Thursday, April 12, 2012

Despite Obama's claims, Reagan's tax policies were nothing like his

President Obama is hinging his reelection hopes on the uninformed. He knows he can't invoke the truth to sell his campaign because the truth shows his policies harm America, so he must resort to outright lies. Such is the case with his recent claims that President Ronald Reagan would support what has come to be known as the "Buffet rule" -- a suggestion by Warren Buffet that those ultra wealthy who make money off their own money should pay higher capital gains tax rates (not income tax rates) - which currently sit at 15%. 

Not wanting to squander an opportunity to twist the truth if it can serve him personally, Obama has been happily stating that Reagan would support this notion because Reagan once said in a 1985 speech that everyone should pay their fair share in taxes. What Obama leaves out is that Reagan was suggesting this as part of a larger call for tax reform, one that closed loopholes so all workers could keep more of their own money.

But the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" does not apply to Obama. He's running with an out-of-context part of Reagan's speech to pump up support for raising taxes on the "wealthy", ostensibly to reduce debt, but really to "redistribute the wealth." To make his socialist plan more palatable to the public, he's even saying the Buffet Rule should be renamed the "Reagan rule if that would make it a little easier for Republicans to bear." Of course, in order for this to fly, he must count on people being ignorant of the truth.

First, Ronald Reagan's view on taxation was the complete opposite of Obama's. The current President wants to further stifle the economy by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Reagan cut the top tax rate on the rich from 70% to 28%. Though Reagan did raise taxes while in office, in net terms he lowered taxes - and Reagan's tax "hikes" were out of compromise in pursuit of structural reform that could benefit all taxpayers, as opposed to Obama's use of taxation as a punitive measure against the productive.

The gist of it is, President Reagan wanted a flat tax of 15%, but Democrat Dick Gephardt insisted on at least two tax rates, the higher of which was 28%. That's what became law as Reagan compromised to lower the tax rates from the 70% high. Also in the compromise was Dick Gephardt's insistence that the wealthy would have 50% of their social security payments taxed. "Wealthy" was defined to be a couple earning $32,000 annually or a single person earning $25,000 per year. 

In the Reagan speech Obama is hijacking for his own purposes, he left out the part where Reagan said, "Lower, flatter tax rates will give Americans more confidence in the future. It’ll mean if you work overtime or get a raise or a promotion or if you have a small business and are able to turn a profit, more of that extra income will end up where it belongs - in your wallets, not in Uncle Sam's pockets."

When have you ever heard Obama encourage people to work harder or champion their right to keep more money in their pockets? Instead, he just makes false promises that if the rich would only pay even more, it will somehow benefit the average worker. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors from a president who wants us to to believe that the productive and successful are hurting our economy rather than Obama's own miserable policies.

This is why Obama counts on most people not knowing that under his current regulations (including ObamaCare) and the spending and taxation initiatives outlined in his budget, that income taxes are set to rise 20%, capital gains taxes are going up 60%, taxes on dividends are approaching 100% increases, the death tax has been resurrected, and medicare payroll taxes are going up 62%. This is in addition to the corporate tax rate currently in place, which is already the highest rate in the world. While Obama is not suggesting raising it, he certainly isn't making calls to lower it. And now he wants to incorporate the "Buffet Rule" to raise taxes even higher on the upper income people and hide behind Reagan's name to sell it. 

Even with all these tax hikes, it is estimated that only about $4-5 billion a year will be raised over the next 10 years, which is less than 1% of the trillions that Obama plans to spend. So call it what you will - wealth redistribution, the Buffet Rule, or whatnot, Obama's insane tax hikes would do nothing to help reduce debt or put "more money in our pockets", but they will do everything to hurt the economy in his effort to turn us into the biggest socialist country in the world. 

Obama relies on the fact that the average person knows only what the mainstream media disclose - which isn't much - so he figures nobody will know that he's completely lying about Reagan's support and that he'll get away with it. What's worse is the average uninformed person has been brainwashed to think that the wealthy should be punished for being wealthy - that they should pay their "fair share", when in truth, as a percentage, the top earners pay the most in taxes, while the bottom 49% of wage earners pay no income tax at all. 

Meanwhile, all these rate increases, regulation costs and soaring energy prices won't hurt the wealthy - they will hurt the average person trying to find or hold onto a job at a company that can no longer afford to do business in America, and must send its resources elsewhere -- like China, which has actually lowered its tax rates. When companies can no longer sustain their businesses here because of astronomical taxes, spending and regulations, how does that help the average person? It doesn't. It's just more tricks, lies and deceptions from the most dishonest, un-presidential president our country has ever had. 

Simply put, Obama is lying about Reagan's views on taxation and the uninformed will believe him because the mainstream media will support him -- and these are the people Obama's counting on in November.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


  1. True, although Reagan did accept several tax increases in exchange for budget cuts. The current understanding of tax increases as a "principle" that absolutely cannot be considered is pretty anti-Reagan. That is something that politicians on both sides should understand - if you want budget cuts, tax increases, or anything considered a legislative priority, be prepared to give something up.

    Reagan almost definitely wouldn't be behind the "Buffett Rule" (at least in the sense that taxes should be increased on the rich), but he was behind closing loopholes that allowed the Buffetts and their respective secretaries of the '80s to have radically regressive tax payments.

    I'd suggest reading this Politifact article:

    And also, this transcript of a Reagan speech (which, as always, is a pleasure to read):

  2. You are counting on people's ignorance, not the president. When Reagan first cut taxes in 1981, he tanked the economy and the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 10.3%. He had no choice but to raise taxes because tax cut for rich people help no one but the rich. Why don't you speak about the part where the debt tripled under Reagan? Talk about LIES and misinformation.