GraniteGrok

Voters Want Green… In Their Wallets
Guest Post By Howard Rich

As the fallout continues to settle from the 2009 elections, among the more overlooked results was a ballot issue in Boulder County, Colorado that would have extended an existing sales tax to fund the acquisition of additional "open space."

Obviously, this regional issue didn't garner as much national interest as the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, or the mayoral races in New York, Atlanta and Houston, or a surprising near-win by an unknown third party challenger in a hotly-contested New York Congressional race. Nonetheless, it stands out as another compelling affirmation of the new direction America is taking – if only American politicians would listen.

Approval of this "open space" tax in Boulder, set to expire in 2019, seemed like a perfect storm –even in this bitter economic climate. After all, it wasn't technically a tax increase – it was a future extension (a decade down the road) of an existing tax, and not a particularly large tax at that. On top of that, it was expressly devoted for the purpose of land conservation, something Boulder voters have supported at the polls for the past two decades.

In other words, this was precisely the sort of referendum that routinely wins by landslide margins in the suburbs of Denver, where "green" voters dominate and Republicans have been virtually extinct since the Reagan revolution.

And yet amazingly, the "open space" ballot issue was narrowly defeated by Boulder voters.
To put that outcome in perspective, Barack Obama won Boulder County with a whopping 72.3% of the vote a year ago. In 2004, Boulder voters supported Democrat John Kerry 2-to-1 over George W. Bush. Four years before that? Al Gore got fifty percent of the vote – but only because 12% of Boulder residents voted for Ralph Nader.

"It's disappointing, but we knew going in that this would be a tough sell in this economic climate," the local County Commissioner said after the tax extension went down in defeat.
Really? Because it's never been a tough sell before.

An editorial in the Denver Post a few days after the election managed to muster the appropriate shock."When Boulder voters reject a tax increase meant to create more open space, it's clear there has been a sea change in political moods," the editorial stated.

Indeed there has been a "sea change," even if Obama and his allies refuse to acknowledge it.

In a related vote, Boulder County voters also rejected a measure that would have expanded low-interest loans to property owners making energy-efficient upgrades to their homes and businesses. Like the "open space" tax, the vote to authorize these loans wouldn't have immediately raised taxes or fees – but it would have expanded the debt obligation of the local government by $85 million.
Once again, Boulder voters weren't hearing it – and they weren't alone among historically left

leaning Coloradans when it came to rebuking these comparatively feeble efforts by local governments to dip into their wallets and pocketbooks.

In Aurora, another pro-Obama stronghold just east of Denver, voters shot down a tax that would have kept open four local libraries. Meanwhile in Denver – which Obama won a year ago with 75.4% of the vote – a tax increase for infrastructure improvements at a local school district was rejected.
Like the twenty-point electoral shifts in Virginia and New Jersey, these ballot issue results in Colorado are both shocking and uncomplicated.

From the suburbs of Denver to the banks of the Delaware, voters are in the mood for more "green," alright … in their wallets.

Howard Rich is the Chairman of Americans for Limited Government

Posted by Doug at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dems taking GOP input?

At a press conference held yesterday, Minority Leader Sherm Packard, along with a large group of fellow NH House Republicans, released the following document outlining a proposed series of budget cuts totalling $181.9 million that they will introduce should the budget fail to pass today.

“House Republicans Offer Cost-Saving Budget Alternatives”

Concord-House Republican Leader Sherm Packard (Londonderry) stood with HB 1 & HB 2 Republican House Conferees today to discuss the impending budget vote and to propose  several alternatives.

“Representatives Kurk and Scamman offered several spending reductions in the conference committee budget, some were accepted and most were ignored,” stated Packard.  “The fact of the matter is that budgets across the country have seen an average 2% decrease in their state spending and the Democrat majority in Concord has increased state spending by an unconscionable 7.7%.”

“Republicans were not fully involved in this budget process and while a suggestion or two may have been accepted, there are no significant and meaningful cuts in state spending which would defer the need for the additional taxes and fees that Democrats added in the last hours of conference,” added Republican Conferee Representative Neal Kurk (Weare).

