• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: The Economic Toll of the Obama Tax Hikes

    In today’s Wall Street Journal, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) identifies two justifications for his unequivocal opposition to any impending tax increases: “The first concerns the pain that tax increases threaten to inflict on our economy over the short term. The second is to stop the slide under our current leadership towards becoming a stagnant European-style welfare state with limited individual opportunity and entrepreneurship.”

    We’ve written before about how President Barack Obama’s reckless spending threatens to undermine our nation’s economic vitality. Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama’s FY 2011 budget would hike it to $36,000 per household by 2020 — an inflation-adjusted $12,000-per-household expansion of government. But spending is just one-half of this White House’s economic plan. Massive wealth-distributing tax hikes are the other half of President Obama’s wish list, and they are just as big a threat to our nation’s economy.

    Contrary to what you hear from the White House, the Obama tax hikes do not just hit the wealthy. Economic life at all levels is so tightly interwoven that tax increases for one segment of the population will ultimately affect everyone. Nearly everyone will pay something, either in lower income, higher interest rates or more expensive products, to name just three economic pains the Obama tax hikes will inflict on the economy. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has run simulations using their Individual Income Tax Model comparing current law with President Obama’s most recent budget proposal which includes: 1) higher taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000; 2) higher taxes on capital gains; 3) higher taxes on dividends; and 4) the return of the death tax. The CDA found that the Obama tax hikes would:

    • Destroy an average of 693,000 jobs every year through 2020.
    • Drain $726 billion from disposable income, $38 billion from personal savings, and $33 billion from business investments.
    • Raise taxes on the 55% of all joint filers earning more than $250,000 who run small businesses that employ others.
    • Cost the average non-farm small-business owner $3,500 more in taxes.
    • Cost the 49% of all seniors with income below $250,000 $525 in additional dividend taxes.
    • Cost the 25% all seniors with income below $250,000 $742 in higher taxes.

    The bottom line is clear: All Americans would suffer economic harm under the Obama tax hikes. There simply is no justification for raising taxes when the unemployment rate is already near 10%. The American people already know this, which is why the same independents who voted for President Obama by a 52% to 44% margin also oppose the Obama tax hikes. After polling these same independents, Independent Women’s Voice CEO Heather Higgins and former President Bill Clinton pollster Doug Schoen describe what these independents really want: “Decrease the size and scope of government, cut spending and taxes, balance the budget, reduce the federal debt, reduce the power of special interests and unions, repeal and replace the health-care legislation, and decrease partisanship.”

    It is possible to balance the budget without raising taxes. The United States has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Simply bringing real federal spending back to the inflation adjusted $21,000 per household average that prevailed in the 1980s and 1990s would balance the budget by 2012 without raising a single tax on anyone. Even returning spending to the pre-recession level of 20 percent of GDP would eliminate two-thirds of the projected 2019 budget deficit without raising taxes. Our nation already has the world’s most progressive tax code. Congress should reform the tax code by making it simpler and less intrusive while also cutting spending by making fundamental reforms to entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid).

    Quick Hits:

    • Join us at 1 PM Eastern on The Foundry for a live web chat with Heritage’s Bill Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis and author of a new study on the impact of the Obama tax hikes.
    • Former president Bill Clinton admitted on Sunday that he was wrong to predict Obamacare would increase in popularity after it became law.
    • President Obama’s political advisers are considering national advertisements “to cast the Republican Party as all but taken over by Tea Party extremists.”
    • Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) told CNN Sunday, that the Republican Party – even if it regains control only of the House – is “dead” unless it follows Americans’ demands to rein-in government spending.
    • If they take the House in November, Republicans are planning to chip away at the White House’s legislative agenda—in particular the health-care law—by depriving the programs of cash.
    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    44 Responses to Morning Bell: The Economic Toll of the Obama Tax Hikes

    1. Ted Stein, Philadelp says:

      I don't want a tax hike. I do want some level of government services. Most folks, including those at the Heritage Foundation, the Federal Government, Republicans, Democrats, and even Independents, don't make the now famous $250,000 target for increased taxes. However, the fastest way to reduce government spending is to cut staff, thus adding to the unemployment ranks. If I knew that those wishing to pay less would hire more, I'd be on boared.

    2. Ron Derry NH says:

      Simply put Congress is a corruptible influence not a room filled with Martyrs. If they new a way to CUT their spending, that would reduce their power over some one and that would take a wise and decent man.

      We see what Washington is made of and it is bankrupt in morality and ethics to commit to preserving the nation. It is in fact a group corruptible influences that have used the system to create their wealth, their power and their cronies…..they will not change the tax code as that is what gives them reason to be.

    3. Jim Furlong Geyservi says:

      Buried in the middle of Cantor's column in parentheses is the statement that" we should be exploring how to preserve and strengthen our current entitlement programs."

      I would like Mr. Cantor to explain why anyone is entitled to the product of my labor.

      Is the massive farm program one of the entitlements that he wants to strengthen and preserve?

      There is no logical or moral argument for the government to forcibly take my property and distribute it to others.

      The government should be like an umpire, enforcing rules equally not deciding who wins and who loses.


    4. Tony, Brick, NJ says:

      I disagree with you somewhat on this one. Cantor and the rest of his Republicans only care about the rich and have no concern whatsoever for the poor or middle class. We can not afford NOT to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy. Letting the cuts expire for the wealthy will have very little, if any, impact on them but will have a major impact on present and future government revenue.

      I do think, however, that certain spending should also be stopped. No more bailouts and whatever stimulus has not been spent should not be spent. Also, consideration should be made to not continuing to extend unemployment benefits (now, under certain conditions, people can collect unemployment benefits for 99 weeks! Six months should be the maximum). Lastly, Obama should mandate an immediate 10% budget reduction in every single department and agency. There is so much waste and graft that finding 10% should be a snap.


    5. LES HOWLEY says:


    6. Jon Kern, PA says:

      typo: "Drain $726 billion from disposal income"

      should be "disposable" I think

    7. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      I WONDER what the Salaries at HF Are?

      Do you KNOW?

      I don't listen to RICH people tell me -



    8. David Sayers,Goldsbo says:

      With all the damage this marxist fraud and is gang of thugs have inflicted on this country,why isn't there any serious calls for impeachment? Somebody better get a strong case of the "guts" and stand up to protect the country. Am I under a misguided understanding that our elected officials are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution and not to rip it to shreds? November is coming and hell's coming with it.

    9. Jill, California says:

      Keep hammering home the point that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause a trickle-down effect on everyone else. The so-called wealthy will not absorb the higher taxes alone. They will pass those taxes on to the middle class by increasing the cost of goods and services wherever possible. Higher taxes for the wealthy means higher taxes for all Americans.

    10. Evan, Alaska says:

      In the last paragraph, the HF finally put it in simple language and after several years convinced me that they have a plan. Congradulations. Maybe they can sell their plan if they openly sell it as Bill Clinton president and republican congress plan. Back when Bill's model was "the era of big government is over". I do think that taxes need to go back to Clinton rates though. Maybe that could be the compromise if spending goes back to those levels. Defense will have to go back to those levels also. We need to do everything possible not to go broke. Didn't Clinton reduce governement employment by 20%?

    11. Jack E Lohman says:

      Nothing is going to change until we have public funding of campaigns. What is it about political bribes do we not understand? Politicians spend money because they ARE PAID to spend taxpayer dollars, and robbing the SSI fund gives them the cash needed to attract campaign dollars.

      We are at the mercy of corporations run for profits, enabled by a privatized congress that shares in those profits. Our problem is NOT government, and it is not R’s or D’s. It *IS* that government is owned by the special interests that want in the taxpayer’s pockets.

      As a former CEO my company would not have survived if I had an employee or board of directors who took money on the side and gave away company assets in return. Our country can’t survive this corruption either.

      If politicians are going to be beholden to their funders, those funders should be the taxpayers. And at $5 per taxpayer per year it would be a bargain. Even at 100 times that. We MUST lobby our senators and representative to co-sponsor the bill at: http://fairelectionsnow.org/about-bill

      Jack Lohman …

    12. Dean, Virginia says:

      I believe the stats are 47% of wage earners pay no federal taxes; the only people available to give tax reductions to are the top 50+%. All should pay in something. My good friend's father studied and wrote that the common denominator among all failing democracies is that at some point they become so successful economically they start to vote themselves things they eventually cannot afford. Entitlements are already there. We cannot afford them. So, we really have two choices: reduce spending/cut taxes or go broke and fail.

