Posted on 03/05/2009 11:13:41 AM PST by Graybeard58
Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd is heaping praise on President Obama's proposed $3.55 trillion budget with its built-in (lowball) $1.75 trillion deficit — the entire federal budget 10 years ago was $1.6 trillion — and record $1 trillion in new soak-the-rich taxes over 10 years to fund the next step toward health-care rationing and other socialism.
The budget "makes critical investments in our economic future," said Sen. Dodd, whose years of deal-cutting with financiers left the U.S. economy in tatters, cost millions of Americans their jobs, and led to trillions in new government borrowing, hundreds of billions in bailouts for irresponsible businesses and homeowners, millions of layoffs, and now a $1 trillion tax increase on "the rich" to be achieved by raising marginal rates, limiting deductions and letting the Bush tax cuts for high earners expire.
The budget stands to inflict the most hurt on Connecticut. For one thing, it cuts deeply into Pentagon spending, which will require Electric Boat, General Electric and United Technologies, major employers already at a competitive disadvantage because of the state's tax and regulatory schemes, to vie even harder for dwindling dollars. Also, Sen. Dodd's constituents have carried the No. 1 federal tax burden since 1986. The budget's more progressive tax structure would increase their load, but not Sen. Dodd's because his income would be below the $250,000 threshold. How convenient.
But Sen. Dodd isn't the only one swinging at the soak-the-rich piñata. Your Democratic legislative supermajority's priorities include a $132,500-aires tax for people who already pay more than half of all income taxes. And since the state is bound to shift some of its fiscal woes onto cities and towns, local property taxes are sure to rise and take another bite out of the wallets of higher earners.
Since this triple whammy will affect a small percentage of taxpayers, the rest won't care, but they should because of the many unintended consequences. For example, as evidenced by the demise of the Connecticut Opera and the state's reduction of grants for the arts, cultural organizations, charities and such, nonprofits are under the gun. But their chief benefactors are businesses that have closed or seen their profits disappear; foundations whose endowments have been eroded sharply by the Chris Dodd Bear Market; and those whom the president, Sen. Dodd and supermajority Democrats are targeting for huge tax increases.
Multiple new soakings of the rich, necessitated in part because tin-eared Sen. Dodd fancied himself presidential timber, tug at liberals' heartstrings, but they would cause higher earners to donate less, imperiling nonprofits further.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
Can’t we just buy Dodd a few waitress sandwiches and get him out of there?
“Sen. Dodd fancied himself presidential timber,”
Methinks the heartwood of that timber is rotten.
Is he still vulnerable as was being reported a few weeks ago?
One of the requirements for the redistribution of wealth is wealth.
If the Bush tax cuts expire it will raise everyone’s taxes.
We’ve never been anywhere near anyone’s definition of rich and those tax cuts cut our taxes in half.
Thanks for the ping Graybeard58. I appreciate it.
Reducing take home pay for those pulling the economic wagon only makes sense to leftwing socialists. Or community organizers.
Without totally socializing America (yet), Obama has already subscribed to the most reprehensible practice of leftist governments; protecting and enriching the inner party at the cost of the standard of living of the proletariat. Under the guise of stimulus legislation, Obama is raiding the public purse to insulate groups and individuals who are faithful to the party and its glorious leader from the deteriorating economy. The rest of us can eat cake.
“Soaking the Rich Has Consequences”
Democrat scu*bag punks don’t care about consequences. They only care about the revolution.
IMHO
Same situation in my house. I can't say that the cuts halved our taxes but it made a real noticable difference.
To a liberal, a "rich" person is someone who is a net tax payer and they are supposed to support net tax takers.
If I were king, nobody would get to vote if they receive more from government than they pay in, excluding the military. No democrat would ever win public office again.
better idea, can’t we just put Dodd in prison?
Why not just keel-haul and then draw and quarter?
I ask this because some if not most of those types seem to have been for Obama.
Those closer to that $250,000 "line of demarcation" will undoubtedly feel the pinch. Which will trickle down to the rest of us and we'll feel the pinch even harder.
WORKS FOR ME!!
It’s all about “feelings,” “fairness,” and good intentions with these people.
They don’t care if it makes everyone miserable as long as everyone is miserable equally. Usually, however, they feel the rules they make don’t apply to THEM. They get a pass for imposing the rules on others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.