Over on the home page, I have a chat with Sen. Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania Republican and member of the now-disbanded supercommittee. Toomey received a lot of grief over his proposal that would have matched $750 billion in spending cuts to $250 billion in tax increases — a combination of slightly lower rates and eliminated or reduced deductions for the top two income brackets.
While Toomey is tight-lipped about conversations behind closed doors on the supercommittee, there were numerous reports that some Republicans on and off it were willing to accept tax hikes beyond $250 billion. His proposal — and the Democrats’ wholesale rejection of it — helped illustrate that to much of the president’s party, tax increases are not about increasing revenue to reduce the deficit and debt, but a punitive measure designed to hurt those who liberals believe have prospered too much in America.
dont forget that lowering rates and deductions would hit people in high tax/expensive housing market states more than others, which happen to be blue states, ie NY, CA. the state tax deduction is a subsidy to those states paid for by taxpayers who choose to live in low tax states like TX that happen to be red. if they just raise rates it would be worse for the economy overall but it wouldn't hurt dem constituents as badly
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember when Obama and Hillary were at a debate and the moderator asked O about the corporate tax rate? The question, I'll paraphrase very loosely from memory, was, 'historically, increases in the corporate tax rate have brought less revenue. Given that, do you still favor increasing the corporate tax rate even though revenues might decline'. O's answer was yes, and he added 'for fairness'.
Its purely ideological. The whole purpose of the Democratic agenda is to achieve income equality. They don't care if you're a brain surgeon or a drug dealer collecting welfare. Everyone should have the same income.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHave you seen Al Sharpton's new commercial with the pie?
Its a perfect illustration of the ideological difference between D's and R's.
To a D, there's only so much money. Its fixed. If a person starts earning millions per year, then thousands of other people necessarily must be earning less. The 'pie' is only so big, and stays the same size, always. So if someone gets a bigger piece, everyone else's piece gets smaller.
R's, of course, know that this is all nonsense. The whole point is to grow the pie. Bill Gates becoming the richest man on the planet resulted in millions of others get more, not less, prosperous.
Much of Europe used to believe as the D's do now. Their mistaken belief led to 'mercantilism', with entire nation states having trade policies based on the notion that there was a finite amount of wealth in the world. Adam Smith, among others, demonstrated the fallacies of that belief.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShould Toomey be "tight lipped" about closed-door conversations of the supercommittee? We're not talking about a secret initiation rite of the Knights of Columbus here, we're talking about discussions about the future fiscal course of our country. Who benefits from being tight-lipped about what went on in supercommittee negotiations? The citizens of this country, who were ostensively supposed to be the beneficiaries of this process? I think not. The Republicans, who I read were bending over backwards to try to reach a meaningful agreement? That seems unlikely also. The only people who would benefit from trying to keep the supercommittee negotiations secret would be the Democrats, who are now using their own version of went on in the defunct committee as another weapon to in their already mighty arsenal of demagoguery. The truth of went on would only help to blunt this new rhetorical weapon of the Democrats.
So why not let the truth come out? Were committee members sworn to secrecy? That hardly seems appropriate in a democracy unless national security matters were involved, so if any such formal aggreement were made that in itself is outrageous. Or is this just a new case of a Republican dreaming up a new, previously undiscovered, self-destructive rule of "civility" that ties his hands while leaving his opponents unshackled? Like President Bush's rule that you can't criticize your opponents by name? Or Bush's rule that presidential "dignity" precludes you from even defending your own actions? Or John McCain's rule that "honor" means never warning the American people about the disgraceful actions of your opponent? This self-imposed obligation to remain "tight-lipped" on what went on in meetings involving the welfare of every citizen of the country seems more in line with this grand Republican tradition. This tendency to make up rules to hurt yourself could be dismissed as silly if the consequences weren't so dire. The truth is essential to stopping the Democrats, but Republicans are afraid to speak it, and are even capable of convincing themselves that they are bad if they do.
Also, this points out the whole flaw in the Republican model of political strategizing and governance. This resorting to closed-door negotiations to settle policy disputes, rather than a full-throated public debate, where different positions are aired in the light of day, and the American people can make informed decisions of their own, is foolish and undemocratic. Yes, the media is biased, so argue with the media too. Run adds giving your side of the story, give speeches, go on friendly outlets and let the truth be spoken. That is the only way to change the course of the country. It will never be achieved by going behind closed doors to strike deals with manifestly dishonorable, dishonest opponents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehelped illustrate that to much of the president’s party, tax increases are not about increasing revenue to reduce the deficit and debt, but a punitive measure designed to hurt those who liberals believe have prospered too much in America.
I don't think most of them have thought about it this far. It is just an article of faith with them. Taxes must be raised. Combined with another article of faith, never agree with a Republican, you get what is described by Jim.
Liberalism is a religion built around a set of hatreds. One of them is hatred of non-liberals. When the Left had less influence in the democratic party, the democrats could operate as a governing coalition. Democrats could hold executive office and get things done.
Now that the left owns the party, those insane contradictions in their dogma make governance impossible. They say they want to raise taxes, but given the chance they reject it because it may reflect well on one of their bogeymen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReminds me a bit of Yassir Arafat walking away from the table when the Israelis offered him a Palestinian State and 98% of the territory he wanted; he didn't want the victory, he wanted the war.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse