In a campaign where every other word (or more) out of Barry Obama’s mouth has been a lie, a distortion of the truth, or a spin away from the truth — perhaps the biggest lie he’s been telling from the start (and repeated numerous times daily) is that he will cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.”

Which is a lie, because what Obama has really done is simply redefine “tax cut” to gloss over what he really has proposed — an enormous redistribution of wealth. Giving tax “credits” to non-taxpayers paid from the pockets of taxpayers.

From The Wall Street Journal (who knows a thing or two about real-world economics):

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.”

[snip]

Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

This is nothing more than the government re-distributing wealth. It’s increasing the nanny-state.

Once again, the government doesn’t have any money of its own. The only way to pay for the billions and billions of dollars of Federal government checks to non-taxpayers is to take more money away from actual tax payers.

That’s me. And most likely you, too.

Explain to me why you think this is a good thing?

_______

OTHERS

Ed at Hot Air:

The last thing this economy needs is a flight of capital.  We need that money invested in America to create jobs, not hidden away from an aggressively redistributionist federal government.  We should be reducing taxes, but not giving more money to people who don’t pay any at all.

Emily Zamnotti:

Obama is no exemption to this rule: throughout his tenure in both the Illinois and national Senates, he voted in favor of every tax increase that came across his desk. He believes, like many liberals, that the rich have to be punished for their prosperity and have their wealth taken from them to fund the people who have none of either — only when you achieve a place where everyone is on the same footing statistically, will you be at the Great Society.