Obama: a Rovian plant?

Byline: | Category: Economy, Taxes & Spending | Posted at: Thursday, 26 February 2009

Drudge is currently illustrating the magnitude of our nation’s budget deficit with a chart so shocking it’s almost comical.


The proposed 2009 federal budget deficit is so large that more than half of the year’s government spending is either deficit spending($1,750B) or interest on the national debt ($451B in 2008).

But at least we can raise taxes on the rich to pay for it, right? 

Wrong.  If the government took 100% of earnings from those making more than a half-million dollars a year, it would add only $1.3 trilion to federal tax receipts.  Even the most ardent demand-side economists who usually scoff at the Laffer Curve, will have to admit a 100% tax rate is going to yield significantly smaller receipts.

Barack Obama’s plans to hyper-inflate the government bubble while he taxes the rich at confiscatory levels, is so certain to collapse the economy that I can only conclude that he is a brilliant Rovian plant whose purpose is to finally drive a stake into the heart of the era of big government.

I only hope the nation survives that long.


Thanks for coming here from Instapundit.  Please take a look around.  And if you’re on Facebook, look me up.

Share this post:

36 Responses to “Obama: a Rovian plant?”

  1. fustian Says:

    A Rovian plot?

    How about a Marxist plot? This is so obviously pouring gasoline on the fire that you have to wonder whether they’re even on our side any more.

  2. Pierre Legrand Says:

    Obviously it will not last that long and that is exactly the result that Obama is looking for. Schmuck is trying to kill the United States…After all he was friends with Ayers and Ayers was friends with Obama for a reason!

  3. Phil Says:

    Hmmmm… 100% tax rate is insufficient? That leaves only one option – 150% tax rates. When you’re soaking the evil rich, the sky’s the limit. Well, maybe not the sky. Let’s choose a more appropriate motto, “To infinity, and beyond!” Welcome to the future, comrade…

  4. MarkJ Says:

    Rove, you magnificent bastard, you read Obama’s book!

    This isn’t going to end well for Obama and Merry Band, is it? A year from now, I fearlessly predict you’ll be hard-pressed to find anybody who will openly admit they voted for this silver-tongued shyster.

  5. Eric Baum Says:

    He’s not just going to end government, he’s going to bring about Snowcrash–
    after the hyperinflation, we’ll have total anarcho-capitalism.http://www.whatisthought.com/snowcrash.html

  6. Is Barry Actually Trying To Destroy The United States? « The Reluctant Optimist Says:

    [...] It sure looks like it. The proposed 2009 federal budget deficit is so large that more than half of the year’s government spending is either deficit spending($1,750B) or interest on the national debt ($451B in 2008). [...]

  7. JR Says:

    With apologies to Robert Browning:

    “Ah, but Obama’s reach should exceed his grasp,
    Or what’s America for?”


  8. Dishman Says:

    It can work…
    if you take into consideration the coming inflation due to the Fed’s recent actions.

    If inflation pushes the median income to $250k, then most people will be paying AMT, and the tax burden will be spread around onto everyone.

    Seems likely, even…

    and excruciatingly painful.

  9. wolfwalker Says:

    I’m nervous.

    I’ve seen and heard and read a lot of gloom and doom about Little Boy Barry’s economic plan. I think that gloom an’ doom is right. I hope that he demonstrates the total failure of liberalism so graphically that all sane humans will see and understand it, and no rational human will ever again advocate big-government socialism.

    But a small part of me still wonders … Is there any chance — any at all — that his plan will do what he claims it will do, and salvage the economy rather than destroy it?

  10. Obama: Government by the absurd. | Billoblog ® Says:

    [...] that Absurdism was an important new governmental philosophy, Obama doubled the national debt *again* and then decided to lecture the rest of the country on “fiscal responsiblity.” [...]

  11. Winston Smith Says:

    “If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. it was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. …” George Orwell – “1984″

    In other words, they take away our wealth, making us all roughly equal and dependent on them in order to keep themselves in a position of privilege and power.

  12. mark l. Says:

    I got a sick feeling…

    if obama delays the tax increase til 2011, then there will be a massive ‘cashing out’ in 2010.

