Ok, so the news is now on the street that federal revenue will return to its pre-recession levels in 2013, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and actually set a record for the most money that our bloated government has ever managed to take in. And when you stop and consider the fact that nearly half of our citizens no longer pay any income tax, the amount mentioned appears to be all the more…impressive? In its latest Budget and Economic Update, the CBO forecasts that federal revenue will top $2.7 Trillion in 2013, slightly higher than the $2.6 Trillion the government collected in 2007, when the last recession 'officially' began. And while government revenues had fallen by nearly $500 Billion during the recession to $2.1 Trillion in 2009, they have been steadily growing since June 2009, with the CBO now projecting that they will slightly eclipse their pre-recession peak.
In fact, the $2.7 Trillion in revenue will be the most money the federal government has ever collected in history. So, at a time when our government will be taking in what is described as being a record amount of money, why is it that we need more? According to those who keep track of such things, the government has never collected more than the $2.6 Trillion it collected in 2007, meaning that if CBO’s projection is correct, it will set a new record for revenue collection in 2013. So at a time when we're collecting more in taxes than has ever been collected before, how is it that we have Barry, and the Democrats, demanding that we need to collect even more? Barry continues to say that we need a balanced approach to deficit reduction, one that must include more federal revenue in the form of "tax reform." But in light of these numbers, his claim seems to ring a little hollow. It would seem to me that now would be the time to cut spending.
"Now, I think this balanced mix of spending cuts and tax reform is the best way to finish the job of deficit reduction," Barry said in a speech as recently as February 5. Republicans on the other hand quickly counter that additional tax revenue is not necessary, citing the tax increases on wealthier Americans they agreed to as part of the January deal to make permanent most of the Bush tax cuts. Instead, they argue, the focus should now turn to making sizable, and real, cuts to our ballooning federal spending rather than raising further tax revenues. "Democrats say we should replace the president’s ‘sequester’ with revenue increases, or delay it. Republicans say we should replace [it] with responsible reforms that will help put us on a path to balance the budget in 10 years," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said at a news conference on Wednesday. Not often I find myself agreeing with Boehner, but I do here.
So the bottom line here is that at a time when the government coffers should be literally busting out at the seams, they are, instead, quite empty, with everything having been spent and then some. And still the Democrats, led by our 'Dear Beloved Leader,' say the rich simply are not paying their "fair share!" Oh really? Then I'm curious to know exactly what their fair share might be. The hypocrisy that we now see on display here and coming from both Barry and the congressional Democrats, should convince many that not only is their argument false, their stewardship of the people's money has been nothing short of abysmal. But I suppose that matters very little to those who don't pay taxes, which is what Barry and the Democrats are, most likely, banking on as they continue to demand that the evil rich be made to pay even more. Every time I think about how prosperous this nation could be were it not for Barry, I just get so pissed!
No comments:
Post a Comment