Read the title carefully, it has Marxist in it, not Progressive, although the Americanized word for Marxist and Democrats is PROGRESSIVE. Notice how common the usage is today, it sounds so forward thinking, so positive, so modern. Yet, the term really came to the American forefront during a failed run for President by Theodore Roosevelt. Imagine that!
Woodrow Wilson is the first true Marxist, er, uh, Progressive POTUS but I’m here to focus, once again, on Barack Obama, current occupant of the White House and his policies. However, I’m going copy some source material provided by Peter Ferrara of the Heartland Institute writing at Forbes below. It’s lengthy but the argument is excellent and true. Please note, the article was written in December of 2012 but it could have been written yesterday.
President Obama says that income taxes must be raised on the rich because they don’t pay their fair share. The indisputable facts from official government sources say otherwise.
The CBO reports based on official IRS data that in 2009 the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all federal income taxes, three times their share of income at 13%. Yet, the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, paid just 2.7% of total federal income taxes on net that year, while earning 15% of income. That means the top 1% paid almost 15 times as much in federal income taxes as the entire middle 20%, even though the middle 20% earned more income.
Moreover, the official data, as reported by CBO and the IRS, show that 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 income taxes as a group on net.
Any normal person would say that such an income tax system is more than fair, or maybe that “the rich” pay more than their fair share. So why does President Obama keep saying that the rich do not pay their fair share? Is he ignorant? Wouldn’t somebody in his Administration whisper to him that he is peddling nonsense?
The answer is that to President Obama this is still not fair because he is a Marxist. To a Marxist, the fact that the top 1% earn more income than the bottom 99% is not fair, no matter how they earn it, fairly or not. So it is not fair unless more is taken from the top 1% until they are left only with what they “need,” as in any true communist system. Paying anything less is not their “fair” share. That is the only logical explanation of President Obama’s rhetoric, and it is 100% consistent with his own published background.
Notice that Obama keeps saying that “the rich,” a crass term implying low class social envy, don’t “need” the Bush tax cuts. That is reminiscent of the fundamental Marxist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Good tax policy is not guided by “need.” It is guided by what is needed to establish the incentives to maximize economic growth. The middle class, working people and the poor are benefited far more by economic growth than by redistribution. That is shown by the entire 20th century, where the standard of living of American workers increased by more than 7 times, through sustained, rapid economic growth.
But President Obama’s tax policy of increasing all tax rates on savings and investment will work exactly contrary to such economic growth. It is savings and investment which creates jobs and increases productivity and wages. Under capitalism, capital and labor are complementary, not adversarial, exactly contrary to the misunderstanding of Marxists. More capital investment increases the demand for labor, bidding up wages to the level of worker productivity, which is enhanced by the capital investment.
Increasing marginal tax rates on savings and investment, however, will mean less of it, not more. That will mean fewer jobs, and lower wages, just as we have experienced so far under President Obama, with median household incomes (hello middle class) declining by 7.3% (a month’s worth of wages) during his first term, even faster after the recession supposedly ended in 2009. That will only get worse in Obama’s unearned second term, which can only be explained as “democracy failure” analogous to “market failure.”
If the tax increases are limited to those who earn $1 million or more, I don’t know if that alone will be enough to create a recession, as I am certain would be the result with Obama’s original policy of targeting couples making over $250,000 a year, and singles making over $200,000.
But there is so much in the Obama economic program that is contractionary. His second term promises enormous new regulatory burdens and barriers. The EPA is shutting down the coal industry, and Interior will join with it to sharply constrain oil production further, despite Obama’s duplicitous campaign rhetoric taking credit for the production produced by the policies and efforts of others. I expect Obama’s EPA to burden natural gas fracking until it goes the way of the coal industry as well, stealing new found prosperity for many Americans. All of this will sharply raise energy prices, which will be another effective tax on the economy.
Moreover, President Obama has said that a priority in his second term will be global warming, even though global temperatures have not been increasing for 16 years now, and the developing world led by Brazil, Russia, India and China (the BRIC countries), which are contributing to “greenhouse gases” at a much greater accelerating rate than the U.S., have rejected sacrificing any slice of their economies to that ideological phantom. While even the Democrat Congress of Obama’s first term failed to adopt “cap and trade,” EPA is advancing with global warming regulations that will cost the economy trillions in still another effective tax.
