Obama Claims He Doesn’t Want to ‘Tax All Businesses Out of Business’

During a recent fundraiser, President Obama told an audience that he and the Democrats don’t want to tax all business out of business. He also said he doesn’t believe in “top down” government.

The President made these comments at a private residence in Palo Alto, California during a Democratic Senatorial campaign fundraiser in the first week of June.

“I know that there are a few Republicans here in the audience,” he said to those gathered. “If you talk to us, it turns out, you know, we’re pretty common-sense folks.”

“We don’t think government can do everything. We don’t think that top-down solutions are the right way to go. We believe in the free market. We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations. We don’t want to tax all businesses out of business. But we do think that there’s a role to play for government.”

Barack Obama has made this claim many times on the hustings, but his actions have often been at odds with this campaign rhetoric.

For instance, in 2007 Obama ran for the White House promising that electric rates would “necessarily skyrocket” because of the stringent new pollution regulations–such as cap and trade–he planned to implement. After he took office that pledge of higher electric rates came to fruition.

Not only that, but due to his use of the EPA to push his policies power plants across the country began to shut down due to an avalanche of regulations they couldn’t possibly meet.

At the early June fundraiser Obama may have claimed he wanted a “light touch” with regulations, but he most certainly has not made good on that claim as president.

As the Heritage Foundation noted in May, Obama’s first term was a veritable flood of new regulations.

Heritage found that upwards to $70 billion in new regulatory costs have burdened the already delicate economy with 131 new major regulations being issued from Washington through Obama’s regulatory schemes.

Far from a “light touch,” Heritage found that only two rules in 2012 decreased burdens on the business sector.

In fact, these major regulatory changes serve as another refutation of the President’s fundraiser claims.

“We don’t think that top-down solutions are the right way to go,” Obama claimed at the Palo Alto fundraiser. But his administration has had a woeful penchant for implementing new regulations without even allowing opportunities for public comment.

Heritage discovered that the largest numbers of major rules that were issued without comment were issued in 2009 and 2010 (34 in each year), the first two years of the Obama Administration.

SCOTUS rules against Texas
New Film 'The Purge' A Slam on NRA, Tea Party Movement
  • GarandFan

    “We don’t think government can do everything. We don’t think that
    top-down solutions are the right way to go. We believe in the free
    market. We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations. We
    don’t want to tax all businesses out of business. But we do think that
    there’s a role to play for government.”

    And The Liar-in-Chief said it all with a straight face.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      You really don’t expect him to pay attention to what he’s reading off his teleprompter, do you?

  • jim_m

    He doesn’t want to tax all businesses out of business… just the ones run by GOP donors or anyone else who won’t knuckle under to his fascist agenda.

  • retired.military

    He left out
    “just the ones who don’t agree with my or my policies”

  • Paul Hooson

    There’s so much that I disagree with, with our business taxation system. For example, if a business invests in inventory or new equipment, then it’s taxed as if it’s a profit of sorts. This is so negative and anti-growth, yet this is never changed by Washington. Any taxation should be solely based on actual sales profits and not investment.

    • But how are you supposed to properly punish the profitable if you allow them to grow?

      • Paul Hooson

        If government would just step up and eliminate taxes on inventory and investment, and only tax actual profits made after sales are made our business machine would be so much more viable in this country. Business is substantially discouraged from new investment that would fuel growth and new jobs by Washington tax policies that discourage growth and investment. Our country’s economy could have been so much greater at this point in time if the notion of taxing inventory or investment was never thought of. Some brave politician needs to step forth and reinvent this country’s business machine by fueling investment and growth by a drastic restructure of any tax policies which retard investment or growth. This renewed business machine would pull up our nation’s citizens, providing substantially more work opportunity as well generate much stronger tax revenues by actually growing the size of the economy, not by overtaxing the underproductive business economy or a suffering workforce, both oppressed by too high of a tax burden.

        • Fairtax.Org

          But I think you’re primarily looking at taxation as a means of getting money to run government. That may have been the original purpose, but IMHO over the last 4-5 decades it’s become more a means of social engineering and covert political patronage and less a mechanism for generating revenue.

