Obama's meaningless small-business vow
By Ralph R. Reiland
Published: Sunday, Dec. 9, 2012, 8:54 p.m.
A week after his re-election, President Obama held a news conference to push for a spending and tax agreement — and to talk about small business.
He began by saying, “Our top priority has to be jobs and growth.”
With job creation as a top priority, that puts small business at center stage.
The U.S. Small Business Administration reports that small business “generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.”
The small-business sector of the American economy “employs half of all private-sector employees,” says the federal government's official count, with the Small Business Administration defining a small business as “an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.”
Obama also said he wants a budget deal, “but what I'm not going to do is extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent” — defined as individuals earning $200,000 or more per year and couples filing jointly making $250,000 or more.
“When it comes to the top 2 percent,” he continued, “what I'm not going to do is extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it.”
That “need” part is a novel concept, one that puts us on a slippery slope. If politicians get the power to determine how much of our earned income we actually “need,” a Bureau of Asset Counters might be on the way.
If a classic car aficionado owns a dozen Chevy and Ford convertibles from the 1960s, will a government committee be empowered to determine that he doesn't “need” more and raise his taxes?
If a successful businesswoman has three homes, four cars, a yacht and $10 million in the market and wants to expand her retail clothing business, should her taxes go up — and business/job expansion be abandoned — because she doesn't “need” more business, more income or more employees?
In any case, Obama is advocating several things simultaneously that can't be synchronized.
He wants more jobs, a growing small-business sector — the section of the economy that creates the majority of new jobs — and more income redistributed from the “top 2 percent” to the government.
Attempting to show that those positions aren't, in fact, incompatible and represent instead a feasible plan for job creation, Obama injected the same misleading statement into his news conference at four different points.
With tax hikes on incomes of $200,000 and $250,000, “97 percent of small businesses are not going to see their taxes go up a dime,” he repeatedly stated.
That sounds like the vast majority of jobs in small businesses won't be threatened by his proposed tax hikes. But the Treasury Department reports that 30 million of the 35 million small businesses in America employ no workers.
Additionally, just 1.2 million of America's 35 million small businesses earn 91 percent of all small-business income, and that 3 percent of all small businesses “employ a stunning 54 percent of the total private U.S. workforce,” reports Investor's Business Daily. “They are, in short, the nation's job creators.”
And they are directly in the cross hairs of Obama's proposed tax increase.
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. His email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Analysis: Kesler still on Pens’ radar as Shero aims to bring back ‘Big 3’
- Allegheny County Democrats endorse several incumbents in primary
- Starkey: Steelers know when to say goodbye
- Pirates’ big risk with pitch-heavy draft focus might soon pay off
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- Ex-Colts executive Polian: Approach free agency with caution
- Penguins GM Shero’s deadline deals: Addition by subtraction
- Editorial cartoons March 10-16, 2014
- Latrobe hospital source of fuel spill
- With so many needs, Steelers can ill afford to miss in draft
- Wrestling programs look ahead to NCAA tourney