Obama Taxes and Control of Our Lives, Essay Example

Introduction            

The Tea Party movement which began in 2009 arose out of concern from a great many American people that government spending, and the taxes that pay for such spending, had grown wildly out of control. This movement was not particularly ideological, nor was it specifically partisan; members of the loosely-affiliated factions among the movement may be more likely to support the Republican Party than the Democrat Party, but at its core, the Tea Party movement was about nothing more than fiscal responsibility. Members of the movement may have had grave concerns about the policies of the newly-elected President Barack Obama, but many members also voiced serious concerns about the spending habits of the administration of outgoing President George W. Bush. In short, members of the Tea Party movement did not care which party was spending too much of the people’s money; they simply wanted such spending to be drastically reduced.

The Tea Party movement, and those who have supported it, are not the only members of the American public who have serious concerns about taxes, government spending, and the constant overreach of the federal government. Members of the Tea Party movement may be among the most visible or the most vocal protesters of our-of-control government spending and the bloated mess of government programs aimed at encroaching into every area of our public and private lives, but for every individual who voices support for the Tea Party, there are hundreds or even thousands more who are just as concerned about these issues. Since 2008, when Barack Obama moved into the White House, the problems rapidly got worse. One of the first things Obama did was to announce his intentions to have the federal government take control of the American health care system. Obama also supported increases in tax rates at all levels, grew the size of the federal government, and enacted countless new regulations aimed at restricting and controlling business and even the private lives of the American people. From rules about what we can and cannot eat to how we can and cannot conduct our own religious affairs, Obama has used the power of the Presidency to exert control over the public and personal affairs of the American people.

Obama and Taxes

When Obama took office there was a massive global recession wreaking economic havoc in countries around the world. Liberals love to point to the policies of outgoing President George W. Bush –who admittedly spent more than many conservatives would have liked- and tried to blame him for the problems. Attempting to blame George Bush for the global recession would be like blaming Frosty the Snowman for a winter blizzard; yes, there were economic problems in the U.S. when Bush was president, but his Republican administration was able to stave off the worst effects. As he neared the end of his second term, many Democrats and even some Republicans pushed for the notion that the U.S. should spend its way out of the recession. As the Obama administration was assuming control of the Oval Office, Congress did agree to spend billions of dollars on so-called “stimulus packages,” though the more sober-minded Republicans in office recognized the danger in these decisions, and were able to at least limit the size of such expenditures, even if they could not block them entirely.

The contrast between the inexperienced new President’s economic and fiscal policies and those of the Republicans was stark. In the face of potential economic catastrophe, the Republicans –buoyed by the burgeoning Tea Party movement- understood that the federal government simply could not afford to keep spending money it did not have. Undaunted by the wisdom and experience of his opposition, Obama enacted a series of new programs, regulations, and spending initiatives that swelled the federal budget deficit and the national debt, raising both to historically high levels. Obama’s budgets and spending simply could not be paid for with the amount of tax revenue the federal government was taking from the pockets of the American people, so Obama simply borrowed trillions of dollars every year to pay for his extravagant decisions. All the while, the Republican Party and the more responsible members of the American public argued that instead of sp0ending more and more money we did not have, the federal government should do what everyone else has to do when there is not enough money: stick to a budget.

Liberal Democrats like to refer to Republican ideas about fiscal responsibility as “austerity,” because they think “austerity” sounds like a bad word. Obama and other liberal progressives like to paint the Republicans as mean, Scrooge-like characters who want to take food from the poor and money from the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth; Republicans simply stand for fiscal responsibility, and they understand that the responsible handling of economic affairs is the only means by which this country can successfully recover from the effects of the last recession. Ignoring the advice and wisdom of the Republican Party, Obama chose instead to supplement his borrowed trillions by enacting tax increases. Moreover, these tax increases have been aimed at those who are already shouldering the greatest economic load. Progressives love to wail and moan about the so-called “one percent,” while ignoring the fact that the top one percent of the American people are paying nearly 75 percent of all taxes. And the remainder that is not covered by the country’s top earners is paid for by the middle class, who can least afford it.

