Why the Lust for Revenue?

--- by Micheal

Throughout the protracted debate of raising the debt ceiling, it became clear that the two parties disagreed most on the question of taxes. The Republicans -- especially the new Tea Party representatives, vowed to oppose any new taxes. The Democrats, Obama and the congressional leaders, were equally adamant that trimming the deficit required increased revenue. More taxes.

As Obama and the various Democrat leaders gave their speeches, they kept beating the old drum about making the top 1% of Americans "pay their fair share". That certainly sounds reasonable enough, but it presumes that they're not.

So, I did a little online research. Who is paying the bulk of the income tax in America. Are middle Americans shouldering the lion's share and the top 1% skating? The answer wasn't hard to find, but it was surprising. The top 1% pay about 38% of the nation's income tax revenue. The top 5% pay over half of it. The top 50% of income earners pay over 97% of the nation's income taxes. That means the bottom 50% pay less than 3%. What do we get to label as "fair"?

Now, from figures like this, it's hard to understand what the Democrats are so angry about regarding those top 1%. They ARE paying, and more (percentage of income-wise) than the lower 99%. What's the problem?

The problem, I think, is that the Democrat mindset just cannot abide by anyone having more money than they (the Dems) feel is proper. You may recall President Obama chatting (hypothetically?) about him having a hundred thousand he didn't need which he could use to put a poor student through school, etc. The revealing part of that comment was the notion that wealth above a certain line is "unneeded," and therefore ought to become property of the state. (The Dems don't speechify for more philanthropy, but for most taxes)

In reality, the Dems can't hate the top 1% like the pretend to. There are quite a few very wealthy Democrats, after all. Instead, this faux hate is a mask for an addiction. The Democratic leadership are addicted to spending. There just isn't a social program out there that they can't love and want to pour millions of your dollars into. Any program created simply MUST be continued and funding increased. To make ANY cut is bemoaned with dire "grandma in the snow" consequences.

But that's just tough. Imagine some average working 'stiff' going in to his boss to demand more money -- maybe double his previous wage. Not because he gets more work done, or landed a big contract. He comes with the excuse that he had run up huge credit card debt and needs more money to support the debt AND the lifestyle that keeps up the spending. "Well, stop spending so much," the boss might justifiably say. "That's cruel and insensitive," our stiff replies. "I HAVE to buy all those things and MORE! I just do. Give me more money or my grandma will have to sleep in the snow!"

No, this independent voter has come down on the side of the cutters, not the taxers. No revenue raise for YOU, Congress, just because you can't handle your credit card. Live within your means. I have to do it. You should to.