Posted by
Bryn T. Jones on Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:55:02 PM
President Obama is fond of saying he has included 'tax cuts' in his pork-barrel 'stimulus' bill. The problem with his statement is that it is for working families and individuals who have no federal tax liability. That category includes me. I make a decent salary and have a large family. I own a house (with a mortgage that I have never failed to pay). And because of my itemized deductions and child tax credits, I get paid a check after I have not paid a cent through federal withholding. The first time I noticed this I did my taxes over and checked them again. I realized that I was, in fact, on welfare. Though I work hard and provide for my family, through various tax credits, I consistently earn a check from the government. It is a misnomer to call it a 'refund.' Yet this system of allowing for bigger refunds to the zero-tax-liability workers of this country seems to be an uncontested form of tax-cut in today's parlance.
And in a way, it is. What President Obama is doing is the sort of thing President Bush did in forming his doctrine of the pre-emptive strike. The only difference is that President Bush did so in an effort to protect Americans. The Obama Doctrine, if you will, is simply a bone tossed to those who have not had the good fortune of getting soaked by the New Deal.
See, President Obama has worked in pre-emptive tax cuts for those who haven't earned enough to be demonized. These tax cuts come in the form of a check for future taxes those persons may eventually have to pay. In other words, when they earn too much to be getting these hand-outs, their tax cuts will have just come early. It's like getting the rebate on a product before you buy it, then paying double the price later on. Does this make sense? It does for those who think the solution to our problems is more government.