As most people know, the so-called "Bush tax cuts" expire at the end of the year.  In spite of the rhetoric surrounding the tax cuts — during the elections of 2004, 2006, and 2008, opponents of the tax cut claimed that only the rich benefited — unless the cuts are extended, taxes on every single tax payer will increase, and many who previously owed no taxes will now owe.  The lowest income tax rate will increase from 10% to 15%; the highest (that's $200,000 a year for an individual and $250,000 for a couple) from 35% to 39.6%; the capital gains tax will increase from 15% to 20%; the tax on dividends and interest will increase from a maximum of 15% to a maximum of 39.6%.  Tax credits for children will decrease, the so-called "marriage penalty" will return (many married couples formerly paid more filing taxes jointly than they would have had to pay had they been able to file individually), and many families will be hit by the "Alternative Minimum Tax", a provision created for the "super rich" to ensure they weren't able to avoid taxation through loopholes.

As the sunset provisions of the tax cuts and the November elections approach, even many Democrats are getting hesitant about raising taxes in the midst of a weak economy — raising taxes during economic stress didn't exactly work out well for Herbert Hoover in combating the Great Depression, why should they work now?  But despite the growing chorus of those even within his own party against raising taxes, President Obama remains steadfast that only certain people should receive a tax cut, and "the rich" should in fact pay more .

President Obama, who once wrote a book call The Audacity of Hope, shows a different kind of "audacity" in attacking the tax cuts for "the rich" — the audacity of obliviousness.  He seems completely unaware of several key points.  Extending the cuts on the top wage earners (often referred to as the "top 3%" or "millionaires and billionaires", even though the top rate starts, as stated above, at $250,000) would require, according to the President, the government to "borrow $700 billion".  He claims that "there are a whole bunch of better ways to spend the money" instead.  Apparently, the President is ignorant of the fact that it isn't his money to begin with, and arrogant enough to believe that he knows better than people who actually have the money how they should spend it.  Of course, the government doesn't have to borrow to "pay for" money it doesn't actually take — using the President's own logic, he'll have to borrow money to "pay for" not raising taxes even further.  This isn't about transfer payments or subsidies — things that actually do "cost" money, but rather deciding not to take more of someone's money — not to raise taxes.

Another key point that the President is missing is the fact that he is advocating raising taxes on businesses as well.  Of course, every dollar sent to the government by an employer is a dollar that can't go towards hiring new workers; meanwhile, unemployment has been hovering around 10% for months.  Why would it go down if businesses and investors have less money to spend?  Or, for people working currently, more money to the government means less for increases in salary and benefits, or for investment in new equipment, buildings, or technology — investments that create jobs, add value, and increase productivity.

But take away all the pure economics of the situation, and one thing remains clear:  President Obama believes he has a better claim than we do to our own money — he knows "a whole bunch of better ways to spend the money".  That attitude is the most egregious part of all.

It's not your money, Mr. President.