Need More Proof That Republicans Favor Corporate and Wealthy Citizens Over You and Me?

For all the faithful who have believed as the Tea Party-controlled GOP wanted, that our deficit issue was a spending issue and not a revenue issue, the latest news out of Washington reveals a truth that appears to debunk that myth.

The opening lines from an Associated Press article by Charles Babington  says it all

News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.

Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different “temporary” tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a “payroll tax” on practically every dime they earn.   SOURCE 

This means that the GOP wants to remove the tax break that working people are getting to reduce the deficit while trying to sustain a tax break that benefits mainly wealthy individuals whose income comes largely from non-labor sources like investments in the stock market and capital ventures using other people’s money.

Remember this comment from an Op-Ed piece by billionaire Warren Buffet

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your [income tax rate] percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine” — most likely by a lot.  SOURCE 

In other words those who make an income for services rendered in the form of their labor are paying higher rates of taxes than those who “make money with money” such as bankers, investors and hedge fund managers, who among the top 25 in this country benefitted from special tax cuts that put about $4 billion more in their pocket last year.   This means working people will be asked to continue making sacrifices for the sake of lowering the nation’s debt while the wealthiest 5% who own nearly 70% of the financial wealth in this country are spared.

I don’t know if there is something in the drinking water that Republicans drink but there has to be something to explain the sheer gall of making such a suggestion just a few short weeks after they threatened to shut down the government and derail any inkling of a recovery by refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless they got a budget that had NO tax increases in it.  These are the same people who have signed Grover Norquist’s  pledge that demands they not raise taxes in any way, shape or form.

To keep this payroll tax cut in place will cost the treasury another $120 million a year Babington tells us in his report, but this is if you combine all three types of payroll taxes which consist of income tax withholding, Social Security and Medicare taxes and Unemployment taxes.  Based on payroll taxes I incurred my last full year of employment in 2008, the income tax withholding was roughly about two-thirds of my total payroll taxes.

It makes sense to reinstate the taxes for Social Security/Medicare and Unemployment benefits during these tough economic times.  With high unemployment and the increasing numbers of baby boomers retiring, these two areas need not be cut at this critical point.  That leaves the income tax withholding portion, an amount that can easily be covered by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% in this country.

Is the haze clearing for you yet?  The signal I am getting from this willingness by Republicans to reinstate the tax revenue lost by cutting payroll taxes is indicative of someone who sees the need to use tax revenue to pay down the deficit.  This goes against the mantra of those on the right that say the deficit is a spending issue, not a revenue issue.


We have people in Congress who claim they want to keep taxes low so it can stimulate the economy but this is cover for those tax cuts that essentially benefit wealthy and corporate tax payers.  It was the cutting of taxes twice during the Bush administration that aided in depleting the surplus he inherited from the Clinton administration (see chart above) as it failed to generate any kind of significant job growth over seven years. It did however succeed in handing Obama a $1 trillion budget deficit in 2009.   The wealthiest people in this country not only benefit from an over all lower tax rate but see extra benefits from lower estate taxes, capital gains taxes and investment income taxes – all the tax cuts that the large majority of Americans will never find themselves in need of.

The GOP’s heart felt concern for the wealthy has always been transparent and now their lack of concern for the rest of us is equally clear.  How else would you describe a need to reinstate the higher poll taxes, which by their own definition, as Babington points out, amounts to a tax increase. 



12 responses to “Need More Proof That Republicans Favor Corporate and Wealthy Citizens Over You and Me?

  1. And this quote from a truly heartless POS:

    “Much of what the government spends money on does more harm than good. This is particularly true over the past several years with the massive uncontrolled increase in government spending. I believe my business and non-profit investments are much more beneficial to societal well-being than sending more money to Washington.”
    Charles Koch

    • Yes. It seems that people like the Koch’s and their admirers do not want to hear an “inconvenient truth” from one of their own.

      Ooooh. A double whammy there with the Al Gore quote being used on his bitter nemesis, the Koch brothers.

  2. Good post. I always wonder how a lot of tea party folks who are basically middle class, with some even on Social security and Medicare can buy into the republican agenda. Just doesn’t make sense to me.

  3. I’ll have to meander my way over to some right-wing blogs and see how those idiots are defending this.

    Good post, Larry.

