SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (53170)7/26/2012 9:53:08 PM
From: Hope Praytochange3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Sorry Obama, Government Didn't Build That

Leadership: President Obama whines that he didn't mean what Mitt Romney says he did when he uttered, "You didn't build that." But even if you take Obama at his word, he's hopelessly and terribly wrong.

After endlessly complaining that Romney has taken his words out of context and deliberately altered their meaning, Obama can't seem to shake off the damage done by his remark two weeks ago that "if you've got a business — you didn't build that."

Obama says he wasn't referring to the businesses themselves, but to the roads and bridges, and to the whole "unbelievable American system" that "allowed you to thrive."

"Somebody," he says, invested in those things. And by "somebody," Obama means government. But Obama's got it all backwards.

Successful businesses and individuals are largely responsible for all those roads and bridges, and most of the rest of the "system," since they paid for the bulk of it. In fact, just the income taxes paid by corporations and the richest 5% accounted for 41% of all federal revenues in 2007.

And what happens when businesses don't succeed, or the rich start to lose their money? Federal and state tax revenues collapse, forcing them to scale back all those grand public works projects.

Between 2007 and 2009, federal corporate tax revenues plummeted 62%, and income taxes paid by the top 1% fell nearly 30%. States still haven't made up the revenue hole caused by the recession and Obama's painfully slow economic recovery.

The second mistake Obama makes is to assume that only the government can build new roads and bridges. Most of the roads built in the 1800s were the work of the thousands of private road companies. And today, cash-strapped states are increasingly turning to private companies to finance highway construction.

One such road, the Dulles Greenway, starts just 26 miles away from the White House. Private financing is also behind new "high occupancy toll" lanes under construction on the D.C. Beltway.

And Obama's claim that only through government were we able to build the Golden Gate Bridge or invent the Internet is equally wrong. Obama apparently is unaware that Bank of America founder Amadeo Giannini financed the Golden Gate Bridge after the state couldn't sell its construction bonds in the wake of the 1929 market crash.

In other words, the government "didn't build that" bridge. It was one of Obama's "fat cat" bankers.

And even if some researchers at the Defense Dept. did manage to put together the initial pieces of the Internet, it was entirely the work of the private sector that made it a reality.

Private companies, not the government, created the browsers, the search engines, the social networks, the easy access, and most of the content that makes the Internet worth anything to anyone.

And it was the private sector — the phone companies, cable companies, private satellite companies — that invested their own money to construct all the pipes, the wireless networks and the transmission technology to transport all that data. Without the contributions made by those successful businesses, the Internet would still be a minuscule government project.

By the way, when Obama tried to get the government involved in the Internet with his push to expand broadband access, it was a hugely expensive flop.

It goes without saying that everyone benefits from roads and bridges, safe streets and a strong national defense. If government limited itself to those things, we'd be delighted.

But for Obama to then claim that we'd all be better off with ObamaCare, oppressive EPA regulations, a massive European-style welfare state, and a bottomless pit of federal debt, is, well, a bridge too far.



To: calgal who wrote (53170)7/26/2012 9:54:25 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Senate Democrats To Small Business: Drop Dead

Taxes: With nearly 13 million unemployed, the Senate passed a big tax increase on more than a million small businesses. Per Obama's instructions, 51 Democratic senators would kill over 700,000 jobs.

Democrats are now on record espousing a curious election-year economic policy:

• Kill 710,000 jobs.

• Shrink real after-tax wages by nearly 2%.

• Lessen the nation's long-run economic output by $200 billion, or 1.3%.

• Reduce the private sector's capital stock by 1.4% and long-term investment by 2.4%.

These numbers come from an Ernst & Young study this month using the firm's U.S. economic model.

The Democrat-controlled Senate passed this by a 51-48 margin Wednesday, voting to raise marginal income-tax rates from 33% to 36% for individuals making more than $200,000 and from 35% to 39.6% for couples making more than $250,000, some 2.5 million households.

On top of that body blow to the economy, which the House is sure to block, the Senate Democrats' vote would also increase the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends from 15% to 20% — which, as Forbes' Donald Marron recently noted, will actually reach 25% in 2013 thanks to ObamaCare and the reinstatement of the "Pease provision" that limits deductions.

There can now be no pretense of distance between Senate Democrats and Obama; this was his tax policy being voted on, with Vice President Joseph Biden himself presiding to break any possible tie. Every Democratic senator except the retiring Jim Webb and retiring "independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman voted for it, apparently to avoid embarrassing the president.