    13. toledofan says:

      The solutions are simple, the actions to get the needed soluitions are difficult because the power the money generates is tremendous. The only way to do it is to get some honest men and women in Washington who actually care about America, our standing in the world and our Constitution.As long as the current administration and Congress are in power nothing positive will change; spending will continue to be obnoxious, social programs and feel good things to silence the bullies will increase – the economy will get worse, people will continue to suffer and you'll still have some idiots that say raising taxes on the wealthy is a good idea. I think you'd probably call that trickle down stupidity.

    14. Bryan A. Ennist says:

      Can you say flat tax?

    15. Alfred Doyle, Sewick says:

      We are spending about $80 billion/year on illegal immigrants and their U.S.-

      born birthright citizen children.

      They are taking jobs from Americans, to whom we then have to provide

      unemployment benefits.

      Of what they earn in the U.S., $40 billion is sucked out of our economy,

      going back to their homelands.

      If we amnesty them, so they can legally get Social Security and Medicare,

      it will cost $2 trillion in coming decades.

    16. Bruce Gregory, Rodne says:

      Can anyone explain why a tax on business of any kind makes any kind of sense? Individuals should pay the taxes. A platform I would like to see discussed is this: Tax ALL personal income at the same rate; NO BUSINESS TAX.

      I am a college professor. Go figure! I teach Manufacturing Engineering subjects which, perhaps, allows me to see the impact tax has on business decisions. I have come to experience the tax code from the business side, however, because my wife and I own an asparagus farm. On this farm many of our primary business decisions are affected by the tax code. For example, why can't buildings be expensed? If I have a single purpose mushroom growing building I can use a ten year life or section 179 (expense) it. Why a mushroom building and not a building used for other farm purposes? What crony got that in the tax code? Go with either a flat tax on individual income (no business tax) or go with the Fair Tax. The existing structure is one of the many boat anchors holding us back.

    17. Jill-Maine says:

      I know Clinton almost crippled the military.

      It's high time all the democrats finally figure out that the democrat party id not the party of the people. It is the party of big government and limited freedom. There are too many people in the USA who still have not woken up. Do we all have to be dressed in little gray uniforms before they do?

    18. Bruce J. Kolinski says:

      I agree with the article, though also suggest that putting a band aid on a de-capitation won't help much. We have a 65,000 page tax code designed to protect Federal government sponsored, international monopolies, while looting "we the people".

      Our tax code illegally insures the impossibility of small business wealth accumulation thereby denying it a future place at the competition table – because government regulation insures there is no competition for the elite.

      For anyone to suggest that a spending cut here or a tax increase there will stabilize our crashing and burning economy is denial excess.

      It was announced today that the recession was over in June of 2009. This is good news. Does it mean I'm getting my bankrupt civil engineering firm back?

      Just wondering.

    19. Jack E Lohman says:

      As a retired small business owner, I never even approached $250K. And if I were to be so lucky, I could afford the proposed tax increase. And if I didn’t want to pay those taxes I’d keep the money in the company for growth and jobs. Too simple?

      The poor are not going to get us out of this mess, only the rich can.

      Jack Lohman …

    20. Dan, NC says:

      If the gov't continues to grow and we continue to have more gov't jobs with higher salaries and pensions funded by a smaller percent in the private sector, then how will the private sector be able to fund the gov't jobs? In other words, If all tax payers are gov't workers, how can we fund this? Gov't should shrink and hand over services to the private sector. Our garbage collection just became gov't owned and operated at a local level, Ofcourse we also had a tax increase and a collection rate increase to fund it…..go figure.

    21. Dave Ness Jr says:

      Not Letting the tax cuts sunset cost $4,000,000,000,000. Who pays for that? Rick Santelli shows you the Future. US Government Has Poor Treasury Auction Feb 10, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&client=mv-google&hl=en&v=frhmu77ry6s

    22. Alan says:

      The more we expect of government, the more it costs.

      Obama made the statement at a recent appearance Americans are demanding more services from government while taxes are expected to go down.

      I have made no such demands of my government.

      Let us not fall into the liberal sand-trap and "blame" the guy in office now or for that matter the last guy.

      They do have some responsibility, but, this latest ratcheting up of statism goes far back to Roosevelt.

      But most of all, it is our fault for surrendering our liberties and personal responsibilities to people who are flat out unqualified to take on other peoples responsibilities. If people want to abdicate their personal liberties, let them do it at their risk rather than a society which does not want to be a collective caretaker.

