Custom Search

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

David Brooks On Being An 'Obama Sap' For Believing Obama's Campaign Rhetoric

Another disillusioned columnist explains how he is an Obama sap for having believed Barack Obama's campaign promises and his rhetoric since he was elected President.

Brooks believed Obama when he expressed concern about unemployment, took Obama's word for it when he spoke of fears of a double-recession, then he actually saw Obama's so-called "jobs" bill and concluded:

When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill.

Brooks goes on to address Obama's latest speech rhetoric and castigates Obama for his half-truths:

He claimed we can afford future Medicare costs if we raise taxes on the rich. He repeated the old half-truth about millionaires not paying as much in taxes as their secretaries. (In reality, the top 10 percent of earners pay nearly 70 percent of all income taxes, according to the I.R.S. People in the richest 1 percent pay 31 percent of their income to the federal government while the average worker pays less than 14 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

The Brooks continues about how used some Obama saps are feeling right about now:

That means when he talks about raising revenue, which he is right to do, he can’t really talk about anything substantive. He can’t tax gasoline. He can’t tax consumption. He can’t do a comprehensive tax reform. He has to restrict his tax policy changes to the top 2 percent, and to get any real revenue he’s got to hit them in every which way. We’re not going to simplify the tax code, but by God Obama’s going to raise taxes on rich people who give to charity! We’ve got to do something to reduce the awful philanthropy surplus plaguing this country!

The president believes the press corps imposes a false equivalency on American politics. We assign equal blame to both parties for the dysfunctional politics when in reality the Republicans are more rigid and extreme. There’s a lot of truth to that, but at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think. The White House gives moderates little morsels of hope, and then rips them from our mouths. To be an Obama admirer is to toggle from being uplifted to feeling used.

The entire piece reads like self-justification for buyer's remorse.

Campaign 2012 has taken a look around the web and found that Brooks isn't the only one calling Obama out on his "tax the rich" lies, but Associated Press, ABC News, and The Wall Street Journal have all issued their own fact checks and found Obama's rhetoric to be false.

From the AP:

The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

From ABC News:

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has crunched the numbers and found that Warren Buffett and his secretary are the exception to the rule. For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers.

From The Wall Street Journal:

The rate for a relative handful of the rich—400 people—fell to 18%, ... But nearly all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.

Keith Hennessey strips away the "optical gimmicks" from Obama latest tax increase plan and lays out the "balance" that Obama harped on, which isn't a balance at all.

Based on this presentation, I draw the following conclusions about the President’s new proposal:

  • The President is not, as he claims “proposing real, serious cuts in spending.” His proposals would result in a tiny net reduction in spending: -$86 B over 10 years. Almost all of the spending cuts for which he wants to claim credit have already been enacted or accounted for. Almost all the new spending cuts he proposes would be used to offset higher spending in his Jobs bill proposal and for more Medicare spending on doctors.
  • The President is proposing about $1.5 T in higher taxes over ten years, offset by about $250 B of tax relief, for a net tax increase of almost $1.3 T.
  • Almost all of the President’s new proposed deficit reduction comes from tax increases.

Andrew Malcolm from LA Times Top of the Ticket also mentions the AP fact check piece but highlights the costs to not just the so-called rich in Obama's tax increase plan, but the some of the hidden costs to everyone else:

And although Obama didn't have time to mention them, some of those places include the non-wealthy; you'll pay more for airline ticket fees and mortgage fees and new fees for retired military's healthcare, a total of $130 billion in such new "revenue," according to the Associated Press.

Across the board, everyone other than Obamabots and hard core far left liberals, saw Obama's last couple of speeches for exactly what they were..... campaign speeches to rally his base and promise them the sames things he promised and didn't deliver on in 2008.

The sad part, is some of the extreme portion of the far left progressive Democrats will probably believe him.

What Saps!