Then there are the onrushing regulatory burdens of Obamacare, including the employer mandate, which will require all businesses with 50 employees or more to buy the most expensive health insurance available. That will be an effective tax on employment. As Obamacare forces up the cost of health insurance, that will be still another effective tax increase on all employers already providing health coverage. Hundreds of regulations still in the pipeline under the “Dodd-Frank” legislation are already forcing the financial sector to contract, and threaten the business and consumer credit essential to full recovery.
In addition, few are adequately considering the longer term contractionary effects of the Fed’s current policy mischief. For years now, businesses and investments have been launched all over the country based on the near zero interest rates, and even below zero real rates, that Fed policies have perpetuated, along with the easy free money . When those rates inevitably rise back to normal, most likely after these Fed policies have resparked inflation, the basis for those businesses and investments will be gone, and many if not most will go into liquidation, which will be highly contractionary as well.
However, I am certain in any event that the Obama tax increases will result in less revenue rather than more. Obama has been proposing to increase the capital gains tax rate by 58% on the nation’s job creators, investors and successful small businesses, counting his Obamacare tax increases that take effect on January 1 as well the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. While his misleading talking points say there will be no tax increases for 97% of small businesses, that counts every Schedule C filed for every part time or hobby sole proprietorship, however marginal the earnings. The small businesses that would bear President Obama’s originally proposed tax increases earn 91% of all small business income, and employ 54% of the total private sector U.S. work force, as reported in Investors Business Daily on November 9.
Over the last 45 years, every time capital gains tax rates have been raised, revenues have fallen, and every time they have been cut, revenues have increased. The capital gains rate was raised 4 times from 1968 to 1975, climbing from 25% to 35%. The 25% rate produced real capital gains revenues in 1968 of $40.6 billion in 2000 dollars. By 1975, at the higher rate, capital gains revenues had plummeted to $19.6 billion in constant 2000 dollars, less than half as much.
After the capital gains rate was cut from 35% to 20% from 1978 to 1981, capital gains revenues had tripled by 1986 compared to 1978. Then the capital gains rate was raised by 40% in 1987 to 28%. By 1991, capital gains revenues had collapsed to $34.4 billion, down from $92.9 billion in 1986, in constant 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation.
Obama’s capital gains tax increase next year will reduce capital gains revenues again as well.
Similarly, when President Bush slashed the income tax on corporate dividends, dividends paid soared, and revenues from taxation of those dividends soared along with them. With Obama’s tax on dividends reversing that Bush tax cut, those revenue gains will also be reversed.
Finally, those earning over $1 million are the most financially agile of all taxpayers. They can move, shelter, and transform income more easily than anyone else. Most likely, the number of American millionaires, or at least American taxpayers reporting a million in income, will plummet after the Obama tax increases, and so will income taxes paid by millionaires.
Of course, if the tax increases and other policies of Obamanomics push the economy back into recession, total federal revenues will decline rather than rise. Federal deficits and debt will soar further, along with unemployment and poverty, while jobs, wages and incomes decline further. That is what happened the last time federal economic policy followed the preferred prescription of the Washington Establishment, and also adopted a package of tax increases, in return for chimerical spending reductions, when George H.W. Bush was President.
Can such public policy malpractice make any sense? President Obama says it is “fair” in his redistributionist sense of fairness. But what is fair about fewer jobs, lower wages, and higher unemployment, poverty, federal deficits, and national debt, at the price of higher taxes, for anybody?
What is fair is a flat tax, where everyone pays the same tax rate, which is true equality. Under such a tax system, if you dear reader make 10 times what I do, then you pay 10 times what I do, not 20, 30 or 40 times, as advocated by so-called “progressives,” (a polite, Americanized term for Marxist). If President Obama wants Warren Buffett to pay the same tax rate as his Secretary, he can adopt that flat tax, and the economy will boom. But President Obama seems to think that the increased dependence of further recession best suits his political interests, and those of the Democrat Party, rather than the independence fostered by a booming economy. See what I mean by “democracy failure?”
