Star One Smart Blog's

Revenues will inevitably be diverted from Social Security.

It's worthwhile reading this important news from a credible source.

Now we know: 95% of Americans will get a “tax cut” under Barack Obama after all. Those on the receiving end of a check will include the estimated 44% of Americans who will owe no federal income taxes under his plan.

In most parts of America, getting money back on taxes you
haven’t paid sounds a lot like welfare. Ah, say the Obama people, you forget: Even those who pay no income taxes pay payroll taxes for Social Security. Under the Obama plan, they say, these Americans would get an income tax credit up to $500 based on what they are paying into Social Security.

Just two little questions: If people are going to get a tax refund based on what they pay into Social Security, then we’re not really talking about income tax relief, are we? And if what we’re really talking about is payroll tax relief, doesn’t that mean billions of dollars in lost revenue for a Social Security trust fund that is already badly underfinanced?

Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago economic professor who
serves as one of Sen. Obama’s top advisers, discussed these issues
during a recent appearance on Fox News. There he stated that the answer to the first question is that these Americans are getting an income tax rebate. And the answer to the second is that the money would not actually come out of Social Security.

“You can’t just cut the payroll tax because that’s what funds Social Security,” Mr. Goolsbee told Fox’s Shepard Smith. “So if you tried to do that, you would undermine the Social Security Trust Fund.”

Now, if you have been following this so far, you have learned that people who pay no income tax will get an income tax refund. You have
also learned that this check will represent relief for the payroll taxes these people do pay. And you have been assured that this rebate check won’t actually come out of payroll taxes, lest we harm Social Security.

You have to admire the audacity. With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul’s tax relief. Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of “Making Work Pay.”

Not everyone is persuaded. Andrew Biggs is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Social Security Administration official who has written a great deal about Mr. Obama’s plans on his blog (AndrewGBiggs.blogspot.com). He notes that to understand the nintended consequences, it helps to remember that while people at
the bottom pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes,
they are accruing benefits in excess of what they pay in.

“It’s interesting that Mr. Obama calls his plan ‘Making Work Pay,’” says Mr. Biggs, “because the incentives are just the opposite. By expanding benefits for people whose benefits exceed their taxes, you’re increasing their disincentive for work. And you’re doing the same at the top of the income scale, where you are raising their taxes so you can distribute the revenue to others.”

Even more interesting is what Mr. Obama’s “tax cuts” do to Social Security financing. As Mr. Biggs notes, had Mr. Obama proposed to pay for payroll tax relief out of, well, payroll taxes, his plan would never have a chance in Congress. Most members would look at a plan that defunded a trust fund that seniors are counting on for their retirement
as political suicide.

And that leads us to the heart of this problem. If the government is going to give tax cuts to 44% of American based on their Social Security taxes — without actually refunding to them the money they are paying into Social Security — Mr. Obama will have to get the funds elsewhere. And this is where “general revenues” turns out to be a more agreeable way of saying “Other People’s Money.”

Socialism isn't the answer. We should reject the far-left politician who would CHANGE our American way of life to an already-proven tried-and-failed economic system.

Every single thing you own today is the product of a market-driven economy...yes, even the Chinese imports in your local Wal-Target are brought to this country in hope that someone, somewhere, is making a profit. If you take away the profit motive, what sort of product will you get? A poorly-made approximation of a previously well-made product (a product that's forced to compete for your spending dollars by a slew of competitive products). When disincentives to production quality (shortcuts) appear, those products are passed over.

In a future Obamanomics World, we'll see plenty of disincentives. Rich people will not invest any longer in on-shore production. Of course product innovation and quality will suffer; again, those invariably inferior Chinese imports.

We have to compete on a world economic market. We should not punish our 'Rich' by unfairly taxing them for what they do best: contribute to making America the world's greatest consumer (and until recently, manufacturer) of competitive goods.

OH, from Joe (gaffe-a-matic) Biden: over the weekend Joe promised a nuclear holocaust. Or something of the sort.

And, from Barney Frank:

"Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."(CNBC's "Closing Bell," 10/20/08)

Let's not forget the continuing fallout from the Left's attack on Joe the Plumber...

Joe the Plumber did more than add some levity to the last presidential debate. Joe, aka Joe Wurzelbacher of Ohio, just may have awakened a swing bloc of voters that could make the difference in this election. This voting group can be described as "the rich" and those who aspire to be, and believe it or not, they could actually represent more than 20 percent of the electorate.