No less than a dozen fees were increased, in some cases doubled, with the implementation of several tax plans including tightening belts for LLCs, increasing the Rooms & Meals tax, increasing the tobacco tax for the fourth time in five years and adding a new tax on gambling winnings.

“I am disappointed by these tax and fee increases,” said Republican Conferee Alternate, Rep. Doug Scamman (Stratham).  “We hurt businesses and we hurt the cities and towns of our state.  This is not the New Hampshire way.”

Republicans will be offering a continuing resolution to keep state government going at a fiscally responsible level, should the massive spending and taxing increases contained in House Bills 1 & 2 fail to pass the House in session on June 24 and call on all their colleagues to support this plan. 

 Here are the specific proposed cuts:

Continue reading "GOP members of the NH House ready budget cuts" »

Posted by Doug at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here in NH, because of runaway spending, the Dems who are in charge of the House, the Senate, and the Governorship, are scrambling like mad - fitting revenues to spending plans is never easy and is bass ackwards.  Here, they want to raise taxes (by getting rid of a credit and spreading taxes upon the small business LLCs) - always forgetting that taxes paid are a forgone opportunity to pay more employees.

Totally opposite to this tact outline here:

AUSTIN – The Texas Public Policy Foundation applauds the leadership of Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Dan Patrick, Rep. Rene Oliveira, and all of the legislators whose efforts led to today’s signing of House Bill 4765, which increases the exemption for the state’s gross margins tax.

“Small businesses are responsible for most of the jobs in our modern economy,” said Talmadge Heflin, Director of TPPF’s Center for Fiscal Policy. “This period of economic difficulty makes it all the more important to support them, and we applaud Gov. Perry and our legislators for rising to the challenge.”

During the last several years, Texas has led the nation in job creation, exports, and business climate. Recent analyses indicate that Texas was one of the last states in the country to enter the national recession and will be one of the first states to emerge from it.

“Our research indicates that low taxes are vital to a vibrant private sector,” Heflin said. “Texas’ economy is the envy of the nation because our state leaders have kept taxes and spending low, which has enabled businesses to use more of their resources for job creation.”

Texas is about to show, once again, that cutting taxes (like JFK, like Reagan, like Bush) is the way to ignite the economy and thus, raise tax revenues.  This is why we need to emphasis Federalism more - the States can try different models and see which works.

Me?  NH Dems have it completely wrong - and we'll have the shortfalls to prove it.  We used to be like Texas - and we called it the NH Advantage.  Instead, we are going to get this:

Posted by Skip at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Disaster in Concord

Guest post by Karen Testerman

NH's General Court is proposing to tax anything that is moving or breathing.  However, you the taxpayer know their focus is misdirected.  The whole of the current administration is looking at the symptoms, what they term, "a lack of revenue."

However, the current economic disaster with a growing $150 million deficit is in reality a SPENDING problem. 

It is a sad commentary that the Governor continues to speak out of both sides of his mouth.  On the one hand he told the residents of this great state that we are facing a budget deficit and he would not approve further spending.  Oh, by the way that was several months ago while the corner office worked with both houses to make social reconstruction the number one issue in our state. 

Taking advantage of a self-created "crisis" to re-engineer the foundational institution of society to divert your attention, while the General Court passed spending measure after spending measure to create the current $150 million disaster.  One wonders what underlying activities are taking place while the attention is now focused on the self created "spending spree" crisis.

And now, to address the created budget deficit, the Governor and both houses are proposing tax increase after tax increase and other potential ONE TIME revenue resources like gambling to make up the difference.

However, any of you who sits at the kitchen table knows that if there isn't enough coming in (revenue) then some how the spending (proposed budget) must be reduced.

Continue reading "Recovery from the disaster in Concord IS possible, but it depends on good people getting active." »

Posted by Doug at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sure - both of them are shilling for stuff that will do absolutely no good at all. Those pills / herbs / liquids / snake oil (I'm not talking about the Viagra or Cialis ads) is not going to make any guy any hunkier.  And proposing $17 Billion is savings is also a whole lot of nothing.  It's just that Obama is trying to save face (sorta what the "male enhancement" email spams are suggesting you guys can do if you use their products) after he  announced "$100 million" in savings last week (week before?) after just spending $3.8 Trillion bucks - laughter ensues!  So, he's upping the ante with a $17 Billion cut - lots higher, but does it MEAN anything?  This is nothing more than the botnet sending out 100 X the number of spams...