I’m a little late to this dance but the article was spot-on, much of what I said, wrote about and thought when Obama first came onto the national scene I find here. When I first saw Obama linked to “just another guy in the neighborhood” of Chicago’s Hyde Park, one Bill Ayers, I began my research in earnest.
I’m amazed that in 2015 it’s rare to find the use of “Progressive” as equal to “Marxist” definition and call out Obama for what his ideology is and represents. Not many, only a small handful in the media, will do so.
Mr. Ferrara has done anyone reading this article a huge service by not just calling Obama a Marxist but providing detailed reasons and evidence why this is so.
Unfortunately, 2+ years later Obama is now on a bullet train, utilizing executive orders, promising more to include the tax code, and his regulatory agencies to further his quest, as promised, to fundamentally transform America. All while the GOP establishment and Congressional majority remain feckless and without the intestinal fortitude to stand by the principles they promised to voters who gave them that majority. We are doomed as a country with Obama moving forward on his promise with zero opposition.
And the future only holds more “progressives” like Hillary Clinton or now, Martin O’Malley, who calls himself a “proud progressive.” I’m amazed how low information and ignorant our society has become. Is it any wonder were are not a growth country but a welfare state? The government lies about unemployment, job growth, welfare rolls, food stamp rolls, enrollee’s to Obamacare and a host of other statistics to make themselves look successful while we continue to drown as a country. And that so-called 11 million illegal immigrants is more like 23.5+ million, and that number was quoted over 2 years ago and is reliable.
America is currently playing out the sequel to “Silence of the Lambs”, when does full blown anarchy begin or will the societal carnage continue?
I grew up in Gary and recently visited this disaster. Since the film at the bottom of this post brings up race I might say Richard G. Hatcher did in fact bring his brand of racism to the city under the guise of equality.
The federal government and their housing practices, making demands on whites selling their homes, to make unreasonable upgrades under FHA rules.
And yes, white real estate people also played into this “white flight” through scare tactics which are illegal but made people not qualified to sell anything star “sales people” in the real estate business. Listings was like taking orders for a hot commodity. And just like the Fannie/Freddie debacle we’ve seen with the financial meltdown of 2008 the lady who purchased my mothers home did so with $50 down, the balance on loan.
Territorial expansion may have helped but economic planning could have been diverted if you had a mayor that really cared about Gary but was too busy traveling, particularly with frequent trips to the Virgin Islands. When Dutch elm disease hit Gary the federal government supplied equipment and millions of dollars to contend with the problem via tree removal. That money quietly disappeared for a different purpose and urban economics was not one of them.
I also remember the hatred and violence that ensued with the election of Hatcher. Why would whites wish to stay in a city engulfed in threats to property and life with a mayor who quietly promoted it? Certainly people were willing to give up their property and upend their lives to escape for something better and safer. Hatcher wanted Gary turned over to the black citizens lock, stock and barrel and worked feverishly to that end. There is no mystery here, and territory expansion is not an excuse. Take a look at the photos here –>> Urban Exploration: Gary, Indiana – Ghost Town which tell a story unto itself as a supplement to the film below.
On my trip through Gary, Lew Wallace H.S., once known for higher education and a model in Gary and the USA, is now closed and merely lurking in the snowy climate. Expanded since my days one really has to wonder if that was necessary with dwindling class sizes compared to a graduating class of 511 in 1967 and standards to academic adherence that could never be met today. The new caretakers under Richard G. Hatcher wanted power but couldn’t handle that and they attached greed with total mismanagement and blamed the steel economy. It’s always someone else’s fault. Some things never would change in Gary. Did I say corruption?
My home was “intact” but the garage was gone, the huge backyard maple tree gone, and the white picket fence gone! No, I didn’t take any pictures but my mood was one of gloom and sadness as I drove up and down streets getting from one destination to another. I drove past my brother’s home in the Morningside area which was still standing but the house next door (on the corner) once occupied by pathologists has given in to ply wood window treatments and is abandoned.