    It will generate a brief pulse of revenue, but the result will be that the cpaital gains expectation for the govt, at any rate, will be set to zero.

    Obama goes on to hail this windfall of cash as a sign of his progress, and the msm keeps their head in his lap, while he drives the car along.

  13. stevieray Says:

    If the government took 100% of earnings from those making more than a half-million dollars a year, it would add only $1.3 trillion to federal tax receipts.

    Actually, even less.

    Remember, those folks are already paying taxes, so that money is already in the system. All they could take is the money left after current taxes… significantly less that the gross $1.3 trillion mentioned above.

  14. Brian Says:

    Say what you will, Bob. When Republicans had the wheel they wasted time on meaningless wedge issues.

    Urkel is hitting the ground running by pursuing meaningful wedge issues.

    He’s lighting the fuse on a new Culture War but without this massive and unprecedented overreach, Republicans would stand no chance in 2010 because they are feckless and lost.

  15. Darrell Letourneau Says:

    Well, he can go beyond 100% if he starts taxing total wealth instead of just income! People will simply have to liquidate assets to, say, the Chinese!

  16. Shakes Says:

    But think how clean the air will be when domestic production (of everything) ceases.

  17. chrismatalas Says:

    The GOP Effd up the economy and now are crying at the man responsible to clean up after the village idiot and his minions put us in the dumper in the first place. Come up with some better idea an present it to your representative in Congress . The right wing Christian right elected the village idiot into office. They should be on their knees asking God to save them I got news for you the village moron talked to God and when he told God hewas elected President God said “Damn them all to hell.” after he stopped laughing. This is what happens when you elect someone whose IQ is not in triple digits. and a drunk at the same time .Morons all of you.

  18. egoist Says:

    100%, hehe, you’re thinking too 2-dimensional. Think retroactive.

  19. jim Says:

    Chris Matalis, showin’ that tolerance for other opinions, and skill with the witty putdown, that made me a Former Democrat several years ago.

  20. Steve White Says:

    Mr. Chrismatalas, I think, hit the ’2003′ button on his keyboard.

    The Republicans had a better plan but alas couldn’t push it through.

    But in between your mandatory two-minute hate sessions, Chris, you might actually take a look at what Obama has proposed, and ask if it makes any sense.

  21. Goyo Says:

    Chrismatalas said, “The right wing Christian right elected the village idiot into office.”

    No we didn’t. We voted against Obama.

  22. pablo panadero Says:

    1. Democrats used the power of filibuster to block the reforms pushed in 2005 by McCain and Bush to reign in the lunacy of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
    2. The better idea is already proposed: Let the banks fail, let the ones who did not cause the mess bail out the fools who did.
    3. The “Villiage Idiot” was a Harvard grad who actually had better grades in college than both of his Democratic opponents.
    4. Yes, God must have said “Damn you to hell” because he obviously favors the candidate that voted against infanticide while in the state senate.
    5. I don’t know how IQ is important in President, but I do want someone who is intellectually curious and seeks a variety of opinions, while Obama supports muzzling of opponents.
    6. Yes, George Bush had a drinking problem when he was younger, but by all accounts kicked it. At least he chose a legal drug, as Obama had a cocaine habit. And still smokes. Once his job rating dips below 20%, look for him to revive his old habit.

  23. Oh well Says:


    Excellent point. And now we have the perfect administration with the perfect plan to damn us all to hell as you say. Obviously you believe that the entire country deserves it and so you endorse it. Its an interesting choice- a preference to be damned to hell given the option not to be. To each their own.

  24. Bushwhacko Says:

    In the spirit of Clower-Piven, consider the following: http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/banking_system_crash/2009/02/12/181238.html

    Crisis, and chaos to consolidate power and ruin America. It’s going to be a long four years. Welcome to the United Socialistic America. Mexico will be building a border fence to keep the gringos out.

  25. LogicalUS Says:

    Chris Matalis, your little delusional spiel is going to help you when REALITY starts kicking your Leftist arse. you nut.

    There is a reason why Communism has failed nearly 30 times over the past 150 years and it isn’t because of George W. Bush.

    Pull your head up from the bong for about 10 minutes and find out why investors and the money people have stopped buying and the DOW is down 3500 pts since you picked the Marxist nutjob on Nov. 4, 2008.