Other than a PR opportunity, not much; 0.5% of the budget is a rounding error, folks.  You want my attention?  Try STARTING at 20-25% of the budget - then I will know you are realistic.  You're about to give $8 Billion to ACORN (who is under indictment all over for voter registration fraud)?  Cut that and you'll get my attention.  Lots of other things too.  This blunder?  Not so much for being a real serious effort.  C'mon Barry, where's that "Yes, We Can" spirit??

As always, measure the amount for context (a billion isn't what it used to be, anymore):

$17 Billion Cuts in Context    [Marc Thiessen]

From the Senate Republican Policy Committee, some interesting facts that put the Obama administration’s $17 billion in spending cuts in context:

· $17 billion is less than one half of 1% of the entire $3.55 trillion FY10 budget.

· CBO estimates that interest costs will be over $172 billion for FY10, or ten times what the administration is proposing to save.

· $17 billion is about 2% of the $787 billion stimulus bill passed on February.

· $17 billion is less than 5% of the interest expense created by the stimulus bill.

· CBO has projected that legislation signed by President Obama has added $422 billion to FY2010 deficit, about 25 times the FY2010 savings proposed in this budget.

· The Federal government has already provided up to $173.4 billion in financial assistance to AIG, or ten times what the administration is proposing to cut from the budget.

· The Federal government has already provided almost $36 billion in TARP aid to the auto industry, or twice what he administration is proposing to cut from the budget.

· Since President Obama has taken office, total U.S. debt has increased by over $600 billion.  $17 billion is less than 3% of new debt created during this administration’s first 105 days.

· Agencies reported improper payment estimates of $72 billion for fiscal year 2008 for a select group of programs. This represents about 4 percent of the $1.8 trillion of reported outlays for the related programs.

You know, the only reason why spammers keep doing what they do is that some people actually fall for this stuff and buy into it.  Hmmm, can we do the same - find a decent way to tell Barry O to keep cutting?  Done every day or week, it could add up to some serious money....

Posted by Skip at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Please note that while I don’t claim to be an economist, I have enough of an understanding of basic economic theory to know that we face some clear dangers if we are not careful.

It is easy to see on the one hand that things in certain sectors seem pretty much unchanged. Some businesses appear to be functioning at or near normal levels, while others, less so. Many folks believe that after a period of time, things will bounce back the way they usually do. This leads to, for most I’d bet, token belt-tightening. “Sure, things are tough,” they say, “but not for me. I’ll cut back a little and wait and see what happens.” Believe me, I hope that this is indeed the case—that we’re simply in a wrinkle that will soon iron itself out.

But on the other hand, what happens if, despite the relative health of those businesses with plenty of work and people that still have money, other forces come together to destroy even that? Then what?

I maintain that a good chunk of the current economic drawdown and cutbacks is nothing more than the natural cycle of the marketplace, with ups and downs being the so-called correcting factors that ultimately keep things in balance. What seems to have made things different in this latest go-around, however, is that it was greatly exacerbated by too much credit issued that in another time would have been denied. People were buying stuff—lots of it, including cars and houses—on credit that they should have never been given, because they could never realistically pay it back. And now, banks and other lending institutions are left holding the proverbial bag.

While nobody decried the good times as they lasted, the market was producing an excess of goods and houses that created a “bubble” that expanded far and above the norm. The natural result was that the economy of nearly the whole world ended up growing to fill it, and, when the end came, well, we’ve seen the results with the further cutting of manufacturing jobs, joined in full force by the former denizens of the overheated construction industry. There is much truth to the old adage, “what goes up, must come down.” I have always believed that—perhaps it’s the cynic in me, but I’ve yet to really see it otherwise. Sadly for those very real people whose lives are affected, this is the normal cycle of life. Thankfully, history further tells us that things must also go up. The big question, then, is how long?