Barack Obama’s reckless spending habits have not gone unopposed by the Republican Party. Fiscally responsible Republicans like Paul Ryan have developed budget plans that clearly show how the U.S. could reel in spending and get the deficit and debt under control in just a few short years. Such fiscal responsibility would mean that some huge government –handout programs would have to be cut back to realistic and sustainable levels, a mover which is always net with howls from liberals who recognize that such programs are what sustain the obedience of their followers. Every time Obama has attempted to raise taxes or enact more spending increases, the adults in the room have done all they can to limit his extravagant choices. Despite Obama’s best efforts to make deficit spending the cornerstone of his plan to keep the American people beholden to the federal government, the Republicans have managed to avoid allowing him to take everything he wants without paying for it. While Obama has increased spending far beyond the point of responsibility and good governance, the limited austerity measures the Republicans have successfully pushed for are already having a positive effect on the budget and spending habits of the federal government.

For every dollar Obama has raised taxes in ways that are clearly visible, he has matched it with taxes raised in ways that are not so immediately obvious. According to the figures presented by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Obama raised taxes in the first five years of his presidency by $3 trillion –that’s TRILLION with a “T.” Fully half of that figure is comprised of direct, overt tax increases, such as the increase in the payroll tax Obama demanded when he held the federal government hostage during the “fiscal cliff” crisis. The payroll tax increase hits the average hard-working American the most, as it bumped up payments to Social Security and other government programs, pulling more and more money out of the paychecks of the middle class. The spike in the payroll tax is just one example, however; along with the increases Obama demanded in the payroll tax, he raised the top marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 38.6 percent while phasing out a number of exemptions for individuals earning over $250,000 and coupled earning over a combined $300,000.

While $300,000 may seem like a lot of money to most people, it must be recognized that a huge portion of the overall tax burden in this country falls on the shoulders of those in that income bracket, while those earning only slightly smaller paychecks often pay no federal income taxes at all. Many of those people paying the highest marginal rates are the same individuals or families who have also seen their insurance plans disappear because of Obamacare, and who are now forced to pay higher premiums for the “privilege” of finding insurance plans they did not want but are forced to purchase. The costs of Obamacare are nothing short of hidden taxes that place an even more burdensome tax liability on those who can least afford to pay more. While everyone is now forced to purchase insurance, it is really only those in the middle class and the top earners who actually have to pay for it; they also have to pay for the Obamacare subsidies for those who earn less. Simply put, two thirds of the American people are paying not only for their own insurance, but also for the insurance of the other third of Americans.

Because the Obamacare legislation is such a convoluted mess, it is often difficult for the American people to see or understand the true costs of this economic debacle. A report from South Carolina Congressman Jeff Duncan breaks down some of these costs –which are nothing more than hidden taxes- for his constituent and the rest of the American people. Using publicly available figures from the CBO, Duncan points out over 20 new taxes the American people will be forced to pay thanks to Obamacare.  These include everything from hikes in the Medicare payroll tax to increases in taxes on investment income that will be diverted to pay for Obama’s socialized-medicine program. All told, these increases amount to hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming decade, and that estimate is on the low side, based on what we currently know about Obamacare. In the event that the American people are faced with problems related to Obamacare that have yet to be anticipated, the true costs of the program could climb much higher.

The Hidden Taxes in Government Regulations

Along with the onerous burden of direct taxation, the federal government extracts money –and exerts control- over the American people in less-direct ways. Among the most significant of these government activities are the command and control (CAC) regulations on American businesses and industries. In essence, command and control regulations are two sides of the same coin. The “command” side is comprised of the regulations, guidelines, and other demands the govern places on industries to establish and enforce standards of quality, target outputs, safety rules, and other restrictions and limitations. To some degree, it is understandable why the federal government would establish and enforce policies of this nature; the biggest complaint from industries and businesses arise when the nature or the extent of such regulations exceed that which is necessary, fair, or reasonable. The “control” side of the CAC coin involves the costs of fees for doing business, and the sanctions levied against industries and businesses that fail to adhere to the often=egregious government standards. These fees and sanctions can make it difficult or impossible for businesses to survive, especially in the current economic environment.