    Hope you enjoy those soup lines because like most of the “wealthy”, my company and I are cashing out. You think that the money people were just going to sit around waiting for this communist loon to come and get their money?

  26. Matt Says:

    Well stated christimdum!

  27. rk Says:

    From the DSA website:

    Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

    Any other questions?

  28. US Deficit So Big, Even Taxing the Rich at 100% Can’t Pay It « The Universe Exists for My Amusement Says:

    [...] Instapundit, BobKrumm.com » Obama: a Rovian plant?. But at least we can raise taxes on the rich to pay for it, [...]

  29. Teacher in Texas Says:

    Hey chrismatalas:

    Bush’s IQ was not in triple digits? Please don’t tell me you are so stupid as to be quoting that long discredited urban legend about the “Lovenstein Institute’s ranking of presidential IQ? Are you?


    Dude, you are way too funny!

  30. Orion Says:

    “But a small part of me still wonders … Is there any chance — any at all — that his plan will do what he claims it will do, and salvage the economy rather than destroy it?”

    The short answer is, “No, no way in hell.” The longer answer is, “It may create the kind of economy that he and his backers believes will perpetuate them in power for a generation.”

    It’s liberal plantation mentality. If the capitalist economy collapses then the only way for people to survive is either to rise up and overthrow the government or fall to their knees and beg for handouts. The Democrats in Congress do not believe the American people are capable of rising up against them. They believe instead that they can turn us all into crackheads desperate for the junk they’re selling. “We have the military, no one can touch us, so we’ll just turn them all into welfare junkies and rule forever!”

    They honestly don’t believe that we will simply vote the bastards out of office and install new leadership in Washington in 2010 and 2012. They figure at worst they’ll lose a few seats and then come roaring back in 2014 and 2016 when Americans start craving their fix again.

  31. Benjamin Says:


    “[G]reater economic and social democracy”. Does that really mean anything? When I read stuff like that, I LMAO.

  32. Liberals are Parasites Says:

    “This is so obviously pouring gasoline on the fire that you have to wonder whether they’re even on our side any more.”

    Wondering? You still are wondering whether leftists are anti-US or not? You should have figured that out by 2004.

  33. Liberals are Parasites Says:

    I’ll agree that all wealth should be evenly distributed, if the socialists can guarantee that all women are made beautiful (and not some feminist standard that insists ugly women are beautiful).

    If they deliver this, I’ll agree to wealth confiscation.

  34. Never Yet Melted » How Not to Handle an Economic Crisis Says:

    [...] Bob Krum remarks sardonically: [...]

  35. Bruce Rockwell Says:

    Interesting theory on Obama. However, in light of the actual record of achievement (as opposed to the rhetoric), one has to wonder whether Rove himself weren’t a brilliant Leninist plant whose purpose was to finally drive a stake into the heart of the “end of the era of big government” era.

    And as to whether or not rescinding the Bush tax cuts constitute “confiscatory levels” of taxation, I have to wonder what Mr. Krumm thinks of Nixon, who raised the top tax rate from 71% to 77%, or Eisenhower, who held them steady at an eye-popping 91%! Nobody was whining about “socialism” or “redistributionism” back then.

  36. Bruce Rockwell Says:

    Another important point to make is that this chart doesn’t factor in the growth of the GDP. Debt expressed in dollars, that aren’t even factored by inflation, is practically irrelevant. You get a better picture of where we are in the greater context of our economy here:

    Looking at such a chart, the current projected deficits are bad, but not nearly so extreme. Coincidentally, looking at federal debt from the standpoint of GDP is a stinging indictment of Reaganomics. Blaming our current problems on 35 days of an Obama Administration is laughable and ludicrous. It has been the low tax party of the last quarter century (with a brief respite during the Clinton/Gingrich era), of borrow-and-spend fiscal malfeasance ushered in by none other than Ronald Reagan, that set this country on this disastrous course.

    We’ve been in worse shape economically, and how did the government get out of it before? Lots of stimulative spending, and raising the taxes on the rich quite dramatically. Sorry to say it folks but it seems that Obama has read his history and little more carefully than y’all.