As much as I dislike seeing my taxes go up, I can not help but smile a bit at all the liberals who
tripped over each other running to the ballot box in November to vote for Obama now scratching their heads wondering why their taxes
went up. On Twitter Friday, the subject #WhyIsMyPaycheckLessThisWeek was trending. In truth, I probably should feel like crying
that people are so blind to the policies and the results of the policies they support, but Iíd rather take a more light-hearted approach
at the beginning of the new year.
Payroll taxes just took a two-percent hike....on the middle
class. Seems like a distant memory to the time when then Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama proudly proclaimed
ďIf you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your PAYROLL
TAX, not your income tax, no taxes.Ē
He lied. Period. Payroll taxes went up. He promised payroll taxes
would not go up.
Now, for us conservatives, we see this lie. We saw it from the beginning. Our liberal
counterparts struggle with facts and logic. I know several liberals off the top of my head to whom I could show the video of Obama
promising payroll taxes would not go up and then showing them their own paycheck on which their payroll tax did go up, and they would
come up with excuses and blame Bush and label me as racist and not even consider admitting that Obama simply did not keep his promise.
Itís frustrating, and I empathize with all of you conservatives reading this who have had similar experiences.
If Obama said 2 + 2 = 5, liberals would defend it. They would probably start out by making fun of Bush by saying he canít read. Then
they would explain that 2 + 2 does indeed equal 5 if you take 1 from somewhere else and add it to the equation. Then they would accuse
you of racism because minority groups are underachieving in inner city schools and the conservatives that are white are just showing
off their superior education by solving that math problem. Of course, I am trying to be a little absurd, but the analogy is rooted
in truth from my interactions with liberals.
I think liberals would have trouble explaining why a spike
in their payroll taxes is such a bad thing. Rush Limbaugh has been talking about how the democrats have finally been able to basically
force the Republican Party to admit that tax cuts have been to blame for the recession. On Fridayís show, Rush explained it perfectly:
ďThe Republican brand (if you will), if it's known for anything, it's tax cuts, which means a growing economy. Tax cuts mean you keep
more of what you earn. It means that there are more jobs created. It means you broaden the base, you increase jobs, and therefore
you increase the number of taxpayers. The more people there are paying taxes, the more revenue there is to Washington. But you don't
have to raise individual taxes to increase revenue to Washington.
You can get more revenue by simply
creating jobs, and you do that by lowering taxes. And that's what the Republican Party has been known for. And Obama wanted to strip
them of that. Furthermore, he wanted that identification, and he's got it! Obama's the big tax-cutter now. That's what people think.
But the Republican tax cuts caused the problems. This has been Obama's point for four years.Ē
right. Liberals believe that the economy and taxpayers are static. They believe that if you take more money from the rich, then the
rich will not change their personal economic behaviors. Now look at all these democrats who believe this now running around like Armageddon
just happened now that THEIR payroll taxes went up.
Letís take Average Liberal Joe Schmuck working
at his favorite government regulatory agency, the bureaucratic Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Schmuck makes $50,000 a year plus
benefits (a salary and benefits package paid for by the same private sector taxpayers he regulates). Now that Mr. Schmuckís payroll
taxes just went up from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent, he is doling out an additional $1,000 per year in taxes. Mr. Schmuck is very perturbed.
He wonders how he will afford to budget buying his standard allotment of carbon credits, E85 fuel for his environmentally friendly
Fisher-Price-sized car, and his donation to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).
Hoping to shed the stereotype of being an evil Republican who doesnít care about others, I want to help out Mr. Schmuck with his dilemma.
The economy is dynamic, Mr. Schmuck. People are dynamic. If you put a lion in a cage with a person, that person is going to behave
differently than if you put a little kitty cat in the parlor with him or her. Actions have consequences. Your taxes going up means
that you have less money in your discretionary budget. Had you been able to spend that money on your overpriced tall lattes from Starbucks,
that money would have served as income to Starbucks. Starbucks pays income taxes. Starbucks pays sales tax on the espresso beans and
milk used to make that latte. Planes, ships, and vehicles may have been used to ship those espresso beans and milk. Dairy farmers
paid sales tax on the dairy cattle used to produce that milk. Dairy farmers pay rent or property taxes on the land they have their
cattle on. They paid sales tax on the wood used in building barns for the cattle. The local hardware store benefited from selling
the wood. The farmers paid workers to construct that barn. Those workers paid income taxes on their earnings. The complex scenario
is similar in principle on the coffee bean plantation.
Thought you were just getting a latte from that
barista, Joe Schmuck? Think again. Iíll shorten your assignment. Just think.