An open letter to President Obama:
By Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party
Mr. President, your citizens have spoken and they need you to listen.
Times are tough in America. People are losing their jobs and their homes. Millions are stuck on unemployment. Others who didn’t qualify are getting no help at all. I’m not saying all of this is your fault, but you were elected by many who were hopeful that you would have the answers. So far, your policies haven’t worked.
It’s not like no one knew your policies wouldn’t work. Socialism has been tried before. It promises fairness and spreading the wealth, but all it brings is inequity and a spreading of the misery. Still, having attended some of our country’s most elitist liberal universities and having no practical experience before becoming President, I guess you had to try.
Now that you have tried and failed, I would like to present a better way to you. It’s called capitalism, Mr. President. Capitalism is said to go hand in hand with freedom and democracy. It lifts nations, and their people, up out of poverty. It equalizes the playing field and creates opportunities based on merit, rather than birthright or political favoritism.
A return to our free-market based origins, or at least a strong veering in that direction, can save our country. It can rebuild our economy, and put people back to work. It could even save your presidency. But it will take your full support and you need to act quickly.
Even now, the tax rates of millions of Americans are threatened by Congress. The lame-duck democrats in Congress have taken a stand against the current tax rates (set in place by President George W. Bush) in favor of higher tax rates for everyone. Even worse, all they have to do to raise America’s taxes is nothing, as the current rates are soon set to expire.
Mr. President, America needs your strong action now. Millions of Americans, many who are cash-strapped already, are at risk of seeing their taxes increased next year if you do nothing. This includes the middle class, who are the backbone of our nation’s workforce, and also the wealthy, the employers who put our nation to work. These folks, in the very least, need to know that you will not let their taxes go up, not one cent.
If you want to go even further, and show your true support of free market capitalism, what our country really needs is a tax break. Think of tax breaks as stimulus bills that actually work. They worked when George W. Bush used them, when Ronald Reagan used them, and yes, they even worked when John F. Kennedy (gasp a democrat!) used them. A nice tax cut that rewards hard work and investment in our country will work again, and put us on a path to true economic recovery.
It won’t be easy. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t get the memo that America sent them in November. They are holding onto tax hikes and class warfare like Stalin’s cold dead fingers around a hammer and sycle! They have been trying to dishonestly label the current tax rates as favoring the rich for years, and they’re not likely to work with you now just to save the pocketbooks of our middle class. This is where you will have to use your incredible charm and speaking talents (the ones you got elected on, not the current teleprompter-robot stuff you use now) to persuade them. I know that you can do this. Heck, you snookered millions of Americans into voting for you, a candidate with practically no experience whatsoever, over a disabled war hero (John McCain) with decades of experience in national leadership. Surely you can still pull one over on Nancy Pelosi (maybe you could offer her some free rides on air force one since she had to give America their jet back recently).
Mr. President, it’s time to put aside your pride and do what’s right for your country. Unemployment is not a solution, we need tax breaks and we need them now. Work with the new Congress your citizens have elected. Give them a show of good faith. Give Americans something tangible we can hold onto: our own money.
Thank you.
The economy improved under Reagan and Bush 2 when they enacted tax breaks, that’s true. But was it the tax breaks or the fact that each of these presidents more than doubled the national debt during their time in office? It’s easy to have a healthy economy when you’re pumping billions/trillions of barrowed money into the economy.
Steve, (Jack here) as Peggy pointed out about an hour ago, commenting on another PS article, the debt commission just failed to approve it’s own recommendations – if they can’t what chance does it have of seeing the light day before Congress?
I was very pessimistic before their vote came down and now I am downright depressed. I’m concerned we may lack the political will and courage to fix it, despoite the facts we know and the consequences we face if we don’t.
4 trillion in cuts was desperately needed to keep us from economic collapse and global depression. America’s influence and economic power in the world is at risk, our children’s futures are at risk. This is a watershed moment in history and it now appears inevitable.
It is no exaggeration to say that since WWII our nation has never faced a graver situation. Estimates of when the collapse will come is current from 7 to 20 years. The date is uncertain because of many variables, but the end result is not uncertain.
If there was ever a time when mobs with torches and pitchforks were needed in a march on Washington it is now. Time is up… we must make the changes to our deficit and our spending immediately or our children’s and grandchildren’s future is bleak beyond imagination (for most of us).