Continue reading "A view on the economy from an ordinary guy in central NH..." »

Posted by Doug at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I cannot help but feel uneasy about the federal government doling out tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow to people who have already demonstrated a failure to adapt and change within their chosen marketplace. It is said that the definition of lunacy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  The same goes for giving people money in the face of future high risk of failure. If the private sector-- either through loans or outright purchase offers-- fails to demonstrate interest in a business entity, why should the government, in the name of its shareholder/taxpayers, be any different?

I have come to the belief that the only true way to “stimulate” the economy without building more credit debt (adding more levels to the “house of cards” that has been the economy to a certain extent) is by doing it with “real” money. And the only “real” money, when you stop and think about it, is what one has in hand. Instead of printing money--setting the stage for inflation-- or taking even more from working and investing Americans and giving it to who Congress and its influence peddlers see fit, how about if they instead simply let working people keep more of what they make each and every week for a period of time?

Take a look at your pay stub. Compare the “gross” pay versus the “net”-- your take-home portion. Do the simple subtraction and just imagine what you could do if you were allowed to keep a substantial portion of the difference.

Instead of Senator Windbag taking your money, or mortgaging your great-grandchildren’s futures, and giving it to his favorite banker buddies so they may continue their lavish “hot-tubs and champagne” lifestyles, wouldn’t it be nice to instead use it to purchase something you’ve long wanted? Rather than send that sizeable chunk of your paycheck to states, cities, and counties that refuse to eliminate waste, your money, spent as YOU see fit might be just the “stimulating” boost the manufacturer and retailer of your desired product needs.

Why, given the right incentive, some people might decide to save a little for a down payment on a house or that shiny new Chevy truck that catches their eye in the lot of the neighborhood dealer. Who knows? But one thing’s for certain-- more money, if people were allowed to keep more of their “gross” weekly earnings-- would be instantly and immediately moving around. Some people might pay off debt, thus infusing badly needed dollars to cash-strapped lending institutions. And yes, some others might simply SAVE the money for future needs- nothing wrong with that, either—and would that not help banks, too? 

The bottom line is that the more the free wheels of the economy spin while satisfying the needs and desires of people with cash, the more it should rise. And you don’t have to take my word for it, all you have to do is take a look back to some fairly recent history, and let it be your guide. I’m talking, of course, about the Reagan era—that brief moment in time when we truly were a “shining city on a hill.” Rather than “redistributing the wealth,” prosperity happened for many people who, following years of high taxation, got to keep more of the fruits of their labor. And, like wildfire, the newly kept dollars made their way across the economy. Oh, and we managed to win the Cold War during that time as well.

To that end, I have discovered two possibilities that could go a long way towards reinvigorating the Reagan economy's successes.

Continue reading "2 "Bailout" Proposals we could support: A 30% marginal rate cut, or a "tax holiday"" »

Posted by Doug at 8:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just got this. Even though there are some things to like about Obama's 310 billion dollar tax cut proposal, I like the following idea from William Collier better:

Remember 1980?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average at 759. Less than 10% of its current value.

The unemployment rate around 7%. Almost 40% higher than today.

Inflation rate? 13%. Around triple of today’s.

A misery index of 20%. More than double today’s.

In the White House: Jimmy Carter. Hectoring America for its “malaise.”

Then what happened? We elected Ronald Reagan president.

Reagan cut the income tax rate 30% across the board. And stood behind Paul Volcker’s strengthening the dollar.

What happened next? Prosperity happened.

America took off and never looked back. Now, looking back, we remember the recipe for Prosperity. We appreciate the need to assist ordinary citizens in their time of hardship. The best way to do that is by using the bailout money to bring back Prosperity.

The $700 billion appropriated for bailouts more than covers the costs of A renewed 30% across-the-board tax rate cut. AND a payroll tax cut.

We know this works. We did it before. It worked. It will work.

Reagan 2.0: a 30% across-the board tax cut. And a payroll tax cut.

Sign this petition for Congress. Make your voice heard now. No bailouts! Tax rate cuts! Bring Prosperity Back.

