Read Paul's bio and previous columns
April 21, 2008
Barack Obama’s Bitter
It used to be the case, once upon a time, that Democrats
supported tax increases because they sincerely believed, however
incorrectly, that higher tax rates would always lead to higher tax
revenues for the government.
Now, that's fine. Even though anyone who has taken an
economics class understands that the government's tax revenues start
decreasing once you raise tax rates beyond a certain percentage (because
people would have less incentive to engage in taxable business), and
even though more money for the government isn't necessarily a worthy
goal, we can at least respect the fact that liberals have wanted to
increase tax rates in order to, according to them, bring in more money
for the government.
But at the Democratic debate Wednesday night, Barack Obama
admitted the unimaginable.
You see, in the 1980s, the capital gains tax, which is a tax
on profits realized from the sale of assets such as stocks, was raised
to 28 percent. Although the tax rate was increased, the amount of money
the government made from the capital gains tax decreased, because people
were less likely to trade in stocks when their potential profits were
reduced by taxes. Consistently, when Bill Clinton agreed to reduce this
tax rate to 20 percent, the government indeed had increased revenue,
because the tax cut encouraged more trading, and thus, more profits.
When President Bush cut the rate further to 15 percent, revenues
On Wednesday, these facts were launched at Barack Obama by
one of the debate moderators, Charles Gibson.
Gibson asked: “Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that
dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent . . . And George Bush has
taken it down to 15 percent . . . And in each instance, when the rate
dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more
money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the
revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact
that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be
Obama’s response: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I
would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We
saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers
made $29 billion last year - $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of
what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market
and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate
than their secretaries. That's not fair . . . (I) want to make sure is
that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care
for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest
in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that
There are so many astounding elements to this exchange that
it is not even clear where to begin.
First, the fact that a debate moderator on ABC actually
pointed out the fact that decreasing tax rates could increase tax
revenues, a fact normally collectively shunned by the liberal media, is
quite respectable and, due to our low expectations, even quite
Second, Obama’s admission that his programs, including
expanded health care, are not “free” also appears to be a shocking
revelation to his followers.
But in Obama’s response was also a truly and thoroughly
disturbing exposure of his beliefs that should not go unnoticed by
anyone intending to cast a ballot in this election.
Since we know that raising the capital gains tax to 28
percent would have two effects – increasing the tax burden on the 100
million Americans who own stock, and decreasing revenue for the
government – we know that it is thus a lose-lose proposition both for
taxpayers, who have to pay more, and for proponents of big government,
who have less money for the government to spend.
If no one derives any benefit at all from raising the rate to
28 percent, why does Obama wants to do so?
His answer: Because it will hurt the rich, and that’s more
That’s right. Obama is willing to raise a tax applicable to
people of all degrees of wealth, and willing to let the government make
less money to pay for his programs, for the sole reason that the tax
might hurt the rich more than anyone else. And never mind that it will
make it more difficult to finance his “health care” and “education”
visions that he mentioned in his answers.
In other words, Barack Obama would rather embrace the social
cost of imposing the high tax, which hurts everyone and slows down the
economy, rather than see everyone get ahead at different speeds.
It is like saying you would rather not send your three
children to college at all than have one of them get into the Ivy League
and the other two merely attend second-tier schools. There are so many
words for this disquieting mentality, but “hopeful” is not one of them.
Perhaps “bitterness” is.
© 2008 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
This is Column # PI104.
permission to publish here.