We should not let minutia stand in our way and we should seize every opportunity we can to make fundamental changes. If we can kick start the bi-partisan process of deficit reduction by eliminating tax breaks for the top 5% of taxpayers, then so be it. Now is not the time for the GOP to be partisan, better to be pragmatic or we’re ALL toast.
Your thoughts?
Joe, I want you to think about the fact that no matter how much money they have they always…always spend more. That’s why we have debt, because they do not stay within the budget.
There is something fundamentally wrong when these so-called servants of the people assume it’s OK to overspend because they can always just demand more from the people. On top of that they use dirty tricks, like class warfare and envy, to get it the people to support them in raising taxes…that’s sick. It takes the mind of a street thug in my opinion.
Here’s the thing. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush lowered taxes and gave the Congress more revenue and Congress not only spent that excess but a whole lot more.
We have to stop this irresponsible behavior.
Jack letting them get away with a tax increase of any kind is just letting them off the hook again! Americans need money in the hands of those who know how (and have the means) to grow the economy and create jobs. The government isn’t that entity!
But it will take more than that. We need to create some certainty in the private sector. Repeal of Obamacare would work wonders…it’s a tangled web of rules and regs that never should have passed and probably wouldn’t have had they not used dirty tricks and intimidation to get it done! They can enact the few changes that would improve the system we have and make it more accessable. Across the board spending cuts and consolidation or elimination of departments would also be a grand idea and meet the problem at it’s source.
As for this commission…the only reason a commission is ever called for is to put the responsibility on unelected “others”. This job belongs where the power to do something resides…in the Congress! January had better bring strong efforts or I’m sure the country will be ready to take up those pitch forks and torches!
Tina, I hear you and normally I would agree too. However, we’re heading for a collapse of the system. That small concession, stopping tax breaks for our most wealthy 5%, is conditional. It is not letting them off the hook, but it is bargaining in good faith and for the good of the nation. We must attack the deficit now – we’re in big, big trouble.
Forget the Tea Party. Hooray for the Torch and Pitchfork Party.
Lets be clear when we use the words tax breaks and tax increases. If an individual is getting say a 5% tax break, they are actually getting to keep what is already theirs. If another individual has to pay a 5% tax increase, the government is really taking away what doesnt belong to them.
Greed isnt wanting to keep what is rightfully yours, its very much the action of the individual/s who want to take it away because they want what you have.
Jealousy and envy are often used to describe how one feels about someone or something. Here is my definitions for both and why they are so different.
Jealousy: Wanting to possess what someone else has. Taking someones spouse or stealing a car would fit.
Envy: Wanting what you have to be better. Like wanting certain body parts to be bigger or smaller then they actually are compared to a friend or movie star. Cant take it from them, but can either work to make it better or pay to have the change made.
The difference is not wanting to take what belongs to someone else, but to improve what already belongs to us.
My question for all the progressive/left-wing liberals is, what do they want? Do you want what I have worked for and earned just because I have it, or do you want to go and do the same yourself? If its mine and I give it to you, thats charity. If its mine and you take it, thats stealing. The choice is within all of us as to how we live our lives.
The thing I was pointing out Peggy is that 95% of all tax payers would continue to recieve the Bush tax cuts, and only our top 5% most wealthy would lose the breaks in order to get the dems on board for deficit reduction. I’m not pleased to see this happen, but if it means we will get the deficit reduction jump started and we can start making serious cuts to save the nation from economic collapse, then this symbolic gesture is worth it.
That is a great letter to Obama too bad he doesn’t care.
And this photo? Is this supposed to be the one percent of filthy, freakin’ rich to benefit from these tax cuts?
It’s time the middle class realized they have to pay for what they want, and the filthy freakin’ rich realized that the preservation of a safe haven is worth parting with the odd million.
Suck it up, you morons.
Jack: “only our top 5% most wealthy would lose the breaks in order to get the dems on board for deficit reduction.”
Under reasonable circumstances I’d agree to a small concenssion. But I don’t believe for one minute that any concession would be sincere. I want the cuts in spending to be priority one right after they extend the tax cuts for everyone! We’ve been down the road of promised reductions in spending before and they never happened. These dirt bags need to actually show us they have the…um…fortitude to cut spending and downsize the government before they entertain tax increases.
