Obama "is" taking hints from Clinton. It depends on the definition of "is."

If Obama has his way, we will never have any “tax increases” just “revenue increases.”  If statistics have many interpretations, then words have numerous definitions. Obama is a master of words. He is a wordologist. He is also a trained lawyer and lawyers, if nothing else, are creative at definitions. Remember Clinton, he said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.  

If Obama is successful in removing the interest deduction for second homes, it will not be a “tax” increase - it will be a “revenue” increase. From Obama's point of view, it will result in an increase in revenues; but for Americans who own, second homes, RVs or other qualifying residences, it will be an unambiguous tax increase. By redefining various tax code items, Obama will assert he "is" not increasing taxes, and if asked to testify in court, he can cite Clinton's grand jury testimony on the term "is" as legal precedent.

Obama is no knucklehead. It is plausible that when he is with democrats, he will refer to tax increases; but when he is with republicans, he will refer to revenue increases. It must be wonderful to switch words as frequently as Obama easily switched positions on the White House debt limit debate. But that is a subject for a another time.

Let's look at the term tax “loopholes.” Obama believes that a tax loophole is allowing 18 million small businesses the rapid depreciation of capital equipment. Rapid depreciation of capital equipment spurs manufacturing and creates jobs. 

This “ tax loophole” as Obama characterizes it, is in fact a business stimulus measure. Further, at a time when we need to stimulate more business, Obama wants to eliminate this business stimulus measure and tries to make his position more compelling by defining it as a tax "loophole." 

What is your point? If we were on a recruiting team that was interviewing candidates for the president of the United States of America, what criteria would we establish? My suggestions are experience with: budget balancing, large corporate global businesses, foreign trade negotiations, creating thousands of jobs, management of complex projects and perhaps other genuine criteria. Guess what? Obama has none of these skills. Nada. None. I certainly would not suggest a president possess a special skill in wordology that enables a president to define a tax in such a manner that makes the tax appear to be palatable. I would choke on swallowing brussels sprouts even if they were called ice cream. 

The notion that Obama can sell the definition of a choking tax increase as a mouth-watering tasty revenue increase to Americans illustrates Obama’s abject lack of belief in Americans. On the contrary, I believe Americans can see the obscurity that he masks in a cloak of faux transparency. We are just not that stupid again. Are we?

In 18 months, we will have an opportunity to send him back to Chicago, or you can hope as I do that he refuses to run for reelection.