It Sure As Hell IS A Revenue Problem

[ProfessionalLeftist]

19. That's exactly what I said:

Here’s something to consider, which most Americans are aware of and I’m sure you are too Mr. President: Income tax rates for the wealthiest Americans is now lower than it has ever been (at least since the 1940s). And the effective U.S. corporate tax rate is also lower than it has been since at least the 1940s and probably lower than ever in our nation’s history.

Don’t look now Mr. President but in addition to that ocean of red ink George W. Bush plunged America into, it also appears that we have a REVENUE problem. And Social Security hasn’t had a damn thing to do with any of it.

What happens when the U.S. government is not bringing in enough revenue? One of two things: the difference gets added to the debt / deficit or taxpayers must pay more in taxes to increase revenue. Remember that stuff Bill Clinton called “arithmetic“? Well there it is. And remember that nice surplus President Clinton left in our budget? It was immediately squandered by George W. Bush and turned instead into a sea of red ink which you now want to cut Social Security to help pay for when Social Security isn’t even the problem!

In the past 10-15 years, that lost revenue from these historically low tax rates has simply been put on the nation’s credit card. That, or the middle class, poor and seniors have been asked to make up the difference. The former is irresponsible and the later is grossly unfair.

It is immoral and unconscionable to allow the wealthiest Americans to continue paying lower (or even no) taxes while the middle class makes up the difference in lost revenue by paying more — and then to subsequently tell those same middle class Americans you are going to cut their retirement savings accounts to help pay for those lower taxes for the wealthiest on top of it all. Talk about adding insult to injury.

It is also immoral, unconscionable and grossly unfair that the largest corporations in the U.S. enjoy bottomless government bailouts, endless government subsidies, and copious tax breaks, (many pay no taxes at all on their vast profits) while the middle class, poor, and our nation’s seniors are forced to make up the difference in lost revenue out of their shallow pockets instead — and then are further told that the benefits from the retirement program they paid into all their lives will be cut too.

After all we couldn’t bother Exxon-Mobil, the Koch Brothers or Goldman Sachs and its Mr. Blankfein to pay taxes on their enormous income and profits for once, could we (sarcasm)? Actually, we really should, but these entities own too many congresspeople and it seems the weaselly and unelected Mr. Grover Norquist somehow had too many congressmen’s family jewels in his personal vice-grip for that to happen.

Social Security is not an “entitlement” and it is not “welfare“. It is a retirement program that Americans paid into all their lives and it should not be looted or cut so that the wealthiest Americans can buy more mansions as Mr. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs recently has, all while Blankfein was telling seniors and the rest of Americans that they should “expect less” (so he can continue to have more for himself even after taxpayers bailed out Mr. Blankfein and his Wall St. friends when they crashed the economy in 2008).

Greed has no limits, does it? But it can, and in a civil, moral and for that matter sustainably functioning society, it damn well should!

http://www.sevenbowie.com/2012/12/a-letter-to-the-president-one-in-a-series/