The Tax Deal & Obama's Semantics

To extend current tax rates is simply to defer a massive tax hike - nothing more, nothing less.  The grand compromise changes nothing as far as income taxes are concerned. It just means that every American earning income will go on paying at the same tax rates in place for the last 10 years.

 - J.D. Foster, The Christian Science Monitor, 10.09.10

The tax battle is getting ever more interesting. This past week Obama "caved" to a portion of the GOP demands (finally), and his Democrat constituents are up in arms. They are all over Obama...apparently, some serious F-bombs were thrown around Thursday on the House floor. Wow. 

But what's been seriously killing me are the semantics of the whole thing. I saw this article today and it stated perfectly what I could not get into words myself.  Thank you, J.D. Foster. 

Here are a few quotes, but this one is seriously worth a gander. It makes PERFECT sense.

Click HERE for the entire article: "Obama Tax Deal: Watch Your Language, Tax Cuts Don't Cost Government a Dime"

"When the President or, say, The Washington Post talks about lower tax rates “costing” money, they reveal a fundamentally erroneous view: that government somehow has first claim on our money – that it somehow “belongs” to the government, rather than the person who earned it."

"...Extending the 2001 and 2003 income tax rates is not tax relief, and it doesn’t “cost” government anything either. It provides no relief to taxpayers; it simply keeps the tax burden from rising for those who pay income taxes. Your income belongs to you. You earned it – not President Obama, not Nancy Pelosi, not Harry Reid, not any of the politicians or talking heads so fond of arguing that those who refuse to let tax rates rise are “costing” government billions."

"When government spends money, there’s a clear cost from economic and budgetary perspectives. But when government extends current tax policy, that’s not a cost. It’s not even tax relief, unless one believes that money earned belongs first to the government and is given to the taxpayer only through governmental generosity."

"When government cuts taxes further, that, too, is not a cost to the government. It means government will either have to borrow more to keep the same level of spending or it will have to (gasp!) cut spending." 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell...my spin

I've wanted to get this out...It's a thought about the push to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which forbids gays from serving openly in the military, and it's been bugging me. It's on Congress' lame-duck agenda.

Our military has one focus: protect and preserve this country, our freedoms, and our ideals around the globe.

What happens when our military must turn away from that focus and instead have sensitivity training, or make special exceptions (like private living and restroom quarters) for it's gay members? What does that do to a troop's solidarity when some members are treated differently than others? What about their solidarity? How does that affect them in combat?? Does the change in this policy perhaps deflect the military's focus from it's true course?

I'm not sure...but I'm worried about it.

And since when does our government get to weigh in on a person's sexuality? As far as I'm concerned, the government should be neutral. If the government repeals this policy, it's obvious they are not neutral.

Right now, we have gay members of the military choosing to serve and I'm sure, serving well...and they are doing so under the current system. The evidence to overturn is NOT overwhelming. It appears there are far more pressing issues, including a decision on extending the Tax Cuts...that go into effect in T-minus 28 days. That seems a little more pressing to me.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45947.html