A lot of Americans have lost their jobs…they’ve had to make difficult decisions. Divorce rates are up right along with bankruptcies, foreclosures and business closings. It’s time our “leaders” made some tough decisions to cut their spending habits.
Libby: “Is this supposed to be the one percent of filthy, freakin’ rich to benefit from these tax cuts?”
For the record it isn’t a tax CUT! It’s a tax INCREASE!
“It’s time the middle class realized they have to pay for what they want…”
It’s time people like you realized the middle class shouldn’t have to pay for what we DON”T WANT! We could eliminate the EPA, the Transportation Department, the NEA, and several other federal departments and save a bundle…year, after year, after year. These things were Constitutionally left to the states to determine and handle.
Get a clue…your government is bloated, irresponsible, and out of control!
Jack, I do not agree with you. Giving into the dems is what got us here. Doing it again at this crucial time sets the stage for the next two years and sends a very loud message to all of us. And that message is not good. They either take their stand now or the next two years will just be more of the same as the past.
Reid will still be in charge of the Senates agenda. Hes had the past two or more years to deal with this knowing it was going to expire but didnt because of the political dance hes leading. With the msm not reporting the facts as they are very few know the frivolous items he has forced the senate to deal with instead of our life altering major issues.
If they give on this and dont hold to their original proposal I do not believe they will be able stop the train wreck that is coming. We need jobs now, not sometime next year. Hearing the tax reporting nightmare with a retroactive plan done after Jan. 1st is not acceptable.
Also, as a side issue I dont hear anyone talking about the actual cost of not cutting the pork from the bills. Its being said its just a couple of billion and not that much of a true saving. What about the cost of the bills themselves that would not have passed without the pork? Would we have the health care bill without the Louisiana Purchase and all the other deals that were made? How many bills just in the past ten years have been passed because of those deals and what would they all add up to?
Peggy, your opinions mean a lot to me and I have well considered what you just said. You have made strong points, but I am still not convinced we are acting in the best interest of the nation. The retroactive aspect should definitely be removed and it would be if we allowed the tax cuts to expire and roll back to the former basis. As for the pork cutting that is in the deficit reduction package and it looks like most everyone is on board with cutting pork.
Currently we’ve hung up a massive deficit reduction process on just one issue that affects just 5% of the top tax bracket. If we can get most all of what we want by compromising just a little on this one point it’s a great start! We can always come back later to address this issue, when we’ve stepped back from the edge of the economic cliff. And I truly believe we’re one the edge of that cliff and the most dire consequences face us if action isn’t taken immediately to strengthen our economic picture and prepare.
The dems need something in order to play ball with us and they picked probably the most vulnerable area to hit, attacking the top 5% of the rich. They want the rich to pay slightly more in taxes and use the old rules. They argue the rich can afford it and will hardly feel it and maybe this is true, but thats not the point. They are trying to salvage some of their honor and stick to their principles. Unfortunately they are risking our future to do it. But, we’re ready to play the same dangerous game too, so are we any better?
We conservatives often say that if you can get 75% of what you want from a candidate we should support them. But, to not support a candidate because we disagree on our one pet issue is really wrong and it hurts the overall cause. Its better to take what we can get now and keep working on the rest later. So I ask most respectfully, why is my logic so different than this? Should we not take the offer and save the nation or stand fast for 100% or nothing and watch the nation crumble? That is what is at stake and I have an article in the works to show exactly where we are financially and why this situation is so desperate. It may be the best article I’ve ever done and it loaded with facts, graphs and figures that will show everyone we are headed for a collapse not unlike the old USSR. I am working as fast as I can on this one and it should be out within the next few days. Maybe if I haven’t persuaded you now, then wait till after you read this article you will be.
IF the Republicans could somehow prove the $700 billion hit to the revenue side of the ledger would
ACTUALLY CREATE JOBS
IN THIS COUNTRY,
I would totally support extending Bush’s tax cuts for those making maore than $250,00/year.
And the Republicans have yet to prove that, so they rely on the same old tired rhetoric. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football that Lucy is holding, the voters get suckered every time!
The 80s were a boom time for jobs–in Asia!
