Democrats are campaigning to end prosperity
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The US Department of Labor jobs report, released Friday, shows eye-popping gains , concluding a year that has been great for workers. Hourly wages shot up after 10 years of stagnation and real household income reached its highest level in history.
Bottom line: Anyone who wants a job can get one in President Trump’s economy. “If we’re not right at full employment, we’re very close to that,” says a top Federal Reserve official.
But progressive Democrats eyeing a White House run in 2020 are literally lying about the economy to sell their pie-in-the-sky government programs.
The likes of Sens. Liz Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders and former President Barack Obama cabinet member Julian Castro are backing various forms of universal “free” health care, “free” college, student loan forgiveness and a guaranteed paycheck from Uncle Sam.
Misleading the public, they’re campaigning as if we’re in a depression instead of a boom.
How would they pay for their massive giveaways? All these Dems are demanding that corporations and the rich “pay their fair share” to cover the tab.
And it’s a big tab. Sanders’ universal health care scheme comes in at $32 trillion in government spending over 10 years. Add to that free college, student loan forgiveness and a guaranteed-jobs program, and the tab totals $42.5 trillion, according to Manhattan Institute economist Brian Riedl, formerly a Senate Finance Committee staff member.
The federal government is projected to collect $44 trillion in tax revenues over 10 years. The progressive agenda would require doubling that.
On Sunday night television, Bronx Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed raising taxes on what she calls the “tippy-top” rich to pay the colossal cost of the progressive giveaways.
She wants to hike the marginal rate to 70 percent on anyone earning $10 million a year or more. Hours later, Castro threw his support behind the fraudulent idea.
Fraudulent, because their tax hike on the rich would raise, at most, $720 billion over 10 years, according to Mark Mazur, a former Treasury Department official now at the centrist Tax Policy Center. Sounds like a lot of money, but $720 billion is a mere sliver of the $42.5 trillion cost of the progressive agenda. There just aren’t enough rich taxpayers.
That’s why hiking taxes on the rich is a phony solution, a hoax meant to deceive voters. Yet every one of the leftist Dems eyeing a race for the White House repeats it.
To put the cost of their colossal giveaways in perspective, actually raising $42.5 trillion would require a whopping 87 percent national sales tax on everything Americans buy, says Riedl.
That’s not soaking the rich. It’s enslaving all of us.
This weekend, Warren, the first Dem to officially enter the 2020 waters, offered Iowa audiences a false tale of hard times in America. She said the economy is “rocky” and added “particularly rocky for people of color.” No way. African-American unemployment is near its record low. Hispanic unemployment is the lowest ever.
Warren said the current economic system is unfair, and she whipped out her Accountable Capitalism Act. She would give workers 40 percent of corporate board seats, and compel boards to serve vague goals like social justice instead of maximizing profits. Investors won’t put their money into an enterprise under those conditions. Warren’s scheme would tank the economy.
Unlike Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, who admit to being socialists, Warren vows to be “a capitalist to my bones.” Don’t believe it. She’s as much a capitalist as she is a Native American.
Connect the dots. The current hiring surge is being triggered by a huge increase in business investment. Investors are pouring money into companies to buy more vehicles, computers and equipment. Companies, in turn, are hiring more drivers and office personnel.
Behind the investment and hiring boom are the Trump tax cuts. Now Democrats are pledging to reverse those cuts and pile on more taxes if they capture the White House in 2020. They’re campaigning to undo prosperity. Republicans couldn’t hope for anything better.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
“On Sunday night television, Bronx Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed raising taxes on what she calls the “tippy-top” rich to pay the colossal cost of the progressive giveaways.
She wants to hike the marginal rate to 70 percent on anyone earning $10 million a year or more. Hours later, Castro threw his support behind the fraudulent idea.
Fraudulent, because their tax hike on the rich would raise, at most, $720 billion over 10 years, according to Mark Mazur, a former Treasury Department official now at the centrist Tax Policy Center. Sounds like a lot of money, but $720 billion is a mere sliver of the $42.5 trillion cost of the progressive agenda. There just aren’t enough rich taxpayers.
That’s why hiking taxes on the rich is a phony solution, a hoax meant to deceive voters. Yet every one of the leftist Dems eyeing a race for the White House repeats it.
To put the cost of their colossal giveaways in perspective, actually raising $42.5 trillion would require a whopping 87 percent national sales tax on everything Americans buy, says Riedl.
That’s not soaking the rich. It’s enslaving all of us.
This weekend, Warren, the first Dem to officially enter the 2020 waters, offered Iowa audiences a false tale of hard times in America. She said the economy is “rocky” and added “particularly rocky for people of color.” No way. African-American unemployment is near its record low. Hispanic unemployment is the lowest ever.
Warren said the current economic system is unfair, and she whipped out her Accountable Capitalism Act. She would give workers 40 percent of corporate board seats, and compel boards to serve vague goals like social justice instead of maximizing profits. Investors won’t put their money into an enterprise under those conditions. Warren’s scheme would tank the economy.
Unlike Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, who admit to being socialists, Warren vows to be “a capitalist to my bones.” Don’t believe it. She’s as much a capitalist as she is a Native American.”
Warren vows to be “a capitalist to my bones.”
Yeah just like Karl Marx was.
She has no real choice. Nobody is going to be able to do anything to diminish capitalism in the USA. If we ever move away from capitalism it will be the result of evolution (a long process) and it will be because the people were driving it. The exception to this is the USA being conquered ... not a pleasant scenario.
And by "being conquered" it doesn't necessarily mean with guns and bombs. It is not inconceivable that we could be conquered financially if we keep running up the massive debts that we have. It is just a matter of time before that bomb explodes.
