In this Thanksgiving weekend, we acknowledge much for which we are thankful, including this great country. I would add my wonderful family, including my very liberal sisters. And a great number of other things . . .
Today, I feel like I should add Charles Krauthammer to the list of things for which I am most thankful. I had sketched an idea related to the left’s latest, to borrow the expression of a GayPatriot reader, Emmanuel Goldstein, Grover Norquist, a man Democrats are now blaming for the alleged Republican obstructionism in debt reduction negotiations.
You see, Grover has succeeded in securing the signatures of a substantial number of Republicans on a pledge not to raise taxes. And because, Democrats claim, Republicans won’t raise taxes, they can’t make a deal to cut the deficits.
The man to whom I am most grateful today (for making my task much easier) does a wonderful job of deconstructing (to borrow a term near and dear to the hearts of many academic leftists) the latest left-wing talking point:
So why does the myth of the Norquist-controlled anti-tax monolith persist? You might suggest cynicism and perversity. Let me offer a more benign explanation: thickheadedness — the inability to tell the difference between tax revenue and tax rates.
In deficit reduction, all that matters is tax revenue. The holders of our national debt care not a whit what tax rates yield the money to pay them back. They care about the sum.
The Republican proposals raise revenue, despite lowering rates, by opening a gusher of new income for the Treasury in the form of loophole elimination. For example, the Toomey plan eliminates deductions by $300 billion more than the reduction in tax rates “cost.” Result: $300 billion in new revenue.
. . . .
Raising revenue through tax reform is better than simply raising rates, which Democrats insist upon with near religious fervor. It is more economically efficient because it eliminates credits, carve-outs and deductions that grossly misallocate capital. And it is more fair because it is the rich who can afford not only the sharp lawyers and accountants who exploit loopholes but the lobbyists who create them in the first place.
Emphasis added. It’s Krauthammer; just read the whole thing.
To my conservative friends, I ask that you re-read that last paragraph quoted. If we’re bothered (as many of us are) that 47% of Americans don’t pay taxes, we should also find it troubling that many in higher income brackets manage to game the tax system (through those sharp lawyers they can afford to hire) to reduce their tax burden to percentage of their income lower than that of many in more modest income brackets.
We can’t let Democrats use this issue as a talking point as the lefties at Think Progress do in this video:
One thing which the folks at Think Progress leave out is that Ronald Reagan favored broad-based tax reform eliminating loopholes while Barack Obama has proposed smaller changes merely hiking tax rates on millionaires. That’s a distinction with a huge difference.
The Democrat may demonize the loopholes, but, unlike the Republican, he has failed to sign on to a reform package that would create a simpler, fairer tax tax structure. Even with his proposed higher rates, many “millionaires and billionaires” would still be able to avail themselves of loopholes.
Once again, we’ve got left-wingers pulling a Reagan sound bite out of context. If the current president, as the above excerpts indicate, does indeed favor eliminating loopholes, why then doesn’t he put forward (or sign onto) a plan that does just that and challenge Republicans to sign it?
And let’s hope more Republicans join the Gipper in signing onto tax reform plans that create a simpler, more equitable tax structure. That said, the problem today, as Krauthammer, is not Republican obstructionism, but Democratic intransigence. The president’s party insists on raising tax rates on millionaires, but unlike one of their fellow partisans in the Reagan era, Democrats shy away from real tax reform.
But what tax loopholes? Captial gains not being taxed until they are realized? Mortgage deductions? (which one can argue makes the US more stable and less likely to go Commie – so Demoncrats will want that gone)… Normally when Congress talks talk loopholes it’s us that get screwed.
“Loopholes” are not so much accidents in legislation discovered by sharp lawyers as they are tax deductions that were planned out and meant to be.
“Gaming the system” simply means playing by the rules that government created.
If a bazillionaire games the system, what difference does it make if he is ducking a 38% tax rate of an 83% tax rate through the use of legal loopholes? That is the true duplicity of the Democrats. The Senate is full of millionaires who talk about taxing the rich and know full well it won’t cost them a penny more.
When you have mega bucks, you “invest” according to the tax code. You may even concoct an idea for a beneficial “loophole” and sell it to the writers of legislation. But the problem lies not so much in the code, but in the intent of the code.
Tax reform should be as simple as possible. But how you take politics out of it, I do not know. If we set out to use taxation as an incentive to act in a certain way or to discourage actions or punish actions, we are not raising revenue so much as we are trying to manage outcomes.
Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is not so goofy as some would make it out to be. It is a radical departure from our system of burying multiple hidden taxes in the retail price of products. Whether the price of the goods now have 9% of the cost hidden in the amount you pay, I do not know.
I am not promoting Cain or his plan. But I suggest that “tax reform” at the hands of the same old players would look more like the work of the late “super committee” than anyone would like.
The MSM’s attempt to smear Grover Norquist just elevates him really; I like the irony.
Two columns at NRO worth reading today by Mark Steyn and Andy McCarthy.
Neither party appears to grasp the scope of the problem due to the ignorance of the public and the desire of congress critters to stay in office no matter what.
The only way the spending problem and resulting debt will be dealt with is when the house of cards collapses and we have no alternatives left; when the repo man is towing the car and the sheriff is throwing us out on the street.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284111/more-more-more-mark-steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284101/republicans-subsidize-mansions-andrew-c-mccarthy
Speaking of Norquist, what’s your take on Norquist’s Muslim projects and connections?
I know very little about any of this. I oppose radical Islam with great fervor. I have no quarrel with peaceful Islam. I have many Muslim connections myself and I do not find working with Muslims to be a negative. If a Muslim woman has chosen to present herself as a draped body with an eye slit, it is fairly easy to fall prey to hyperventilation and bigotry. I for one, do not immediately suspect such people of automatically planning a terrorist attack.
Hopefully, any “connections” Norquist has with Muslims and “Muslim projects” are steeped in common sense and a dedication to democratic principles.
EssEm, I haven’t been paying much attention to that. Maybe I should. I knew Grover when I was in college and he was a solid Reaganite then, small government strong national defense. At the time, he was close to Jack Abramoff who was very pro-Israel.
What little I have heard has been troubling, but I don’t know enough to comment.
David Horowitz has been on Norquist’s case about his Islamic connections for years. His latest: http://www.therightscoop.com/david-horowitz-speaks-at-cpac/
My problem with Norquist is less his connections with Islam and more his constant pillow-plumping for amnesty. What should I think about a “Republican” who works endlessly to produce a permant Democratic voting majority?