We have lost millions of jobs in the last decade SINCE the Bush tax cuts.
The Kemp-Roth tax bill had to be modified the very next year–via the largest peace time tax increase in histroy–TEFRA.
Reagan was no tax cutter!
For those of you who failed high school civics: Congress cannot pass ANY law without the President’s signature. This, no matter the party of the president or the Congress.
If Reagan didn’t want to triple the National Debt, he didn’t have to sign the spending bills.
Reagan didn’t have to raise the capital gains rate 40%.
It’s called veto, read up on it.
It’s been reported that the top 5% will only see about a $1000 in additional taxes. I haven’t verified this, but I was told by someone who should know.
Jack, I respect you and your opinions too and am looking forward to your new article. My statements are because the voters spoke loud and clear last November. Now we are going to find out if the reps heard us.
The spending has to stop. No matter how much we are taxed congress always spends more. A budget review needs to be done and privetation of as much as possible needs to be done. I’m tired of paying for stupid grants that fund nonesential pet projects all over the world.
I’m hoping they will extend all levels for at least two years and not extend the unemployment insurance.
Thanks for the kind words Peggy, we really do agree on the subject of restraining spending and holding them accountable, I only differ on the urgency to DO whatever it takes to jump start the spending cuts and start a comprehensive recovery plan.
‘For those of you who failed high school civics: Congress cannot pass ANY law without the President’s signature. This, no matter the party of the president or the Congress’. Q, with all due politeness what was your grade??
Mine was not the highest but at least i was awake when they discussed this:
The Constitution gives Congress the ability to override a presidential veto, but only if at least 2/3 of the members of both the House and the Senate vote to do so. Otherwise, a presidential veto kills the bill
Quentin,
Reagans advisors were, by design, often at loggerheads about what they believed the president should do. Reagans philosophy was to move the ball in the direction he wanted it to go…toward smaller government with more money in the hands of Americans. As I said before, when he signed TEFRA he had been assured that for every dollar received in revenue there would be three dollars in spending cuts. Reagan was a gentleman and took the Congress, and his adviser Baker, at their word. Congress, of course, reneged on the agreement and from this experience Reagan avowed, Trust, but verify, the premise that would successfully guide his dealings with Gorbachev.
Perhaps Reagan should have known the Congress would not keep the agreement they made with him. Is it right to fault him for not being devious? Id sooner point fingers at those who made an agreement they never meant to keep. I see those who used dirty tricks and dishonesty in their negotiations as the bad guys.
Reagan wore a white hat and bargained in good faith. Thats why he is so well respected and appreciated by those who support and revere him!
Congress on the other handlatest polling shows them hovering around 17 -20% approval. Gee, I wonder why!
The bottom line is had they kept their agreement the debt would have been substantially reduced. Does it occur to anyone reading this that the dirty tricks were not about doing what they believed was right for the American people but instead about partisan POWER? They knew they could use this tax increase against the Republicans in the next election!
By the way, people who do calculations about the success of elected officials figure Reagan batted about six hundred…not bad considering he was dealing with a devious bunch of liars and opportunists in the Congressional leadership.
It doesnt take great intellect to realize that when any person has confidence about the future he is more likey to risk and spend. If he knows that his expenses, including his taxes, will remain manageable (no sudden increases or changes) he can make plans for the future. It works that way for business people too. Between the looming tax increases, the uncertainty that surrounds new health care costs and regulations, the threat of cap and tax, and the assault on the oil industry, there is little certainty or comfort for taking risks or hiring people.
If Congress raises taxes in this already hostile environment it will be another bad news day for business and the jobless numbers will remain very high or perhaps go even higher.
Can I prove it? Do I really need to, or does your common sense tell you that the Congress can’t spend what they don’t have?
That money left in the hands of Americans, especially those with small business, will result in creating more confidence to risk, invest and spend in the private sector. In this climate it will take more to get the jobless numbers down…hopefully in January we will see Republicans begin to enact policies that will support American business!
I just scanned the comments, differing views in some cases but civil, except for Libby, once again she resorts to calling names, so typical of her.
Peggy and Harriet:
I repeat:
All the cuts hurt … and hurt people who can least deal with them (except, of course the one percent … you silly “fill-it-in-yerself”).
