Obama’s State of the Union? Tax and spend, here we go

Free tuition, higher taxes, more social programs, stagnant growth: Obama's State of the Union will offer more of the same.

The State of the Union: More of the same / Photo used under United States government works license
The State of the Union: More of the same / Photo used under United States government works license

WASHINGTON, January 19, 2015 — After six years of raising taxes, increasing spending on social programs, and lackluster economic growth, it would be logical for President Obama to try something different to stimulate the economy. Instead, during Tuesday’s State of the Union speech, the President will talk about more of the same.

In 2008, the federal government spent just under $3 trillion. Spending increased by about 20 percent in Obama’s first year in office, and although Republicans in Congress tried to restrain spending when they took control of the House of Representatives in 2010, spending this year will top $4 trillion.

The Obama administration has raised taxes significantly. Tax increases include an increase in the capital gains and dividend income tax, an increase in the excise tax on tobacco, and a catalog of Obamacare-specific tax increases: the individual mandate tax, the employer mandate tax, the surtax on investment income, the excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans (starting in 2018), the medicine cabinet tax, an increase in Medicare payroll tax, the flexible spending account cap,  the medical devise tax, a reduction in medical itemized deductions, indoor tanning services tax, elimination of tax deduction for some drug coverages, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield tax hike, the excise tax on charitable hospitals, the tax on innovator drug companies, the tax on health insurers, and the black liquor tax.

What have these tax-and-spend actions done for the U.S. economy?

We have experienced the worst economic recovery in modern history, the elimination of about 6 million adults from the workforce, the largest number of Americans living in poverty, the largest number of Americans receiving food stamps, the growth of income inequality, and continued slow growth.

On Tuesday, President Obama will suggest more of the same. He wants to increase spending on education and says he wants community college to be free to all Americans. American taxpayers already provide at least 12 years of education for every child. Since college professors and administrators will not work for free, Obama means that community college will be paid for by the taxpayers rather than by the students who receive the education. In other words, free means that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill.

The President intends to pay for this program by increasing taxes on the wealthy, noting that the wealthy have “done pretty well” in the last five years. While that is true, it is mostly because the Federal Reserve’s expansive monetary policy. The resulting rock bottom interest rates have caused capital to flow out of debt markets and into equity markets, thereby increasing the demand for stocks and significantly raising stock prices. This, of course, will change once the FED starts to raise interest rates.

The real problem is that raising tax rates may not increase tax revenue.

For instance, Obama wants to raise the tax on capital gains to 28 percent. In 1987, when the capital gains tax was raised from 20 percent to 28 percent, revenue from capital gains fell. From 1987 to 1991, revenue fell from about $34 billion to $28 billion, an average annual decline of almost 13 percent. Conversely when the rate was cut from 28 to 20 percent in 1997, revenue grew by almost 18 percent annually from 1997 to 2000.

Taxing the wealthy because they have “done pretty well” and increasing spending on low income earners because “they need the help” will only serve to slow economic growth, which is exactly opposite to what is needed today.

The President should set economic growth as his number one priority. Growth would essentially solve all of our economic problems. Growth would provide jobs to reduce unemployment, which reduces government spending on income maintenance and social programs, increases tax revenue, tends to reduce income inequality and provides much needed opportunity for all Americans.

Obama’s suggestions, which will not be passed by the current Congress, would lead to slower economic growth. In every instance where he has tried to reduce income inequality by raising taxes on the highest income earners and giving money to the lowest income earners through social programs, income inequality has actually worsened and the economy has experienced slow growth.

It is time for the President to stop his tax-and-spend programs and start working on lower tax and higher growth programs.


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Michael Collins

    The US has realized tremendous gains from Globalization. Unfortunately, those gains have gone almost exclusively to the folks in the top 4%. The 96% at the bottom end of the economy have seen no rise in income for nearly 20 years–when indexed for inflation.

    We need to take more money from those who have benefited most from globalization and use it for education and retraining–providing our blue collar manufacturing class with fishing rods suited for the 21 century.

    The author cherry picks data to support his contention that increasing taxes results in less revenue. Here’s a competing thought. There’s a strong correlation between average education and national GDP. We should be taking a substantial “portion” (not all of it) of the gains of globalization and plowing it into universal education and retraining programs for workers to make them more competitive in the new economy that should be benefiting all.

    Workers that earn more, buy more. They also pay more in taxes.