And here I thought Republicans were obsessed with Ronald Reagan! The reality is that President Obama is obsessed with America’s 40th President, because he thinks (misguidedly) that he can win points with voters who may have forgotten Reagan’s record on taxes. Check out both the video and the text of his recent comments.
Obama seems to think that he is either following in Reagan’s footsteps or that Reagan was on net a tax hiker. Nothing could be further from the truth. Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate dramatically as the chart below illustrates (see 1981-1989 for those with short memories):
Reagan DID in fact attempt to close some loopholes with his 1986 reforms, but unlike Obama, he was a net tax-cutter, not tax hiker. That is not to say that there are not plenty of loopholes in the tax code. There are and some, like the mortgage deduction and the tax advantages for businesses that purchase health care for their employees.
The simple fact is that spending is the problem, not taxation.
Let us always remember that Ronald Regan started this Signing Statement game of signing a bill, but then saying he did not believe this or that part of it.
Either the President signs the bill into law, or vetoes the bill. But none of this weasily shit of signing with reservations.
This political practice has continued and diminishes the role of the president and law.
He signed it. Nuff said. And it worked. Nuff said. The thief-in-chief currently infesting 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can attempt to run down Reagan (notice the spelling Mr. Richmond) all he wants, but Reagan’s successes destroy Obama’s abject failures every day.
Out with Obama this November. It’s the last chance we decent honest Americans have to save this country peaceably.
Obama likes to cite Ronald Reagan in part to show how far to the right of Reagan the tea party and their ilk are.
On exactly what issues is the Tea Party to the “right” of Reagan? Yes, they want to see bigger spending cuts, but the deficit and debt problems are far bigger than when Reagan was in office. The top marginal tax rate was much lower under Reagan as well.
Mr Gessing should cite where he gets his tax data. If he did so, I didnt see a citation anywhere. It is good form, and good public policy practise, to do so, and not simply present something as factual, even tho it may very well be.
Re: Tea Party being to the right of Reagan, Mr. Gessing has got me, because any time I say something about Rick Perry wanting to abolish the EPA or Rick Santorum implying we should get rid of public schools you can state they arent tea party members or dont represent most tea party members.
And increased spending cuts should go along with tax increases for the super rich. People who want huge social welfare cuts while avoiding tax increases for anybody are really trying to redefine what this country is and turn it into a one dimensional Ayn Rand comic book.
Oh by the way,simply citing the top marginal rate does not mean taxes overall increased or decreased. Rates theoretically could have gone up for any population not at the top marginal rate.
And I think we, or most of us, all agree the era when the rich had to pay out a huge percentage of their income for taxes (although there were and are some big loopholes as well) was unfair. I just think the tax cutters for the wealthy got a little carried away.
And I stand corrected, it would be an Ayn Rand 2 (not one) dimensional comic book.
Okay, yes, if you can’t read the chart which was clearly posted in my original posting, you can also go here and find federal tax rates laid out year-by-year. Now, you are absolutely correct that loopholes make a difference in terms of actual taxes paid and federal revenue, but that is exactly my point. Loopholes are not good tax policy. Reagan eliminated many of them in the 86 tax reform. Obama wants to raise rates. That is the big problem.