      The next time you hear someone complain about outsourincg jobs, consider how many of us have outsourced our roles as citizens to an increasingly centralized government which does not have a stake our interests as individuals.

    23. Laurie Hawaii says:

      If only people would understand that reducing taxes for the individuals, etc. actually INCREASES the total revenue collections for the Government. It’s a math thing. If I go out of business or make hardly any money profits , I don’t make hardly any taxes to the government. So, if I make profits, I will be giving more money to the government (even if the tax percentage is lowered) so it’s a WIN-WIN, WIN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL BUSINESS AND WIN FOR THE GOVERNMENT. So, the argument of certain groups about cutting taxes is not affordable is totally wrong. Cutting taxes for individuals encourages people to work and make money and therefore pay taxes rather than drain the system with unemployment checks. WAKE UP MR. PRESIDENT!!! Act like a leader.

    24. Judith in Michigan says:

      Last week was very eye-opening for me. I spent it in Washington, DC. Thousands and

      thousands of people, seemingly very important, rushing here and there, carrying their identical briefcases, talking urgently on their cell phones. or waving their hands while engrossed in deep conversations with their companions.

      My point? Those in DC have NO connection at all to America and the American people. There is no recession there. Salaries, at least for the political class, are higher than in the rest of the country, and employment appears to be healthy Hotels were crowded and restaurants were packed.

      Raising taxes is an abstract concept that will give them more money to redistribute in the quest to buy votes and retain power. Throw money at something and you will control it.

      The government believes that the money American citizens earn belongs to the government first, then they will decide just how much you, the actual wage earner, gets to keep. It is irrelevant if America is hurt by these confiscatory policies.

      Anyone who believes that it is right to "Tax the Rich" are dupes of the class warfare, envy and jealously being promoted by this administration. They just don't realize it yet.

    25. Rosie- Maryland says:

      I read some of these comments it still amazes me that some people still find it so difficult to understand that the government is not the one that creates jobs. It may employ people but the money to pay those gov workers comes from the taxes that those of us who work in the private sector pay into the treasury. Yes those govt workers pay taxes as well, but it's the same money that was paid to them from what the tax payer paid. It's the same money being recycled!!!

      It is simple economics, rich people have money, they take risks and start up businesses which in turn create jobs for a lot more people who pay taxes. When rich people are allowed to keep more of their money they spend it buying stuff, new boats, airplanes, automobiles, etc. Each one of these manufacturers must hire people to build the new toy that the rich person wants, hence, the manufacturer'e employees pay taxes.


    26. Pingback: Hot Air » Cantor: We’re not backing down on Obama tax hikes

    27. Denise, Utah says:

      First of all, I believe that those people who don't pay taxes should NOT have the right to vote. They have "no skin in the game". Secondly, I believe that wages should NOT be taxed. The American worker is trading time, labor, and talents for wages. Therefore, wages wouldn't be considered an increase (Constitution). Anyone with half a brain can figure out that corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them down to the consumer. The Founding Fathers knew this. It was the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 that the "banksters" knew they had to dupe the American people into thinking income taxes pay for government services. NOT TRUE! Most of our hard earned tax dollars go to pay the super wealthy owners of the Federal Reserve for the use of our own money (interest on the debt)! And these private shareholders aren't even Americans!! So our government really operates on inflation which is a hidden tax. If we had brave, patriotic leaders that would abolish the Fed or at least audit it, the American people would see what a giant vampire of an institution it has been. It literally sucks all the wealth out of our country to the super wealthy "banksters". And the most amazing part of all of this is that they create money out of this air. Most of the people commenting on this article have bought into the idea of class warfare. Shame on YOU!!

    28. Johnny in NC says:

      Jack Lohman, yours was the first comment, and immediately has glaring errors. You are like most Libs who think you can spend other people's earnings and then call on "the rich" to bail you out of your mess. Not gonna happen anymore. Confiscating money from "the rich" because YOU have determined that they can afford it, is just outright theft. It is Immoral, and not very smart, either.

      Pulling money from America's most productive earners and giving it to wasteful government pulls money away from real economic output that generates prosperity. Government protects rights, but does NOT create prosperity. "The Rich" making over $250,000 are responsible for nearly 40% of consumer spending. Mistreat them, and they will spend less, there will be less jobs, and less taxes collected, and you will either run them off or destroy their wealth. Ever heard of killing the golden goose?? No offense personally, but with comments like yours, it would be hard to convince me that your business was very successful, paid much tax, or hired many people. I am not surprised that you said you never came close to earning $250,000. You clearly do not "get it."