Just like private individuals, businesses also pay taxes on income, though for businesses “income” is profit. Also just like private individuals, businesses pay hidden taxes; often these hidden taxes are significantly greater than the overt, direct taxes levied against their profits. The full scope of CAC regulations is massive; the government establishes regulations and guidelines for virtually every aspect of conducting business in any industry, at any level. CAC regulations include, for example, standards about the levels of specific pollutants a business can generate. If the business exceeds those limits, it will be fined or face some other form of sanctions. At first glance this might seem entirely reasonable; after all, no one likes pollution, right? At issue here, however, is the question of who establishes the guidelines related to pollutants, and on what basis do they do so? There are undoubtedly some such regulations that are appropriate and necessary, but whenever government regulators are involved –as opposed to industry, business, and scientific experts who actually understand the relevant issues- problems are bound to arise. Simply put, the government has an economic incentive to establish regulations that ensure revenue for the government.

CAC regulations are not the only way to ensure that businesses or industry sectors engage in ethical and responsible behavior. As an alternative to the negative-reinforcement model on which CAC is based, the government can establish positive-reinforcement-based economic incentives that encourage responsible behavior rather than simply discouraging supposedly-bad behavior. It is possible, for example, for the government to establish taxes that are direct and visible, that incentivize businesses and industries to avoid the production of so-called “negative externalities.” Finding the right balance in such incentivizing taxes can be difficult, but they are fairer and more manageable for businesses, which can work with the fixed costs of such taxes rather than face fines or other costs that can be levied unfairly.

Since taking control of the presidency, Obama and his administration have chosen CAC as their weapon of choice against businesses. Acting through the overreaching power of federal bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency, Obama and his minions have extracted billions of dollars from American businesses for every conceivable violation of even the most ridiculous rules and standards. Further, Obama has used the EPA to establish new regulations and standards for many different industries, often making such rules and standards virtually impossible to follow or live up to. By setting the regulatory bar too high, Obama can make it appear to his followers that he is taking a firm stance against the evil corporations that liberals and progressives are ruining the country, when in reality he is simply bleeding more and more money out of every possible industrial sector to increase government revenue. Rather than establish policies that incentivize good corporate citizenship, Obama chooses to demonize businesses, simply because that plays well to his base.

These CAC regulations are not just a means of extracting hidden taxes from businesses and industry; they are also a means of exerting economic and political control. While the EPA and the other agencies that operate under Obama can set fines and fees against businesses, they can also establish regulations or offer tax breaks and other incentives as well. For an industry that may be politically popular with Obama’s constituency, such as the so-called “green energy” sector, the government can and does offer huge economic incentives and advantages to companies in that sector, while fining and taxing other businesses in other sectors that may not share that same political popularity among liberals and progressives. One well-known example is that of Solyndra, a “green” solar company that was given hundreds of billions of dollars by Obama only to collapse into bankruptcy. In that instance, Obama spent enormous sums of the American people’s money to curry favor with progressive voters, and that money simply disappeared.

The full scope of CAC regulations and how Obama and the federal government use them to exert control over the business sector and to extract billions, or even trillions in hidden taxes is far too massive to properly and adequately address in the context of this discussion. What is clear, after giving CAC the most cursory glance, is that they are just more examples of how massive the federal government has grown under Obama, and the extent to which it reaches into the wallets of every American to extract ever possible dollar. When considering the issue of CAC regulations, it also becomes clear that the visible taxes and other costs exacted from all of us by the government are just the tip of the iceberg; it is below the surface where the full scale of government reach and power are hidden from view.

Beyond Taxation: The Full Implications of Obama’s Plans to Control Our Lives

After even the briefest discussion of CAC regulations, and the ways they are used to restrict, control, and extract revenue from businesses, it is all but impossible not to consider the myriad ways that government uses similar tactics to control private citizens. Under the Obama administration, the reach of government into the lives of the American people has grown exponentially. It is not just in the obvious ways that huge, expensive programs like Obamacare force us to behave as the federal government sees fit; it is also in the small but innumerable ways that the government makes us comply with its demands on virtually every aspect of our lives. From voter-roll manipulation to unconstitutional gun regulations, the Obama administration seeks to exert “command and control” over all of the American people.