The Petition To the Congress of the United States of America:

Continue reading "Reagan 2.0 The Petition. Tell Congress: No bailouts! Tax rate cuts! Bring Prosperity Back." »

Posted by Doug at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Government Approved Edukashun

Former State Representative Paul Mirski sends the following warning:

RE: Proposed [Public Education] Amendment to CACR 34

“The legislature shall have the responsibility to define the content of an adequate education to prepare the student to become a productive and contributing citizen and to determine the total statewide cost of providing that education to all public school students. The legislature shall have the authority and responsibility to raise the funds that total the statewide cost of this education……”
 

Only a budding despot could love the language the legislature has wrought. No sensible citizen of New Hampshire should let themselves be duped into voting for such misguided social policy nor be duped into giving up rights having to do with conscience, freedom of thought, action and association.

Posted by Doug at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As we discussed on Meet The New Press today with Tim Cameron, Senator McCain has opined that in light of the high gas prices, a moratorium on the collection of Federal gas taxes (currently about 18 cents a gallon, 24 cents on diesel) would be a great idea.

Gas prices are at an all time high and are rapidly approaching $4.00 per gallon. There has never been a better time to cut the gas tax and give relief to hard working families in New Hampshire.

Following Senator John McCain’s proposal to suspend the Federal Gas Tax, New Hampshire’s leaders should follow suit and suspend the New Hampshire Gas Tax for the summer months of June, July and August.

The combined Federal and State gas tax cut will save taxpayers nearly 37 cents per gallon at a time when it is needed most!

If our leaders in Washington and in New Hampshire want to make a REAL difference to middle and low-income taxpayers, they should move immediately to suspend the gas tax.

My take? Absolutely!  Given that the Federal government has a $3 trillion budget (and has been shown to mismanage its highway monies (or does not hold the States accountable to spend that money on....well...highways instead of other things), why not?  As in the case of Minnesota where the bridge collapsed in the Twin Cities, it often is not a lack of money, it was a lack of proper priorities. Or the over-willingness of politicians to spend like there's no tomorrow.

And why not here in NH as well?  After all, the State government has shown itself to willingly mismanage the State Highway funds to pay for things OTHER than highways, why shouldn't citizens finally start to stand up and say

"You may have it when you spend it wisely; you have not done so,
so get yer frickin' hands out of my wallet!"

Go sign it! 

Posted by Skip at 6:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

....

Posted by Doug at 7:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

"I believe that you collect more money from lower taxes than you collect from higher taxes. I believe in supply-side tax policies. I believe in it because I saw it work, and I put a lot on the line in order to make it work."

Posted by Doug at 1:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Election Day is around the corner, and one of the biggest issues at stake in this campaign is your taxes. Here is my philosophy: I believe that our economy grows and the American Dream reaches more citizens when you keep more of what you earn. With more money in your pocket, it is easier for families to afford a good education, it is easier for young people to afford the down payment on a home of their own, and it's easier for small business owners to go out and invest and create jobs.

So my administration and the Republican Congress enacted the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. We cut taxes for every American who pays income taxes. We doubled the child tax credit. We reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes on small business. We cut taxes on capital gains and dividends to promote investment and jobs. And to reward family businesses and farmers for a lifetime of hard work and savings, we put the death tax on the path to extinction.

.

Now the results of these tax cuts are in. The tax cuts we passed have left more than a trillion dollars in the hands of American workers, families, and small businesses, and you have used that money to fuel a strong and growing economy. Last year, our economy grew faster than any other major industrialized nation. This week, we learned that our economy grew by 1.6 percent during the third quarter of this year. As we expected, this rate is slower than in previous quarters. Yet the evidence still points to a vibrant economy that is providing more jobs and better wages for our workers and helping reduce the federal deficit.

.

So my administration and the Republican Congress enacted the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. We cut taxes for every American who pays income taxes. We doubled the child tax credit. We reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes on small business. We cut taxes on capital gains and dividends to promote investment and jobs. And to reward family businesses and farmers for a lifetime of hard work and savings, we put the death tax on the path to extinction.

.

Now the results of these tax cuts are in. The tax cuts we passed have left more than a trillion dollars in the hands of American workers, families, and small businesses, and you have used that money to fuel a strong and growing economy. Last year, our economy grew faster than any other major industrialized nation. This week, we learned that our economy grew by 1.6 percent during the third quarter of this year. As we expected, this rate is slower than in previous quarters. Yet the evidence still points to a vibrant economy that is providing more jobs and better wages for our workers and helping reduce the federal deficit.