    29. Pingback: Morning Bell: The Economic Toll of the Obama Tax Hikes | The … : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth , no more lies

    30. Mike Minneapolis says:

      Help me with the last two bullet points, one states "cost the 49% of all seniors with income below $250,000"….does this mean that 51% have incomes over $250,000?

      Wait: the next says "cost the 25% of all seniors with incomes below $250,000"….is that 75% above it?

      Maybe I missed something math is not my field

    31. Don Lloyd Lewiston, says:

      Taxes on income are NOT the way to finance government! And neither are VAT or consumption taxes. There is a BETTER way! Individual retirement accounts can eliminate ALL state, federal, employment, and corporate income taxes and give individuals more retirement money than Social Security

    32. Nick, Jacksonville says:

      Evan in Alaska, why don't you look up the answer to your question about Clinton cutting the federal workforce? I'd like to know. I seriously doubt that he did. I also seriously doubt that, if it shrank even a little, it was anywhere near 20%. The one constantly growing segment of the economy is the federal government.

    33. Jim in SC says:

      Jack E Lohman (above) displays a simple ignorance of economic facts and uncritical thinking. I too am a small business owner, but unlike Jack, I recognize that the mythical $250k income bar is a ruse. These taxes WILL come from every income level because confiscating all the wealth of the RICH could not even pay for the interest being accumulated on the debt. When Jack stated "The poor are not going to get us out of this mess, only the rich can" he absolutely misunderstands the tenets of capitalism. Getting the poor jobs will get us out of this mess, and that is a fact. A welfare state is comprised of able-bodied citizens waiting on the Government check to arrive, sans contributing any thing to society.

      For this reason I am avoiding http://MoneyedPoliticians.net as keening is not my preferred reading material.

    34. Dennis Georgia says:

      The wants of obama and pelosi never cease to amaze me. They are intent on making us a socialized nation, totaly dependent on the "guvment" for everything. I am not a rocket scientist, it just makes since to me that if people have more disposable income they will buy more goods, pay more on debt, and in turn start the economy on the road to recovery.

      The current trend is to spend more than we have, the budget needs to be balanced. The obama way is to cut the social security, the life blood for those that made this country, veterans benefits, those that fough for this country, blead and died for our freedoms, medicare, the medical needs of senoirs. He has not said anything about the billions that are sent to other countries, the billions in his stimilus package for worthless programs, the billions that he spends on flying around the country giving his organization speechs, the millions on vacations, something many of us do not have the priviledge of taking. When one listens to him it is all about what he has done, what he is going to do, what he is going to spend using our hard earned money for another worthless program. He talks about all the jobs that have beed created, where are these jobs? These jobs are in "guvment" at our expense, and used to help the unions. These jobs pay more than most of us will make in 5 years, not in one. This mess is all about him, not us. Things happened but wwere not his fault, he has yet to except resposibility for anything. The respose to any problem is spend, it was not my fault, I inherited this mess.

      Well we will see in November if the people are willing to keep drinking the "cool-aid" he pours out. I sincerley hope people will tell him no.

    35. George Colgrove, VA says:

      Judith in Michigan,

      I hear what you say. I moved to the District (well Alexandria) a year ago. I came down for a job, but also hoping to fulfill my dream of living in the nation's capital. What I saw when I came down was very disturbing. I live with an unsettled feeling in my stomach. The last time I was here for a week was over 13 years ago. I was down a few years ago for a conference but could not get out to see as much as I wanted. When I was here over 13 years ago, I saw a city in decline. Many areas in the District, especially behind the capital building were broken down and downright frightening. Now, those areas have become very wealthy areas. The streets and the houses are renovated. Where 13 years ago there were rusted old Escorts parked in the streets, there are now brand new Lexus's and Mercedes. Every property that is not under renovation is trimmed out to the hilt – nice garden plantings, security systems and so on.

      The thing is, the only thing happening in the District is the federal government. Recent reports suggests that feds are now earning in pay and in benefits more than double what their counterparts in the private industry earns. To a lesser extent, federal contractors are also making out well. The top three richest counties in America are those that surround the District. I cannot tell you how many cars with Department of Defense stickers are very high end cars. It is rare to see a 2002 Toyota Celica with a DoD sticker, but it is common to see cars worth well over $40K or more with DoD stickers on them. These are just antidotal evidence items that back up what you saw when you came down.

