Ann Marie Buerkle Understands Basic Economics, Dan Maffei and Barack Obama Don’t

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle – Not a Statist

Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY) responded to her opponent’s claim that the government needs to spend more money to create jobs.

“The government can’t spend money to create jobs,” she said. “What we need to do is get the government out of the economy. The private sector has the answer.”

Buerkle called for extending the Bush-era tax cuts for everybody for one year. Maffei favors extending the cuts for people earning less than $1 million a year, while President Obama wants to apply the cuts to only the first $250,000 in annual income.

Buerkle said raising taxes on higher-income earners would hurt business owners. “It’s wrong to raise taxes in an economy that is so weak,” she said. (Read More)

It really is that simple. After one year, the Republican plan is to work on tax reform, not raising taxes but making the tax system more simple and less of a burden. Rep. Buerkle gets it, former Rep. Dan Maffei does not. Neither does President Barack Obama who won’t stop referring to reasonable tax rates as “spending.” Spending is spending. Here is the definition of spend.

spend,verb, spent, spend·ing.

verb (used with object)

1. to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of (money, wealth,resources, etc.): resisting the temptation to spend one’s money.
2. to employ (labor, thought, words, time, etc.), as on some object or in some proceeding: Don’t spend much time on it.
3. to pass (time) in a particular manner, place, etc.: We spent a few days in Baltimore.
4. to use up, consume, or exhaust: The storm had spent its fury.
5. to give (one’s blood, life, etc.) for some cause.

Where in the definition does one find “not taxing more”?

The Democrats are still saying that keeping the current tax rates in place for everyone is a “tax cut” for the rich, and they call that spending. It is not a tax cut, it is not spending. It is simply keeping the current tax rates in place. As for spending, they’ve increased it to unprecedented levels, yet the economy is still a mess. Their massive spending brought us an unemployment rate over 8%, and that’s just the official number. It’s much worse than that in reality, especially with all of the new disability cases. They don’t count. Young people who are just starting out don’t count. People who gave up looking don’t count. The underemployed don’t count. If massive spending was the answer, why did the economy grow at a sluggish 1.5% last quarter? If Obama and the Democrats get their way, we’ll be looking at the last quarter as the good old days.

The tax increase on the “rich” that Obama is now promoting would hurt the prospects of economic recovery and do little to balance the budget. Ronald Reagan said it best: “The problem is not that people are taxed too little. The problem is that government spends too much.”

Still, Obama’s bad policy proposal is a relatively minor thing. It would not instantly turn the United States into Greece or North Korea. Yet it is a step in the wrong direction, and the arguments made on behalf of this bad policy suggest it will not be the last step in that direction.

The incessant class-warfare rhetoric of Obama and the Democrats betrays an implacable hostility to the free enterprise system. Politicians cannot routinely demonize the “rich” — i.e., the capitalists whose investments fuel economic growth — without eventually inciting voters to demand punitive action against these scapegoated villains. And this is why common-sense Americans took alarm when the President of the United States told business owners that their businesses are not really theirs: “You didn’t build that.”

Read the whole thing. We have 100 days to work to get this guy out of office, and keep good representatives who believe in capitalism like Ann Marie Buerkle in office. We won’t end class warfare, because Democrats and their ilk will still be around. But removing them from power would be a good start. Then we’ll work to hold the Republicans’ feet to the fire.