But if you won’t consent to go after the one percent, you must, and will, take it in the shorts … and no snivelling.
Jack: “It’s been reported that the top 5% will only see about a $1000 in additional taxes. I haven’t verified this, but I was told by someone who should know.”
I don’t know who the someone was but that seems a rediculous guesstimate to me. Depending on ones income…plus dividend and interest income…the amount would vary widely. Some of them get hit with that alternative minimum tax too don’t they? (They will do all in their power to shelter as much as they can.)
What’s sad is the small businesses that report 250K and above. they aren’t taking that money home…it’s a snapshot of their income for the year in the business. They will be hit very hard.
Libby, I remember this class warfare mentality forever, I remember in the 1950s when I was a youngster, , some people have more money than anyone else, some have adequate amounts, some have to work their tails off to make ends meet ( my dad was one of those) others can’t or won’t fend forthemselves, that is where help comes in,
I really don’t care how much money Jack and Tina have, we all know they are filthy rich right? What they have has no affect on me whatsoever, not going to change my bank account.
I do not understand why they should pay more taxes than they already do, where will that money go, who will benefit? We, in this country keep spending more and more, I am surprised actually, you are not ranting against Big Brother making demands on our lives, from dangerous light bulbs,to what we eat, and etc.
Most people in this country are very generous on our own, without government intervention donate to those not in a good position,we will continue to do so, dont raise taxes to get this done.
Well whatever that taxable amount was going to be it won’t happen for another two years now. The dems and reps sold us out for this break and stuck us with 13 moire months of unemp-loyment for millions of people, a bad trade in my opinion. I hope the new group of reps coming in will have more backbone. As for the small business income, I’m not sure I understand. I don’t disagree with you I just really not sure how this works. I thought you would have to actually clear the $250,000 as net, which would mean you have $250k in cash after the money from profit had been spent on reinvestment in the company, right? .
It’s a little hard for the issue to not get framed as “class warfare” when the Republicans are saying that letting tax cuts for the top 1% expire when they are supposed to is nothing short of un-American, while also saying that extending unemployment benefits for those out of work is just going to make poor people more lazy–especially when the CBO and plenty of other economists have found that these Republican solutions are only going to increase the deficit and hurt the economy.
I’m sure none of you have any special animosity toward the poor, nor are you billionaires. I have faith that you’re trying to do what you believe is best for the country. Maybe you could grant us liberals the same benefit of the doubt.
Chris, we may disagree on how to reach the same goal, I have to say you are always civil,so granting liberals the same benefit of the doubt is easy. ( smile)
This administration in my mind is promoting class warfare, they damn large companies,corporations are evil and ultra rich are greedy, that is basically the mantra.
I do not believe that 13 month extension of unemployment benefits is helpful, after that time they will have collected about 3 years, I do believe laziness and a ho-hum attitude will prevail.
I thinkl at the very least the republicans should have insisted that to get the 13 months of unemployment it would have to be earned, do service, volunteer, something
Chris: “It’s a little hard for the issue to not get framed as “class warfare” when the Republicans are saying that letting tax cuts for the top 1% expire when they are supposed to is nothing short of un-American, while also saying that extending unemployment benefits for those out of work is just going to make poor people more lazy…”
I haven’t used the word “lazy” and I haven’t heard others use it. I have said that it keeps people docile in mood and offers no incentive to look for work. There is a difference. One is a personal statement that might or might not be true on an individual basis and the other an opinion about the policy.
“I have faith that you’re trying to do what you believe is best for the country. Maybe you could grant us liberals the same benefit of the doubt.”
Chris I do believe that most people who are liberal believe they are doing what’s best for the country.
The problem for me begins when historical evidence to the contrary is dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
I take exception when it can be demonstrated that big government policies conflict with original intent written in the Constitution and lead to just the situation we find ourselves in today…massive unemployment and debt.
I also resent the implications that conservatives are heartless, selfish, scrooges. It can be demonstrated that conservatives care deeply about others and wish only to enact policies that support every American and encourages self sufficiency. We need policies that give the poor the opportunity to realize success by their own efforts.
I agree that when the message of your opposition is tainted with nonsense people who are ignorant of history and facts are turned off before they have a chance to consider either side. This is no way to engage in debate.