Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Heritage Foundation on the Dems and Taxes
The Heritage Foundation, in its analysis of the Rangel tax bill, notes that "In the current Congress, the Rangel proposal has no chance of enactment, neither in its current form nor in any recognizable variant. Its importance is as a policy statement of the chief Democratic tax policy writer in the House of Representatives, expressed in black and white. As such, it offers a useful glimpse of where tax policy is likely to go in the next Congress if the chairman is allowed to work his will with a more sympathetic resident occupying the White House."
It is important to remember that the biggest tax hike in history was enacted by President Bill Clinton - the year before the Republicans swept congress in the historic 1994 election. The Republican House, led by Newt Gingrich, kept Bill and Hillary from enacting their extreme social policies and high taxes. This allows Bill Clinton and his party to point to his presidency as an example of conservative Democratic leadership in areas such as taxes, spending, deficits and fiscal restraint. It may have been, but it had nothing to do with Democrats. For an idea of what a democratic President (Hillary Clinton), a democratic house (Nancy Pelosi) and a democratic Senate (Harry Reid) would do...look no further than the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency. Then try to remember, why the Republicans won the House (after 46 years) in the first opportunity to do so.
Some will argue that higher taxes hurt government revenue (Laffer Curve) and some will argue that it makes no difference whether individuals or governments spend the money - the multiplier is in effect either way. I personally believe the former, but I also believe that it is not the Governments money. It belongs to the corporations and individuals who earned it legally.
The top 10% of earners pay over 90% of the taxes today. We should thank them often and keep our hands out of their pockets as much as we can.
Once we believe it is the publics money or the governments money - or that the government has an obligation to redistribute wealth, we have crossed line to socialism and beyond. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all running on the tired old platform that the wealthy do not deserve their money and it is up to them to redistribute.
In the words of George Will, "when did it become 'COMPASSIONATE' to take money from one group and give it to another."
Submitted by D.B. Jackson