  4. I’ve visited some of these sites, and they, and people who post comments there keep regurgitating the discredited take on economics that conservatives say will increase prosperity for all, but in actuality, carried to the extreme they want, will bring on another major depression from which the top 0;01 % will largely be spared.
    (1) Tax cuts for the top 1% will lead to a raging growth in the economy, which will proportionately trickle down to the small people (people who work for a living, and are not rentiers, hedge fund mgrs., or top CEOs).
    (2) End all regulation on any business activity. No environmental regulation. No regulation of the financial industry, and corporations. As Alan Greenspan said, “There should be no laws against fraud, because corporations are capable of regulating themselves.
    (3) Shut down the SSA. It’s individuals fault if they did not save to cover all expenses in retirement.
    (4) The victim is always at fault for being a victim, and there should be no help for them.
    (5) All poor people are poor because they are lazy, and deserve to be poor,and there should be no assistance from anywhere for them.
    (6) Gov’t should have no function not specifically denoted in the Constitution (with the exception of some of the amendments conservatives, esp. the Koch bros. don’t like).
    (7) Obamacare has driven up the cost of insurance, made fewer people covered by insurance than previously, and hurt the economy and cost jobs.
    (8) America’s energy future should permanently be driven 100% by fossil fuels. No renewable energy.
    (9) Anyone to the left of the Tea Party (the resurrected John Birch Society) is a RINO if they are a more moderate Republican,, or all of a socialist, Marxist, and Communist for moderates, or anywhere left of this. Note, Rob’t Welch of the John Birch Society accused Pres. D. Eisenhower of being a communist).
    (10) Recent economic policies have not decreased the # of middle class people, or the amt. of $ they have to spend.
    (1) The windfall for the lucky rich will end up in speculative and overseas investments. This is what they’ve done with $ from previous tax cuts. They don’t use it to increase jobs. This wouldn’t make sense anyway, because demand is lacking due to the middle class and the poor not having any extra $ to spend, due in large part to top mgmt. keeping increased profits from increased worker productivity for themselves, and not sharing it with those who made their businesses more profitable.
    (2) No laws against fraud? Remember Enron? Should this be the way of the land with impunity for those who behave as Enron did?
    (3) Most people won’t have $ to put in investments to save for retirement when what they make just covers food, rent, and other basic living expenses. Blaming them for not being millionaires seems to assume that everyone could be millionaires if they really wanted to, and just behaved properly and worked hard enough. Anyway, if everyone were a millionaire, a million wouldn’t anymore be a sign of wealth.
    (4) Sometimes, things happen to people that cannot be anticipated, and anything they may have done could not have forestalled the tragedy. Blaming them is a bad faith attempt to avoid any responsibility for assisting them.
    (5) Poor people can be poor for any of a multitude of reasons, not all of which they are personally responsible for. Giving them financial assistance will provide for a rapid velocity of this $ through the economy, thereby providing more prosperity than if this $ was given to a rich person to invest in real estate.
    (6) There is some inflexibility and hypocrisy here. .Needs of society change over time. The Constitution should be a living document, adhering to it’s original purposes and intents, but should not become a mummy, but should be flexible to deal with a different world than 225 years ago. Section 8 of the Constitution specifically allows for the establishment of a postal system. Repubs now want to privatize it, and have UPS, and FedEx, with their higher rates take over.
    (7) They said this would happen. Didn’t happen the way they said it would. Lots more people are covered. A few pay more than they used to, but most people are saving $. No jobs were lost. The economy was not damaged by this. People who say this are pulling the conservative talking point that has been proven false out of some part of their body where the sun doesn’t shine.
    (8) The future is in renewable energy. To remain frozen in the past is a sure path to economic decline.
    (9) They don’t understand Communism and Marxism. These are discredited economic theories because among other reasons, human nature wasn’t taken into consideration. However, conservatives don’t seem to understand what they are. To accuse a political moderate of being communist demonstrates this. They use it as a mindless pejorative attempting to discredit, or poison the well of anyone not radically far right wing.
    (10)Refer to a New York Times article from 2/2/14 The Middle Class Is Steadily Eroding, Just Ask the Business World. for proof the middle class is being made to disappear from American society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s