Pelosi: More Tax Revenue To Close The Deficit, Not Spending Cuts

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed Nancy Pelosi about proposed budget cuts and the coming “sequester” that will slash about $85 billion from the government’s budget. To most non-government officials, that $85 billion seems like a lot of money, but to a government that spends that much in a little over a week, it’s nothing. Senator Rand Paul referred to this sequestration as a “pittance.” And Democrat and Republican representatives are talking about this sequestration thing as if it’s Fiscal Cliff II.

Like all the rest of the liberals, Pelosi reiterated that there is no spending problem, and that we need to address the budget deficit in a balanced way and avoid the sequester cuts:

 “We have to recognize that, which cuts really help us and which cuts hurt our future? And cuts in education, scientific research and the rest are harmful, and they are what are affected by the sequestration. So, it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.”

 And she thinks the way to address this budget deficit problem is to close all the tax “loopholes” so that the government can increase their revenue. But Democrats refer to these loopholes as if these greedy, rich people are “getting away” with not paying their fair share in taxes. But they’re not getting away with anything. They’re simply following the letter of the tax laws.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Man Beaten, Ankle Broken in Tucson Just Because He Had a Trump MAGA Hat On

The U.S. Tax Code takes up over 73,000 pages. No human on Earth could keep up with that many laws and regulations. (Except for maybe Rain Man.) But people can use that complexity to their advantage. I don’t make enough money to justify paying a tax accountant to find ways to maximize the amount of money I get to keep from the IRS. But I know people who do make enough to justify paying someone to find these so-called loopholes. And they’re not doing anything illegal. In fact, they’re being as compliant as possible with the law.

Pelosi’s problem is that these rich folks aren’t following the spirit of the law. It’s not fair that a rich person can find ways in the written law that makes it so that he ends up paying a smaller percentage than say a bus driver or a cop, as Obama had referenced recently. The subjective spirit of the law according to Pelosi is to require those that are successful to pay more in taxes. Liberals like Pelosi and Obama can thank the endless muddle of the tax code for the existence of these so-called loopholes in the first place. If they really want to eliminate these loopholes, they’re going to have to greatly simplify the code. They should work to eliminate at least 99% of the tax code.

Although I’m not in favor of an income tax at all, Dr. Ben Carson’s 10% idea would be simple and far better than what we have today. Whatever money you make, pay 10% in taxes. It would affect everybody across the board. There would be no 47% of people not paying taxes while voting to make sure the rich people pay more and more. Everybody would be taxed at 10%. Wouldn’t that clear up the “loophole” problem? There would be no exceptions. Everybody would be treated the same. Isn’t that the definition of “fair?”

Previous NY Times Tries To Spin: Obama = Bush + Undeserved Nobel Peace Prize
Next Pentagon Can Spend On Gay Benefits But Can’t Afford To Refuel Air Craft Carrier


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.