Continue reading "The Forgotten Story: It's the Economy, Stupid!" »

Posted by Doug at 9:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rangel: Tax Increases on the Table if Democrats Win
Possible tax increases on the horizon

Washington, DC- Congress Daily reported today that the Democratic Party’s ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Rangel (D) of New York, all but guaranteed tax increases in the Democratic agenda if they take back the house in November. When approached about whether tax increases across the income spectrum would be considered, Rep. Rangel responded, "No question about it."

.

Rangel worries about balancing the budget but his only solution involves tax increases? In August, ATR released its annual Cost of Government Day (COGD) report. The report found federal government spending at near historic levels. “Increasing the taxes on the American taxpayer will not balance the budget but only give spend-crazed politicians like Charlie Rangel more money to spend,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

.

Conservatives made progress today in the fight against wasteful spending with the President’s signing of new legislation that will create a new online database detailing all federal government grants and contracts. Citizens will be able to use this database  and its Google-like search function to hold their politicians accountable for overall government spending.

.

“Tax increases are always a negative influence on the economy.  Rep. Rangel should stop focusing on the easy way out, which always includes tax increases and shifting even more of the burden to the American taxpayer,” continued Mr. Norquist.

Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose any and all federal and state tax increases. 

Posted by Doug at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief. On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year. Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

Posted by Doug at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In our local area, there are some Letter to the Editor types, on the Left hand side of the divide, who keep harping on about "the tax cuts" for the wealthy, insinuating that the tax cuts are responble for the on-going annual deficit.  So, I figured I'd look into it.

I actually agree with some of them, that the yearly deficit is large, and the actual debt is still growing.  However, when put into historical context, both have been far worse than what they are right now.  As per usual, there is the "however" part, and this holds for the effects of the tax cuts.

They keep forgetting: while the Executive branch proposes, it is Congress that spends.  And spend they have, especially the formerly frugal-sounding Republicans.  This Conservative is beside himself over the profligate manners of the Party that used to stand for smaller government.

However, back to the tax cuts, and to show that these folks are dead wrong.  Just as for Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, implementing President Bush's tax cuts has vastly raised federal revenues due to the effects on the economy (and state revenues have increased as well).  Details from the US Treasury (www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html) shows the following federal revenues (in trillions of dollars):

                                                              Lower Revenue

                          Year            Revenue      Months
 

                           1999          $1.857

                           2000           $2.042              

                           2001           $1.994            8

                           2002           $1.814            9

                           2003           $1.795            7

                           2004           $1.926

                           2005            $2.197
 

Where "Lower Revenue Months" stand for the number of months in that year where monthly revenues were less than the preceeding year.  Notice the drop in incoming funds right after the Internet Bubble burst, followed by the attach of Sept. 11.  However, the effects of the tax cuts started to take effect in 2003; that year, April was the last month where revenues were less than in the preceeding year.  Down at the beginning of President Bush's term, rebounding after the tax cuts made a difference.

Thus, 2004 had overall revenues 7.27% than 2003; 2005 was 14.07% better than 2004.  For the first three months of 2006, revenues are up 12.3% over those of 2005.

No, the problem is not the tax cuts.  In fact, the rich are paying more in taxes, in absolute dollars and as a percentage, than ever before.  For 2003 (last available numbers from the IRS), the top 5% of income earners pay 54.36% 34.36% of all income taxes, the top 10% pay 65.84%, and the top 50% pay 96.54%.

In other words, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay just 3.46%. 

Tax cuts?  Hardly.  Rather, the question should not be "should we roll back the tax cuts" (which actually means, "let's raise taxes!!" but who is paying their fair share?  My take is that this lack of balance it is not good for society for a few to be paying for the majority - everyone should have some "skinny" in the game. 

It is evident that once again, the tax cuts have stimulated the economy (as designed) and that the federal government has been the beneficiary of it.  Now, if we could only get the spending side back in balance..... 

Posted by Skip at 12:46 PM | Permalink