One aspect of Obamacare that may no be immediately obvious to Obama’s supporters –but which his political opponents recognize is one of its fundamental components- is in the way it  makes those who use it beholden to and reliant upon the federal government. For generations, the American people typically acquired health insurance in one of several ways, including accessing insurance as part of an employer-based program, or simply by purchasing private, individuals health insurance. It is no accident that Obamacare offers subsidies that make it extremely inexpensive or even free to millions of American people; Obama and the Democrats know that once these people become dependent on yet another government program they will become even more beholden to the federal government. More specifically, they will become –and, Obama hopes, they will remain- dependent upon the Democrat Party. The more handouts and freebies the Democrats can offer, the more those who take these handouts will become dependent on the largesse of the Democrat Party.

The problem for the rest of America, especially the hard-working and beleaguered middle class, is that someone has to pay the costs of Obamacare for all of those who are getting it for free. Obama is putting the hidden taxes he is raising through Obamacare to good use, by spending those billions on millions of his supporters. And for every dollar he takes from the middle class and gives to someone else, he and the Democrats are investing in their party’s future. As one analyst describes it, Obamacare is not just a socialized medicine program; it is also an illegal voter mine. The voter-watchdog group Voters Trust asserts that Obamacare is nothing less than “the biggest voter registration fraud scheme in the history of the world.” That is, of course, a pretty significant accusation; unfortunately for many Americans, there is plenty of evidence to back up such a claim.

A recent report funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros describes how simple it is to use Obamacare as a scheme to drive up the number of registered Democrat voters. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 mandated that virtually all government agencies must offer voter-registration services to the public in addition to providing their regular services. On the surface, this may appear to simply be a fair and positive use of government resources, until one considers that the majority of those who are likely to directly access government programs are also those who are likely to become or remain dependent on them. This establishes an unhealthy, and even unholy relationship between the Democrat Party –which loves nothing more than to give away the American people’s money- and those who take advantage of every government giveaway that comes along. If a potential voter knows that his or her free money is coming from the Democrats, and the same people giving away the free money are asking the potential voter to register, it is fairly obvious which party this potential voter will join.

As if that was not enough of an unfair advantage for Obama and the Democrats, the applications for Obamacare that were sent out to millions of Americans came with, in many cases, voter registration forms that were pre-marked “Democrat.” The Obamacare exchange named “Covered California,” for example, sent out millions of voter registration cards to California residents that were already marked for the Democrat Party. Groups such as the League of Women Voters and the CLU have pushed for the inclusion of voter registration cards with Obamacare signup forms, and Obamacare phone representatives in many states are being told to ask every caller if he or she would like to register to vote at the same time as they sign up for the free insurance being handed out by Obama and the Democrats. There is simply no way to see such actions as anything less than unfair, and those who insist that Obamacare registration is tantamount to voter registration fraud are making a pretty solid argument. There are simply no equivalent government programs that are similarly slanted towards the Republican Party.

There are numerous other ways that Obama is using the power of his office to exert and extend government control over the lives of the American people. One mandate enacted under Obama limits the amount of tax-free savings an individual can put into his or her IRA.  This does not mean that an individual cannot save as much as he or she can afford to save; instead, it restricts the amount that can be saved and put into an IRA. Once that limit is reached, all remaining savings are subject to taxation. The cap on IRA savings is $3 million, and the cap on the amount that can be extracted tax-free is $250,000 annually after retirement. This is an entirely new set of rules and regulations that Obama enacted, and these rules represent one more way that Obama and the Democrats are attempting to control the lives of the American people. These rules literally determine how much an individual can save without penalty, and how much an individual can spend. If it is our money, why can ew not save it or spend it as we see fit?

At a time in the economic life oif the nation when people are saving their money at historically low levels, would it not make sense to establish laws and regulations that encourage, rather than discourage, the American people to save money? These regulations are established for the sole purpose of ensuring that the government has what it needs – or at least what it wants- first while ensuring that the needs of the American people come second. This is just one example of a myriad of economic policies and laws that have been established by Obama in the last six years that are aimed at raising government revenue to the detriment of the American people. The real problem with these sorts of regulations is that they do not just extract money from Americans –such as that which is acquired through direct taxation- they also police demands on the behavior, decisions, and choices made by individuals.