Democratic senatorial candidates like Indiana's Joe Donnelly, Utah's Scott Howell and Nevada's Shelley Berkley must now tell voters whether they too would have voted with their party to kill 700,000-plus jobs.

Even Obama's own Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis, in a paper last August analyzing small businesses and their owners, conceded that these taxes would hit 1.2 million employers, representing $341 billion of income.

As Heritage Foundation senior tax analyst Curtis Dubay remarks, "Stopping a tax increase that would devastate job creation should be a rare occasion for bipartisan agreement."

Nope. The political forces for Big Government continue to be too fanatical for that.



To: calgal who wrote (53170)7/31/2012 1:11:57 AM
From: greatplains_guy3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Even "in Context," Obama Has It All Wrong
Obama’s Controversial Remark
Take what you want, and pay for it.

Sheldon Richman | July 29, 2012

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

President Obama’s statement sure has incited controversy. His opponents, including Mitt Romney, are using it to brand Obama as—at best—out of touch and—at worst—an un-American collectivist. It’s also become the butt of jokes on the Internet.

Meanwhile Obama and his supporters cry foul, claiming the statement was taken out of context. (They’d never take an opponent’s statement out of context of course.) Some concede that Obama’s expression was inept, but insist he wasn’t denying the value of individual initiative. In a campaign spot Obama says, “What I said was that we need to stand behind them [business people] as America always has. By investing in education, training, roads and bridges, research and technology.”

So who’s right? Let’s go to the videotape. And here’s the transcript of the relevant section (emphasis added; the full speech is here):


But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask [!] for the wealthy to pay a little bit more....

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen....


The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

What Did He Mean?

Was Obama saying the owner of a business did not build his business or did not build the aforementioned “unbelievable American system” and “roads and bridges”? Under the principle of charity, I give him the benefit of the doubt, but you can decide for yourself.

A more interesting question is why Obama bothered to state this truism. Everyone knows that a successful business, along with individual initiative, requires things the owner did not create. Besides roads and bridges, a successful business requires other businesses. Without those, where would any firm get its buildings, materials, and machines? And remembering Say’s Law, without other people’s productive efforts, no business would have customers: People can buy only because they first had something to sell (goods or labor services). Demand is supply and vice versa.

Has Obama really run across many people who think they got “there on [their] own” only because they are smarter and harder working than everyone else? I guess there are a few people like that, but I smell a straw man. (Obama’s mocking tone at this point was certainly off-putting and did not help his cause.)

So why did Obama bring it up? (“Don’t bother to examine a folly,” Ayn Rand has a character say in The Fountainhead. “Ask yourself only what it accomplishes.”) He seems to have had only one reason: to justify “ask[ing] for the wealthy to pay a little bit more [in taxes].” For him, this is the “balanced way” to cut the deficit. “I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them,” he said.

Demagogue’s Appeal

Even without his objectionable defense of higher taxes on people who don’t “need” their money (even if true, how is that relevant?), this is a demagogue’s appeal. For one thing, no one will be asked to pay higher taxes.

How do we know that upper-income people aren’t already paying enough to maintain roads, bridges, and education? Maybe government foolishly diverts tax revenues to less important purposes.

How do we know the rich and the rest of us aren’t overpaying? Government is notoriously inefficient at providing goods and services because it gets its revenue by force and thus never faces the market test, which requires consumers free to say no. What does “fair” even mean in the matter of taxation?

Why Monopoly?

More fundamentally, why assume that roads, bridges, and schools must be provided by a coercive monopoly rather than in a free and competitive market? Obama takes for granted that monopoly is indispensable to prosperity, but that claim requires demonstration, particularly in light of the drawbacks already pointed out. Before one invokes “market failure,” one must first come to grips with “government failure” because there is no prima facie reason to prefer the latter to the former, even if it can even be said to exist. Strangely, monopoly is universally despised—unless it’s run by the government.

Not to be misunderstood, in a corporatist economy there are grounds for concern about the wealthy to the extent that their fortunes derive from government privilege. The solution, however, is the abolition of privileges, not higher taxes, which merely give more resources to mischievous public self-servants and inevitably come to haunt the middle class.

And the fiscal crisis? The path to a solution is illuminated by the fact that we face a crisis not because of a failure to tax—but because of a proclivity to spend.

Thus even if we give Obama the benefit of the doubt, he’s got this all wrong. If he is really concerned that successful people pay too little for the benefits they enjoy, radically freeing the market is just the ticket. It’s the best way to honor the Spanish proverb: “Take what you want, God said to man, and pay for it.”

reason.com