Democrats Declare Tax War on the Middle Class

The Democratic Party has declared a tax war on the American middle class. Whether Clinton or Obama become their nominee, if the Democrats win, the Middle Class loses. The reason is both candidates have promised to repeal the Bush tax cuts. In the Democratic twisted view of reality, all tax cuts are evil because they only benefit the wealthy, the so-called "fat cats" or "filthy rich."

So, who are these "fat cats" or "filthy rich" who have benefitted from President George W. Bush's tax cuts? Are they only the millionaires and billionaires? Far from it. Instead, they are the vast majority of middle class Americans. Here's the proof from the Tax Foundation.

Note: These figures do not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that these taxpayers may have had to pay. They presume the taxpayers have no dependents and are taking the standard deduction.

Back in 1999, when Bill Clinton was still President, if you were single and making $30,000 per year, you paid $3,158 in federal taxes. Today, under President George W. Bush, you paid $2,756 or 13% less than under Clinton. If you were married and filing jointly with an income of $60,000 per year, under Clinton, you owed $6,585 in federal income taxes. In 2008, under Bush, you owed only $5,513 or 16% less.

If you are a little better off and make $50,000 as a single person, you paid $7,263 in federal income taxes under Clinton, but only $6,606 or 9% less under Bush. A married couple filing with a joint income of $75,000 paid $9,427 under Clinton, but only $7,763 or 18% less under Bush.

For the upper middle class, singles making $75,000 per year paid $14,263 in taxes under Clinton. Under Bush, they pay $12,856 or 10% less. For married couples with a joint income of $125,000, they paid $23,427 under Clinton and $19,463 or 17% less under Bush.

Another way to look at it is when Tax Freedom Day falls. Tax Freedom Day is the day when the average American taxpayer stops working just to pay taxes (local, state, and federal) and starts earning income for personal use. In 2000, Tax Freedom Day was May 3rd, the latest in history. In 2008, we celebrated Tax Freedom Day on April 23rd. Despite the Bush tax cuts, the average American worker pays more in taxes than on food, clothing, and housing combined.

The danger to all American taxpayers, if the Democrats win the White House or continue to control Congress, is the Bush tax cuts will not be made permanent. Many taxpayers do not realize that the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to "sunset" in 2011. According to the Tax Foundation's "The Effect of Temporary Tax Relief on a Typical American Family of Four" report,

"If Congress and the President do not act to make permanent the Bush tax cut, known formally as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), a family of four earning the median income can expect its federal income tax bill to increase by $2,681 between 2010 and 2011, a 48.8 percent increase. This will amount to 3.3 percent of the family’s adjusted gross income in that year and roughly equals what the average family of four spends on out-of-pocket health care costs each year."

What will happen if Bush's tax cuts are not made permanent, a move most Democrats oppose? The 10% tax bracket for the lowest income workers will increase to 15%. The child tax credit which will be $1,000 in 2010 will be reduced to $500. And, married couples will once again pay a marriage penalty. Because married couples pay the majority of all federal income taxes, they were the biggest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts and stand to loose the most if they are sunsetted (eliminated). These are only some of the painful results that are scheduled to occur on January 1, 2011.

The greatest irony is that if the Democrats get their way and do not make the Bush tax cuts permanent, then the top 20% earners will pay a smaller percentage of the total tax liability than they do now with the Bush tax cuts. In other words, the "fat cats" or "filthy rich" will pay 78.7% or 3% less of all federal income taxes under the Democrats' plan than the 81% they currently pay under the Bush plan. Is this why the wealthiest Americans contribute more to Democratic than Republican candidates?

Source: The Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html

Other recommended Tax Foundation reports are:
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008 http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
The Effect of Temporary Tax Relief on a Typical American Family of Four http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/134.html
The Effect on a Typical Family of Four of Accelerating Scheduled Tax Cuts and Making Temporary Tax Relief Permanent http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/130.html
Impact of Bush Tax Cuts on AMT and Non-AMT Returns for 2007 Under Current Law http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22424.html
Married Couples Pay Majority of Federal Income Taxes, Received Majority of Bush Tax Cuts http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/66.html
The Tax Code's Day of Reckoning: January 1, 2011 http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1476.html
Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/323.html
Comparing Popular Tax Deductions to the Bush Tax Cuts http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22447.html

It's About Time: Chertoff Announces Tighter Enforcement of Laws that Prohibit Employing Illegal Aliens

Friday, August 10th, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that his department would ramp up enforcement of laws that forbid employers from hiring illegal aliens. It is about time. "The changes, which would stiffen work-site enforcement, add border agents and increase penalties for rogue employers, could cause havoc in immigrant-dependent industries like agriculture, hospitality and healthcare, Chertoff acknowledged. 'There will be some unhappy consequences for the economy out of doing this,' he said in an interview with The [Los Angeles] Times." (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig11aug11,1,3189676.story?track=rss )

Does this mean that President Bush and his administration have had a change of heart regarding comprehensive immigration reform? Don't bet on it. In fact, the above article in the Los Angeles Times hints that this new enforcement crackdown may be a deliberate attempt to punish and threaten those who opposed the recently defeated immigration reform legislation. Bush may be hoping that the Congress will be pressured to reconsider his comprehensive immigration reform, including a "pathway" to citizenship for the 12-20 million illegal aliens already here by causing serious damage to the economy.

Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez remarked, "We do not have the workers our economy needs to keep growing each year. The demographics simply are not on our side. Ultimately, Congress will have to pass comprehensive immigration reform." He echoed Chertoff who said, "I'm not a lawmaker, but I presume, at some point, somebody's going to take a look and say, 'We've got to find a way to address this problem,' and that's probably going to require some legal changes."

Will this new enforcement effort cause economic hardships? Most likely, it will in the short-term. Industries and businesses who have become hooked on employing cheap illegal alien labor will have to adjust their employment practices. They may struggle to find enough new hires to replace their illegal employees. They will have training expenses that will impact productivity. They may have to increase wages to find qualified legal workers, which would require adjusting their prices or cutting their profit margins.

Consumers are equally addicted to the cheap prices that accompany the use of illegal aliens as employees. U.S. consumers may need to accept that prices will increase if they want to rid this country of illegal aliens. Stricter enforcement of these anti-illegal immigrant employment laws may result in some increase in the rate of inflation. However, this tendency will be modified by the laws of supply-and-demand if more illegal aliens self-deport, a trend that is increasing according to ALIPAC. It should be obvious that the presence of 12-20 million illegal aliens puts pressure on the supply of goods and services and that means pressure on prices, too.

However, the long-term impact on the economy and the country as a whole will be nothing but positive. The evidence is overwhelming that illegal immigration is costing us far more than it benefits us. I agree with Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Solano Beach) who said, "If there's some pain, it's not because we didn't have amnesty. It's because we didn't enforce the law 20 years ago when we should have."

Those of us who oppose this administration's amnesty scams for illegal aliens must keep very vigilant. We need to closely watch that Congress does not waffle when unions, businesses and illegal immigrant supporters pressure them. The first thing to be on the alert for would be efforts to increase the number of temporary agricultural workers or skilled IT workers. Those need to be blocked by quick lobbying responses from those of us who want illegal immigration to stop.

Rasmussen Reports Poll: Real People Are Polled

In case you wonder if real people are polled by polling companies like Gallup, Zogby, and Rasmussen, the answer is "yes." I was polled by Rasmussen Reports on Thursday, August 9th. It was an automated telephone poll of "likely voters" that was quite lengthy. The questions ranged from my opinion of President George Bush to the presidential primary candidates to my political ideological bent to homeland security issues. It was fun to participate.

This is the second time I have been polled in a national political poll. Gallup called me a number of years ago. so, real people do answer these polls that the news media thrive on during political season.

Rasmussen Reports is one of the more reliable polls because of their methodology. They came closest to accurately predicting the outcome of the 2006 presidential race between Bush and Kerry. They survey "likely voters" with a balanced weighting to reflect the population. (See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology for details of their poll design )

The results of the Rasmussen poll I participated in were reported on Friday, August 10th. According to Yahoo! News, "this national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August 8-9, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20070810/pl_rasmussen/wiretapping20070810_1 )

Here are the results of some of the questions I remember and how I answered them. Then, I note the results reported by Rasmussen. (Caution: The questions may not be the exact wording used in the poll; they are how I recall them. Nearly all the possible answers included the option "unsure," which I have not noted below since I did not select that for any of mine. When it comes to politics, I always have an opinion!)

• What is your opinion of the job President Bush is doing? Excellent? Good? Fair? Poor? I answered "Good" as did 21% of respondents. Overall, 39% approve of the President's job performance and 58% disapprove. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval )

• If the Republican primary were held today, who would you vote for? Thompson? Guiliani? Romney? McCain? Other? I answered "other." Then, I was given the names of the "second-tier" candidates. I voted for "Tom Tancredo." The results were Thompson, 19%; Guiliani, 28%; Romney, 12%, McCain, 10%, and 31% either Other or Unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history )

• Do you believe Rudy Guiliani is Conservative? Moderate? Liberal? I answered "Liberal." The poll's results were 30% Conservative, 46% Moderate, and 12% Liberal. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Rudy Guiliani? I hold an "unfavorable" opinion as do 42% of other likely Republican voters. Fifty percent are "favorable." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: John Edwards? Rudy Guiliani? Other? I answered "other" because I would vote third party if Guiliani gets the Republican nomination. I will never, ever vote for a pro-choice Republican. In that match-up, Edwards would win 49% to 42%, according to the poll. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: Fred Thompson? John Edwards? Other? I answered "Thompson" as did 39% of all polled. Edwards won 50% of likely voters. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you believe allowing the government to intercept phone calls from foreign suspected terrorists makes America safer? I was included in the 59% of all voters and 79% of Republicans who answered "Yes." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Did Congress vote recently to allow the government to expand its ability to intercept phone calls of foreign terrorist suspects and other electronic communications without warrants? I was also among the 34% who were aware that Congress had approved the legislation allowing this without warrants. Thirty percent incorrectly said Congress rejected it and 36% were unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Does the government worry too much about individual rights or national security too much or is the balance about right? I answered "about right" as did 29% of those polled. Thirty-four percent said it worries too much about individual rights and 27% said it is too concerned about national security. There is marked differences between Republicans and Democrats on this question. Democrats line up 39% that the government is too worried about national security whereas only 12% Republicans said that. Fifty-two percent of Republicans believe that concern for individual rights is excessive versus 12% who say national security concerns are excessive. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Who do you trust more to keep the balance between concerns regarding individual rights and national security needs? Democrats or the President? I said "the President" along with 41% of pollees. Forty-eight percent trust Democrats more. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )