I'd like to think I would have caught this myself, if I had watched the speech. (I always miss Obama's speeches, probably because I don't watch them.) Luckily, Bryan Preston at Pajamas Media did and ably reported back so that slackers like me can know that Obama has now taken to calling tax hikes "spending reductions."
The president also called for undoing the Bush tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers, and for canceling other tax cuts many of them receive such as the mortgage interest deduction — items that instead of labeling “tax increases” he called “spending reductions in the tax code.”
Pretty shrewd, huh? It's all sneaky semantics with these guys. Surely, they tell themselves, taxpayers and the Republicans in Congress will be so deliriously happy that the president wants to cut "spending" that they'll never catch on that it's all a trick.
We already knew that this guy spends an unhealthy amount of time ruminating about things that are none of his damned business; like how much private citizens earn and whether it's "fair" and whether anybody has reached the "point" where they "have made enough money." It only figures that he has been polishing his propaganda skills as well.
Can't somebody tell him about Farmville?
Personally I find this almost as creepy as Obama's pet phrase for confiscating wealth by force: "shared sacrifice." All the more reason to be especially watchful of our president's growing lexicon of sugar-coated phraseology and euphemisms — carefully crafted tools to obscure what really motivates him: a staunch belief that private wealth is the rightful property of the state.
Because if there wasn't already ample evidence that this president views private disposable incomes as state property that Americans are allowed by their benevolent government overlords — Obama's assertion that tax cuts constitute "spending" in "the tax code" should remove any doubt.
I’d like to commend President Obama for his backhanded honesty on this, though. He has finally admitted that he thinks the money that you work for belongs to the government before it belongs to you. He just had to utter the most Orwellian phrase ever spoken by an American president to get the admission out there.
This is especially creepy when you realize how ideologically this man is driven. Obama and his fellow lefties who are running things in Washington right now don't care about what works best for the American people. They care about directing the progress of every dollar they possibly can between mill and the marketplace — a proven recipe for economic stagnation. But that doesn't matter, because these people are control freaks. They know, just as Ronald Reagan said, "you can't control the economy without controlling people," and that's what they want.
Don't believe me? Candidate Obama said as much when he told Charlie Gibson that he would raise capital gains taxes — which Gibson pointed out are a proven revenue killer — because of his belief that the president should stick his nose into the private marketplace and muck everything up until it conformed to his notion of "fairness."
Gibson, of course, was absolutely right. Tax cuts are a proven formula for stimulating productivity and ultimately revenue — and tax hikes are the opposite. It's been clearly demonstrated since the income tax was first enacted that there is a limit to how much control even a died-in-the-wool socialist can exercise over a marketplace. Obama can control the amount he confiscates from productive Americans (or try to), but he can't control what that will do to the GDP. And when the GDP goes down, revenues go down. That is why economies stagnate when taxes are high, and economies flourish when taxes are low — and either way, with only a couple exceptions, revenues always come in at about 8% of GDP.
So it seems like a no-brainer choice for a truly benevolent leader: low taxes or high taxes, prosperity or misery — either way Washington gets paid about the same. Incredibly, though, socialists like Obama always push for the latter, because it's not about prosperity or misery to them. It's about ideology and power.