.
His thesis is that Obamacrats hold a set of preconceived notions and refuse to allow facts to disrupt their ignorance. President Airhead is ignorant and was elected by the ignorant, not necessarily by ideologues. The solution is to take American education away from liberal Airheads and focus on Internet education, to break the grip of the Airheads.
I would take this a step further ---- all education should be private, not run by the government at any level.

John2| 11.14.12 @ 10:59PM

A point on style: It is never wise to say, "But that policy makes no sense from any reasoned perspective."
Several of the comments are on target....

because we CAN figure out what Obama is doing, and why. There is nothing complicated about his economic program. Overload the system, cause chaos, screw up anything that might improve life.

Who could misunderstand him at this late date?

Rhoetus| 11.14.12 @ 11:54PM

Rules for Conservatives @
http://www.saveamericanow.us.com

Ralph Novy| 11.20.12 @ 11:48PM

So that's what you're left with, eh, Ferrara? A threat? Increase taxes and we'll cut jobs?

Well, piss off, pal. We're GOING to increase your taxes, a wee bit. And if you whine about it, we're going to increase them even MORE. Get it?

So stop pissing and moaning and whining and start doing something constructive, eh?

Or folks like me are going to very seriously think about re-instating 90%+marginal tax rates.

... which we should, anyway.

Go ahead. Wave that red cape just ONE MORE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!

Rhoetus| 11.21.12 @ 11:47PM

Mr. Novy: Have you ever invented anything? Hired anyone? Ever owned a business? Taken a risk? Have you ever thought about how all the authoritarian governments abuse and terrorize their citizens? I don't think you have, and perhaps you are in jr. high using the computer you mommy bought for you.

The American Spectator