          Punish those you don’t agree with by hurting them through taxation. Protect those who lobby effectively (and give big donations) by giving breaks. Buy votes by loudly announcing you’ll be cutting Group A’s taxes and jacking up unpopular Group B’s.

          It’s not about revenue – it’s about ‘doing good’.

          • Paul Hooson

            No, the problem is that taxing inventory or investment becomes a double taxation when products are actually later sold or a taxation on inventory that may not sell, may be shoplifted, might have to be thrown out, such as food that expires in a grocery store or restaurant for example.. A big company like JC Penney, when run correctly before failed CEO Ron Johnson came in only could show a profit of just buttons on a shirt, because taxes or overhead were so high, giving this company many years of near zero growth or expansion.

            My view is rather than cut services for the poor which likely need such services more than ever during an economic recession, or to overtax business grow the economy instead, grow the size of the pie, and let this growth cover services, which demand should also shrink in a larger economy with more jobs and more opportunity. My argument is that business must be encouraged to invest and grow the economy, creating a larger pie.

            I’m an advocate of growing an economy out of the problems it has, creating a large enough pie that taxes are fair and reasonable for everyone, and hopefully actually decline as the economy grows larger, opportunity and wealth grow, and everyone’s tax burden shrinks.

            The problem that I have is that neither Republicans, nor especially Democrats are offering any good progrowth plans to grow the overall size of the economy itself. Democrats are looking to preserve as many government programs as possible, which is fine if the economy is big enough to pay for all that. And Republicans simply want to cut programs, without any forward looking view to actually growing the economy, which seems to be a pretty big political admission that they don’t have answers to grow the shrinking economy either.

            Take a look at my Wizbang Pop features on deflation and a possible major correction in the stock market. Those are two more ominous signs of a very sick economy with no forward views coming out of Washington. If anything both political parties right now can promise the average American more and more of less and less, and not a forward view of a larger pie for the future.

          • “My argument is that business must be encouraged to invest and grow the economy, creating a larger pie.”

            And I don’t disagree with that at all, as you probably know.

            But there’s folks in Washington insisting that the pie is a certain size, and it cannot be made any larger, and the folks who are looking to make the pie grow are simply trying to GRAB more of the pie, not MAKE more of it.

            So to punish that greed they will ensure that taxes WILL be raised in order to punish the greedy pie makers and make sure that there’s enough government issue pie for all – even if by doing so they actually shrink the amount of pie available.

            Because it’s not about the amount of pie – it’s about controlling who gets it.

            If the pie were larger, there wouldn’t be enough people dependent on government for their pie. They could get their pie elsewhere.

            There’s a fair number of people in Washington who get it – but have you noticed that every single time anyone proposes cutting the regulatory load there’s a Greek chorus behaving as if cutting the number of things that businesses have to comply with to simply stay in business is the same as cutting the throats of widows and orphans?

            How do you get ANYTHING done in an environment like that?

          • Paul Hooson

            My view is that the demand for government services would decrease with a larger pie economy, with more opportunity existing, as well as the tax burden for all decreasing with a larger pie economy. Even in business, a tight budget with low sales means higher costs per percentage, but a larger sales base reduces costs in relation to the income percentage.

          • retired.military

            But that would mean that the govt cant determine winners and losers and beaurocrats cant get campaign donations based on their votes or determine social policy through business regulations. Definitely not something OBama and the dems and I daresay the majority of the republcans want.

          • jim_m

            Your view neglects the fact that you have socialist agitators on the left who will be saying that it is the duty of the government to confiscate any growth and redistribute it to the masses. This is the meaning of obama’s comment in 200 that “at some point you’ve made enough money”, which he made to a conservative who made between 3 and 5% of what he made. (So the relatively poor should be exploited to assist the super wealthy and criminal left.)

            What JLawson neglects is the fact that while the left views the pie as being a fixed size, their intent is to keep it as a fixed size and to confiscate any growth for themselves.

  • Rdmurphy42

    How long before brucy comes and tries to defend this patently ridiculous statement?