|Tax Rich Men! Tax Gas! Fair Share is 100%!|
Barbie Mikulski, the socialist senator from Maryland, introduced S. 388 on February 26th. The Library of Congress has yet to place the text of the bill online, though the bill is already scheduled for a cloture vote.
Just like with the PPACA, they are trying to keep people from reading the bill before they pass it. This is in an effort to avoid any criticism from their constituents.
However, the table of contents is available through alternate sources such as correspondent Jamie Dupree.
The bill claims it holds to the
Based upon the table of contents, the bill appears to be more of a tax increase bill than a budget bill intended to cut bloated federal spending.
The misleading titled "The American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013" does anything but economically protect your average American Family.
The bill contains provisions for a "fair share tax on high income taxpayers". The implication is that higher income earners, who already pay the majority of taxes to the federal government, will now be taxed for paying more than a fair share. It would be a pleasant surprise if the bill, instead, eliminated the so-called "progressive" income tax and replaced it with a flat tax. With a flat tax, taxpayers would, indeed, be paying a "fair share". Given their rhetoric, however, this will just be a tax increase on the higher tax brackets. That will lower incentives to earn, lower productivity, and cost jobs.
The bill also has provisions for increasing taxes on fossil fuels, to include gasoline. This will increase costs of transportation including mass transit programs such as city buses. With the national average fuel prices up $.50 a gallon, mid-range and lower income earners cannot afford an additional increase that the tax hike will mean.
The bill also proposes to eliminate one tax loophole. It is set to make it illegal for a company to deduct any business expenses incurred from outsourcing. While this so-called loophole will decrease deductions for certain costs of doing business, it really is just a means to tax more than income and profit. In addition, it lends to increased creation of oligopolies and monopolies since companies will now be motivated to keep all levels of production "in house" instead of farming some levels out to other, smaller, more specialized companies. These are affronts to capitalism and the free market ideal. They are easier to control and regulate for oligarchs, national socialists, and fascists.
It should also come as no surprise that the majority of the proposed cuts are to defense spending, including proposals to decrease military pays and benefits which are exempted under the sequester law passed in 2011.
This bill stands less of a chance of passing the House of Representatives than the House bills do of passing the Senate. Even if a "compromise" is reached, it likely will not come before March 1, 2013.
March 1, 2013 isn't as hard a deadline as it is portrayed. First of all, any federal employee furloughs must be announced at least 30 days in advance. Each job then has an appeal process before it is cut. Other provisions, to include the defense budget cuts, won't really see their money flow slow until later in the fiscal year, some time this summer. Realistically, the effects of the sequestration cuts won't be felt until around July.
So there is still plenty of time. Rushing for a "solution" before a manufactured and incorrect deadline is intended as a means to force congress to act irresponsibly. Obama and his snake-oil salesmen alarmists are using scare tactics to convince those who do not understand basic economics to panic and urge their congressmen to take those irresponsible acts. One tactic, done by socialist activist turned Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. The exiled former governor of Arizona has directed ICE to release thousands of illegal immigrant invaders back into the public. The claim is that they cannot afford to hold the criminals any longer. The sequestration cuts have not yet even gone into effect. Even when they do, ICE won't see the effects until around the July time-frame. No, this was done as a political stunt. It is a self-licking ice cream cone to support Obama's claims that sequestration will affect local law enforcement. It wouldn't have.
The political move by Obama and Napolitano irked the ire of many state governors, senators, as well as county sheriffs. State level leaders in Alabama and Georgia have joined the outraged voices of Janet Brewer of Arizona and Rick Perry of Texas. They allege the move was also done to destroy attempts at immigration reform proposed by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.
The big-government proponents and opponents to federal spending cuts on both sides of the aisle need to be called on the carpet to answer for their lies and irresponsible actions. The federal bureaucracy is already bloated. Cut it. Quit restricting and retarding private sector growth opportunities. Stop lying to people and manufacturing false crises to push repressive and oppressive political agendas.
The most responsible action in regards to the sequestration is to let it happen, look at cutting more, and look at cutting taxes and regulatory fees. Use the Laffer Curve and let this country recover from the great recession already.