For anyone who believes that such restrictions or limitations on behavior are, at worst, incidental to the revenue-generating policies enacted by Obama, attention should be paid to the ways that the Obama administration offers direct consideration to the use of behavioral sciences in the development of public policies. Obama and his cohorts are not just aware that their policies have a direct impact on the behavior and choices of the American people; their policies are specifically and purposefully designed to have such an impact. Beginning in 2010 the federal government adopted the recommendations of a Yale University study on behavioral sciences that offered advice and information on how public policy could be shaped to produce outcomes that the government finds favorable or beneficial. Agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Veterans Administration are developing policies that are designed to ensure that their constituencies behave in ways that are beneficial to and predictable by these agencies. In short, the federal government is using behavioral science to manipulate the ways that the public behaves.

Obama has made no secret of his intention to use his power to accomplish whatever he would like to accomplish, even if that means going outside the bounds of constitutional limitations. He has, and will likely continue to use, executive orders to ram through rules or policies without congressional approval. All presidents have used executive orders, but they have traditionally been used to implement specific aspects of governmental policies once those policies have been developed and approved through the proper channels –i.e.- after going through Congress.  Where Obama is breaking with the past, and abusing the power of executive orders, is in using them to develop and implement public policy. There are innumerable examples of such misuse of executive orders, and while Republicans in Congress have sounded the alarm over such abuses, many Americans seem completely oblivious to these actions by Obama.

One particularly egregious example of Obama’s misuse of executive orders was written in 2012, when he established Executive Order 13603 on “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” This executive order mandates that the government can seize control of the following:

• “All commodities and products that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals”
• “All forms of energy”
• “All forms of civil transportation”
• “All usable water from all sources”
• “Health resources –  drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment”

The above list includes just come of the resources and powers that the government can seize. This executive order also mandates that citizens can be forcibly inducted –i.e.- drafted- into the military, and that the federal government and military leaders can, in essence, take control of any people, places, and resources they see fit. What this executive order amounts to is a declaration of the circumstances under which the federal government can declare martial law, and the rules and guidelines contained in this executive order were all established without any input or oversight from Congress. It is impossible to view this executive order as anything less than a gross usurpation of power by Obama, and it is just one of dozens and dozens of executive orders the president has rammed through in the past few years.

One issue that may be more familiar to even casual observers of government is that of gun ownership. While there is certainly room for public debate on the issue of responsible gun ownership and ways that safety and security related to guns can be improved, what is not in question is that the founders of this nation determined that the right to keep and bear arms was fundamental to the security of individuals and the country itself. The authors of the U.S. Constitution were all too aware of the power of totalitarian governments, having lived under the regime of King George III of England. Were it not for their ability to fight back against the repressive British government, the Continental Army would never have succeeded in their revolutionary quest to establish a free nation.  The Founding Fathers understood that the power of government should rest with the people, not the leaders, and they further understood that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary for the people to protect their power against a tyrannical government.

Despite this constitutionally-guaranteed right, Obama and the Democrat Part have consistently and repeatedly pushed for broader and stricter gun control laws. By all available evidence, gun control laws are counter-intuitive; in cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C, where it is illegal to possess guns, the murder rates are higher than anywhere else in the country. In regions where citizens are free to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, the number of people murdered by guns is lower by orders of magnitude. When citizens are able to protect themselves against criminals, the crime rates go down. It is simple and unassailable logic. In light of Obama’s executive order about martial law, however, it is easy to imagine why he and his party would prefer to have a populace that was already unarmed; such circumstances would make it that much easier to assume total control of the country when and how they see fit.

Taken in total, all of these different elements add up to create a reality that cannot be ignored. To be fair, Obama cannot be blamed entirely for the massive growth of the federal government. That growth actually began under an earlier Democrat, President Franklin Roosevelt, who used the excuse of World War II to enact massive new federal programs and explode the size and scope of presidential powers. That said, it must be acknowledged that Obama has used every level of government, every mechanism at his disposal, to reach further and further into the lives of the American people. The primary means by which he has accomplished this is through taxes; he has developed a system of command and control of private citizens that rivals, or even exceeds, the ways that CAC has long been used to control business and industry. Obama and the Democrat Party have also employed fraud and chicanery to grow the reach of their entire party, and seek to ensure that an entire generation of Americans is dependent on the federal government. The full implications of Obama’s actions are so significant as to be almost unfathomable, and it may be too late to turn back the clock on the advent of totalitarianism. If liberty is to be salvaged, it is first necessary to recognize that it is in danger. If Obama has his way, he will not only control our ability to fight back against a repressive government; he will control our ability to remember what freedom was like.