Capitalism is not the problem IMHO. Certainly Capitalism incubated in a republican or similar democracy had much to do with our unprecedented economic and technological growth and prosperity by empowering individuals to pursue a path of rational self-interest in a hard-working competitive yet collaborative effort. Where the wheels come off is when cronyism and corruption, often aided by the State, begin to erode the opportunities that capitalism once provided for all individuals to work hard and excel. That cronyism and corruption is most certainly NOT unique to Capitalism, and is easily observed in Socialist, Communist and other societies throughout history.
If mankind can indeed evolve someday to where dominance hierarchy and tendencies for cronyism and corruption can be held at bay, then perhaps it won't matter what type of social-political structure we adopt. TiG, I think you and I are both intrigued by the concept of Libertarian Socialism if it could actually be sustained despite what now appears to be human nature. Maybe, someday....
Actually that is exactly what I had in mind.
I am interested in a better system. Whether that is a variant of capitalism or socialism does not matter much to me. The key is to not have a system where power is concentrated in the very few. Throughout history we never seem to be able to break free of that paradigm.
Capitalism overtime has gotten more people around the world out of poverty than any other form of an economy.
Yet Social Security is all that keeps most seniors from living in poverty...
Yes KAG, platitude number 11 is indeed true. Capitalism has been the best economic system thus far. Indeed, systems you call 'socialism' are usually based on an economic system of capitalism. No doubt about it, capitalism is vastly superior to feudalism (for example).
If capitolism is so successful why must most seniors depend on SS?
Because some didn't save their money in a retirement plan? Because buying a new car every few years, or leasing one, or buying a new cell phone or house bigger than needed? Vacations instead of saving?
Why do you seem to think that the government should support people?
Are you inflicted with the "Julia" syndrome, where folks think Julia should be coddled cradle to grave by government?
One can live on just social security only if they own their home and it’s paid off before retirement and they have no other debt. I’m working toward being out of debt and having my home paid off before retirement while maintaining a rainy day fund and a pension/IRA rolled into an annuity to supplement social security.
She’s capitalist to the same degree that she’s Native American, 1/1024th capitalist.
Um, a better record than your comments have for being honest or truthful...
While I agree with many of the facts and analysis pointed out in this article, I can't go as far as to become a Trump fan just yet. One reason is that I don't believe that Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was all that great for small business which is the economic engine that drives employment in this country, at least for now. I know from personal experience as a small business Owner that the TCJA's repeal of the two-year carry-back allowance and other special carry-back provisions of the previous tax code means that we can't recover taxes paid on profits in previous years in subsequent years where we've had a net operating loss, which is a common situation for many small companies to encounter from time to time. An article HERE explains that situation quite well.
The TCJA was sold as tax reform to help small business as well as big business, and while the lower corporate tax rate (from 35% down to 21%) might be very helpful to large corporations who need to carry large chunks of profit forward to fund capital projects, it does not help the millions of small businesses who try to minimize profits via bonuses and profit sharing to employees in order to minimize corporate income taxes paid. And especially now when they experience the occasional net operating loss which they can no longer offset with a refund of previous years taxes paid.
A couple other things it did that hurt many middle class small business Owners are:
1. Eliminates the deduction for interest on home equity loans.
2. Limits taxpayers to deduct up to only $10,000 of state and local taxes, including property taxes and the choice of income or sales taxes. This hurts many middle income folks living in areas with high housing costs coupled with high income, property, and sales taxes. Yes, I'm talking about CA and NY, mostly.
I also wish he could keep his Tweet hole shut at times, just not very "Presidential" for lack of a better word. So you will forgive me if I don't jump on the Trump Train just yet. The "Tax and Spend Train" is certainly no better, and is a shitload more dishonest about what it leaves in its wake, that is for sure!
Emphasizing this. Small companies are the heart of positive capitalism.
I support the 750k cap on home mortgage interest deductibility. It was cut from 1m to 750k not eliminated. Very few middle class small business people have 750k mortgages. As to the 10k cap on state income or sales tax and local income/property taxes, it’s fine and kept the overall “cost” of the tax cut down by 400b over 10 years. 88% of tax payers with the doubling of the personal and per child credit deductions won’t be itemizing at all and not affected. The large majority of the remaining 12% of tax payers who do itemize will not exceed the 10k nationwide cap. Also there is no reason why rural tax payers across the country should have to subsidize the high tax rates of bi coastal urban states and regions. Instead those affected by the cap should pressure their state and local governments to cut those tax rates.
Good point! Can't argue with that!
I was just pointing out those specific TCJA items that do indeed impact middle class small/medium size professional business Owners, particularly here in California, admittedly drawing on my own anecdotal experience and that relayed to me by my CPA. Stiil, my analysis of the TCJA impact on small business and corporate taxes applies to just about ANY small business in California and likely across the country.
I guess it depends on what part of Ca. one lives in. The part I’m from 750k buys a virtual mansion and reaching the 10k cap requires a lot of taxable income/property taxes. San Francisco and LA may be quite different due to their ridiculous high cost of living.
$750k will get you a pretty nice shack or one bedroom in SF area.
In the northern, southern, and eastern suburbs of Sacramento a 4,000 sq foot home with three car garage, large landscaped yard with pool, 5 bedrooms 4 bathrooms and large living, Family and bonus rooms would sell for that or less and not be subject to the cap on mortgage interest deductibility. In some parts of the inner Bay Area my 1,000 sq ft remodeled inside and out home with a single car garage, medium sized yard, 3 bedroom 1.5 bath home no family or bonus room and dining room/ living room are one would exceed or push close to the cap were it physically there.
We ARE in a depression. An emotional depression for fragile, hyper-emotional liberals who "just can't even" come to grips with their "feels".
They can stay in their emotional depression while we move forward with an economic boom that they couldn’t create when they had power or stop from happening after and because they lost political power.