Mr. Obama says that he doesn’t want every math grad to become a derivatives trader. Who is he to say what young college grads do with their lives and careers? Become an engineer or work on computer design? That’s fine, if it’s what the individual wants to do with their life. But if you want to work on Wall Street, more power to you. Absolutely unreal!

Posted using ShareThis

Posted using ShareThis

     The following article, published in yesterday’s Washington Post, provides a great analysis and discussion of potential tax scenarios and their ramifications under the Obama administration’s proposed tax increases.

LINK: Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle

     The article illustrates that Mr. Obama’s “tax cut for 95%” of all income earners is at best, misleading. I wish I could say I have uncovered some brilliantly disguised agenda, but Mr. Obama beat  all of us to that. He has made very clear, during both his campaign and now his first 100 days (which are sometimes difficult to distinguish), that he intends to “level the playing field” by “spreading the wealth around.”

     This taxation agenda will serve to punish those who innovative, create wealth and new jobs and grow our economy. The article demonstrates how individuals who organize as what is known as a Sub chapter S corporation are not what mainstream media and Obama and Co. portray them to be: rich, greedy folks out for themselves. Quite the opposite is true. These are hard working, risk taking people; the kind of entrepreneurs that have made this economy and nation the greatest in the world. They seek to build their businesses, make a better life for themselves and their families, and happen to employ others in the process.

     Building on that, let’s draw from an example in the article. A small business owner, making around $500,000 in profits from their business, is considered quite “rich” by Mr. Obama. They can expect to spend almost 20% more in taxes under proposed legislation. Those profits are not what this business owner is necessarily taking home as a salary (thought that would indeed be perfectly fine to do). Often, the owners draws a much smaller salary, one that could easily quailify him or her to be in Mr. Obama’s “95% category”. Small business owners often plow a majority of these profits back into their businesses in the form of increased inventories, plant or warehouse expansion and NEW JOBS.

     The increased inventory purchased is additional sales for another business, the plant or warehouse is another real estate transaction. And those new jobs are employing people who may have previously been out of work, or looking to move elsewhere with their careers. Under what circumstances would it make sense to further tax the small business owner and thereby retard some (or all) of these enriching economic events from happening? On the contrary, it would be more logical to decrease their taxes and further unleash this flow of positive, economic activity!

     The Obama administration believes that these folks have acquired too much wealth and enjoy more than their share of what this nation has to offer. Mr. Obama seeks to be a redistributionist, taking from those who have and give, through tax policy, to those who have not. 

     Giving dollars or tax credits to an individual may help them pay their mortgage, for that month. It may help them buy extra groceries, for that week. It may help them turn their electricity back on, temporarily.

     But taking these dollars from those who create jobs and grow this economy and giving them to “the less fortunate” will ensure that the unemployed person’s  mortgage will eventually go into default, that food and other necessities will be compromised and that electric bill will fall past due (again). Unless Mr. Obama sends them yet another handout, voucher or other similar instrument of governmental indebtedness. And so a vicious cycle shall continue. Job creation, not taxation, is key to any economic recovery, including this one.

     Unfortunately, we are likely headed for increased, not decreased taxation. Tea Party demonstrations and other grass roots efforts can and will continue to raise awareness. But this (Democratically controlled) Congress has shown to be more than willing to dish up the legislation Mr. Obama has been looking for.

     One hundred million is roughly one day’s interest on the $787 stimulus (porkulus?) bill. It is, as Mr. Obama admitted himself, “a drop in the bucket.” I take issue with the stark contrast in how this “savings” move has been treated by his adminstration when compared to the Omnibus Spending Bill debates just a few weeks ago. Republicans proposed a spending freeze at then current levels and ommision of over $8 billion in pork barrel spending projects. This was dismissed by Democrats as “last years business”; evidentially the “scouring the budget line by line” as campained by Mr. Obama, does not start this year.

     White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated yesterday that where he is from $100 million is “big money”. Eight billion must be chump change then. I’m a CPA by profession, and am still trying to learn democrat math!

     So it begs the question, “why even publicize this in the first place?” Had I been advising the president, and assuming the president’s true intention is to culminate meaningful and lasting budget cuts, I would have suggusted a wait and hold strategy. Round up your support and put an agenda in place that puts a culture of speding effeciencies front and center.

     The answer to this question is simple. There is no culture (nor is one being pondered) to find and implement lasting spending cuts and fiscally responsibility with federal spending. Quite the opposite is true. This adminstration has made itself very clear: government spending is the end to all our economic woes. As simple (real) math can show, this level of spending (and the proposed tax increases) is not sustainable. This $100 million slashing initiative has been paradaded out now for one simple reason: it’s the only one.