Recently I posted about how the CBO had to downgrade the effects it was claiming for the Patronage Bill. Certain people then proceeded to not just question that this was what happened, while trying to defend this epic trillion dollar failure, but to imply I was purposefully being dishonest about the CBO being dishonest – leaning left in that dishonesty – or the way the LSM reports on this crap. Well, the the usual suspects at the CBO were at it again:
A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) says, “The share of income received by the top 1% grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007.” This news caused quite a stir, feeding the left’s obsession with inequality. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, for example, said this “jaw-dropping report” shows “why the Occupy Wall Street protests have struck such a nerve.” The New York Times opined that the study is “likely to have a major impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and spending policies.”
But here’s a question: Why did the report stop at 2007? The CBO didn’t say, although its report briefly acknowledged—in a footnote—that “high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross income between 2007 and 2009.” No kidding. Once these two years are brought into the picture, the share of after-tax income of the top 1% by my estimate fell to 11.3% in 2009 from the 17.3% that the CBO reported for 2007.
WHAT? The CBO rigged a report in such a way that it could advance a collectivist talking point? NEVAH! It’s not like we have a history of them doing this – as I pointed out in the comments, only to be rebuffed. We saw the same shit with the CBO scoring of Obamacare. Granted, the CBO got off easy because they claim they where “told” to score it that way by the usual suspects, but that’s nonsense considering there is a history there of doing things like that.
Before you ask what the problem was with what the CBO reported about Obamacare, let me point it out in brief. The CBO scored it over a decade, 10 years for those that are math challenged, and then factored in tax income from day one while only factoring the really big outlays after 4 if not 5 years of collecting taxes. That was all done so they could make the ludicrous claim that Obamacare would save us a measly $112 billion or such. Anyone that understands basic math, ignoring the obvious shenanigans and double counting of outlays/savings from Medicare and other such systems they claim they will raid for cash to make these numbers work, sees two things. The first is that there is no way these numbers produced by the CBO bear out even if you focus only on the narrow window they looked at. If this boondoggle follows historical precedent – and you can look at the bits and pieces they have so far put in place for proof this will be more of the same – it will cost at least twice as much as they predicted. So, unless you also believe in Unicorns, it is clear that we will not have any savings at all, but be running a deficit before the first decade is over.
Then, the second obvious issue, which comes at the end of that decade the CBO scored for, clearly shows that we are looking at massive deficits to fund this program. There is not enough rationing that can be done to make these numbers work. Obamacare is going to cost us trillions in just the next 2 decades.
Back to our CBO bullshit du jour. Maybe it is not just the fact that the Keynesians are economic illiterates but signs of an actual plan in motion, one that advances and explains what Obama means when he talks about “social justice” and “wealth redistribution”, that gets pointed out by this passage in the WJS article:
The larger truth is that recessions always destroy wealth and small business incomes at the top. Perhaps those who obsess over income shares should welcome stock market crashes and deep recessions because such calamities invariably reduce “inequality.” Of course, the same recessions also increase poverty and unemployment.
The author then goes through some details to point out precisely why the CBO chose to ignore 2007-2009 in that report. The evil wealthy, those 1%ers, took a huge hit when things went south and that 17% number the left uses to tell us how unfair it is that the wealthy have money, would drop considerably and then seriously undermine the class warrior’s agenda. Further more, it shows that whenever government tries to fleece the producers, they don’t just roll over and play along, but take active measures to shield their wealth (How evil of them! – that was sarcasm BTW). And that what this obviously and purposefully rigged CBO analysis, done to create more class warfare collectivist talking points, really should have reported was the following:
In short, what the Congressional Budget Office presents as increased inequality from 2003 to 2007 was actually evidence that the top 1% of earners report more taxable income when tax rates are reduced on dividends, capital gains and businesses filing under the individual tax code.
Of course, that doesn’t fit the ultimate goal of the current narrative – that government should be collecting more money, and once the wealthy have been fleeced they can simply turn to the rest of us – so no chance we ever see that from the CBO. I wonder how many of the usual LSM suspects, like the ones at WaPo mentioned in this article, which was quick to carry water for the collectivists when the rigged numbers worked in the favor of the class warrior/collectivist narrative, will actually report on what this WSJ author points out. I am not taking bets unless I am able to bet against them reporting, BTW. I don’t do stupid. But we can keep pretending that whenever we point out how unreliable these LSM cum CBO collectivist talking points are, that the fault is with those of us that call them out on their lies.
After all, as comrade Obama pointed out in his speech just the other day, what Americans need is more social justice, and if it needs to come at the expense of their freedom, well dog gone it, that’s just dandy. After all, the old slave & land owning doofuses that produced that pesky constitution weren’t as wise as the class warrior class fancies themselves to be. In the mean time we march on to a tyrannical, but “socially just!!!1!!” country molded after Greece. Great.