Gary, Indiana where my very large church was burned to the ground and my priest beaten to a pulp with baseball bats by four thugs – two men, two women – and for a paltry $2 and an old wrist watch. The perpetrators were not white. My grandmothers home, once of the first built in East Glen Park, had been burned to the ground also and has been replaced with an overgrown empty lot.
It actually took me several days to recover from this short day trip. I expected as much but to see it in person didn’t leave me speechless (surprise) but I won’t print my exact feelings here.
Gary was a terrific town to live in but people wanted something they couldn’t afford and Hatcher used federal law to accommodate them. The current mayor is as corrupt and ignorant as any before him, white or black, although this time they elected a female. I carefully listened to her speak and she doesn’t have a grip on reality or a genuine plan.
Politicians work for their own survival and blame others when things don’t go well. Richard G. Hatcher has no further to look than his own face in a mirror. Now teaching law at Valparaiso University he is still blaming everyone else for what he helped initiate. Hatcher’s failed “Black Utopia”, indeed.
And to the IUN professor and the producer in the film concerning danger – the statistics don’t lie so quit making excuses and calling it “racism.” The money that has continued to “disappear” is what we in economics call – good money chasing bad. Ask the politicians and hear the lie.
Racism in any fashion is poison to society. We used the term “reverse racism” and Hatcher turned it into an art form. Racism has now hit the highest echelons of government, particularly in the White House and Attorney General’s office.
Hope and Change – where have we heard that before? Stagnant promises and more lies. Develop your own hope and change – G.O.Y.A!
I encourage you to spend some time (1.5 hours) watching the well done documentary below. I will update with some comments I’ve made with friends concerning this post and the film as updates.
I never liked Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) as he’s a loud mouth RINO and a liar. Now I like him even less.
You see, Mr. Corker is now joined at the hip with two Marxists from the Democrat party – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) in his zeal for a new gas tax now that private industry has succeeded in lowering the cost of a gallon of gasoline as well as the price of oil.
Politician generally create an environment that destroys jobs through the regulation and tax process. They rarely do anything that enhances the ability of private industry to create jobs, expand, create economy and increase profits which generally lead to reinvestment and more jobs.
Nancy Pelosi is so bold she doesn’t think the average consumer will even notice a hike in gas taxes or the price at the pump.
“If there’s ever going to be an opportunity to raise the gas tax, the time when gas prices are so low — oil prices are so low — is the time to do it,” she explained.
Your Federal government wishes to do for you what OPEC can’t. Competition makes the world go round and economies not politicians.
But wait, there is an excuse for higher gasoline taxes. Remember Obama’s shovel ready jobs, the one’s where hundreds of orange barrels show up blocking lanes to your highway with warning signs concerning worker safety? One problem is I have yet to see the workers or equipment.
Whoa’s me – the infrastructure is crumbling, the bridges are falling, the potholes are growing, airport runways are dangerous and need repair.
Mr. Corker adds that we are:
“…just stealing from future generations out of the general funds to pay for infrastructure because Congress is going to fund infrastructure but not in the appropriate way.”
Newsflash to Corker: you bastards have been stealing our money for decades, let’s examine social security and it’s so-called trust fund.
At 18.4 cents and $34 billion annually one would think there is plenty of money to go around so states can repair their “crumbling” infrastructures.” One major problem is this money is never devoted to just infrastructure, it finds it’s way into bankrupt projects like California’s high-speed railway which is setting records each day for overruns.
While the Marxist-in-Chief, Barack Obama, touts the fact he will veto any bill approving the XL Pipeline which will further lower gas prices and create thousands of jobs at zero taxpayer expense he wants $100 billion for infrastructure. Pelosi and Durbin are vehemently against the pipeline also.
One solution would be to use tax money more efficiently while not robbing from other sources to fund pet projects doomed to failure. Lower taxes and really watch the economy approve and the creation of jobs.
Politicians like to take credit for lower gas prices although they have nothing to do with this American success story while at the same time they plot to increase taxes which will destroy the goose laying the golden eggs.