      This is what I have seen in my time in the District. Where there are clusters of federal office buildings there are very high class stores (Nordstrom, Macy's, Jos A Banks and so on.) There are very few stores for the low end commoner (Walmart, and even JC Penny's and so on.) In fact you have to dig deep into poorer regions or areas far outside the beltway to get to the lower end markets. Feds like to say they are struggling, but they have lost touch with what struggle means.

      The biggest example of what I am talking about is an area called Pentagon City. Of course, you have the hundreds of thousands of high paid civilian feds who work for the Dept of Defense (actual military do not earn as much). They may work just up the street at the Pentagon (one very quick metro stop away) or in one of the many unnamed federal office buildings in the area. There is also the Department of Energy and many other federal offices that are hidden in an about the area. Just south of Pentagon City is an area called Crystal City and just north is a place called Rosslyn. These three areas comprise of probably the highest concentration of feds outside the District. This also represents the highest level of commerce that incidentally takes place during work hours.

      These areas often roll up the carpets at an early time. This is where your federal dollars end up. A closed store front is scarce at best. The area is practically fully operational. The vast majority of your defense dollar going to pay civilian feds end up here. If you lived here, you would have no clue the economy was excellent. There is no pain or suffering in this three-city location.

      To contrast this, Springfield, VA is just a short distance south, outside the beltway. There is very little federal presence there other than federal contractors. The malls down there are half-full at best. In Springfield, you see many more common stores and you see many storefronts closed. In Springfield, you could easily feel there is a recession. However, even Springfield is nowhere like it is back home in VT where everywhere you go, there are significant signs of a recession.

      The District has become the land of the rich and well off. They derive their incomes from low paid citizenry by forced taxation. The closer commerce is to the millions of feds who work in the District, the higher end it becomes. There is a lot of disposable cash floating around the District. It goes to expensive restaurants, and high-end theatres and entertainment. It is also amazing to find much of the high-end entertainment availble to the people who live in the Dsitrict is taxpaer subsidized. Not by local taxes, but by you the taxpayer in Michigan.

      It seems the only way Obama's redistribution methods are taking hold is the feds take your tax money and put it in their paychecks, to which they spend it in the District – or tightly nearby. There is so much money floating around on the streets in the District. When I drive home to see the family, it becomes painfully clear how that money flow stops once outside the grasps of the District.

      If you do not believe me, make your own journey down to the district. The disparity is great. If your anger with the federal government was high before it will be more so. This compensation and the effects thereof are not warranted for what the feds do. They are living high off the taxpayer dollar and produce nothing to pay it back. They are a drain in Hometown, America while living high in the District. Had this been a city based on capitalism where the virtues of profiting off a product or a service created such an economy, that would be one thing, and I would harbot no ill feelings. However, this economy in the District is based on the hard work and struggle of average Americans far outside the beltway. Feds and to a lesser extent, federal contractors are living well while the rest of us are struggling. They are paid by tax dollars; we are paid so they get those tax dollars.

      So yes Judith, what I have seen over the year is the feds are out of touch. I see it as a sort of dreamland we are in down here. Over the year, even I have become somewhat out of touch with reality and I do not work for the federal government in any way. Washington DC used to be my favorite city in the entire world. The corruption here is abundant and the care and concern for its people is scarce. I see the city no longer worth the name of Washington. It is a mere district geared towards endless spending for the preservation of itself. Where Washington resisted power, the District soaks it up.

    36. and2therepublic, ill says:

      " 'Six days shalt thou labor,' though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." – Benjamin Franklin – letter to Collinson – May 9, 1753

    37. and2therepublic, ill says:

      "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence, If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." – John Adams – A Defense of the American Constitution – 1787

    38. and2therepublic, ill says:

      "[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the State governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." – James Madison – Speech in the House of Representatives – January 10, 1794

    39. and2therepublic, ill says:

      "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." – Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Thomas Cooper – November 29, 1802

    40. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Let's hike only Obama's, Reid's, and Pelosi's taxes.

    41. Pingback: » Daily Dose – September 22, 2010

    42. bliss w. wilder says:


    43. Pingback: No Laffer-ing Matter : America's Right

    44. Pingback: No Laffer-ing Matter | Conservatives for America

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.