President Obama, since his Kansas speech and reinforced by his State of the Union Address, has embarked on a campaign of demonizing the rich and is attempting to portray himself as the champion of the middle class. His policy emphasizes taxing the rich, which seems to be a regular refrain echoing from the White House and Democrats in the Congress.
What the President has accomplished with his rhetoric is a division and polarization in the country, which is unprecedented from an occupant of the White House. Taking money from those that invest may be good populous policy and good campaigning, but it certainly won’t produce any results. While there can be no question that the gap between rich and poor has increased over time, taxing the rich will not yield any benefit for the so-called middle class. How will taking money from investors increase the salary of the Middle Class? Will it bring jobs back to the United States? The answer is simple, less money leaves less for profit sharing and will continue to leave jobs overseas in a myriad of countries where the tax system is more business friendly and labor cheaper.
The bottom line is that the corporate tax rate in the U.S. is too high. Canada’s corporate tax rate is going to 16%, while the U.S. continues to levy 35%. Where would you locate your business? Regulations and tax burdens drive business away from the U.S. in favor of tax friendlier countries.
The President uses this rhetoric to deflect from his poor economic record. While the official unemployment rate is 8.5%, it is much higher, since the system no longer counts those who have stopped looking for work or are underemployed. The bottom line is that the President’s policies have made a bad situation worse. The real question, before you vote, is “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The answer is probably no.
Obama began late last year to shower even more attention on the importance of lifting middle-class wages. In the days after his address to Congress, he traveled the countryto make arguments
in favor of new investments in manufacturing, energy and college affordability.
But it is not clear that the measures — or any others — could compensate for the factors behind the decline of the middle class, including the rise of nations with abundant cheap labor and the development of new technologies that allow companies to operate with far fewer workers. Nor is it clear that the bruised American economy of 2012, with a growing population of retiring workers to support, can sustain a prospering middle class. Washington Post