It seems that Republicans now consider higher taxes beyond real reform. Politico.com, being a statist rag, tried to make the headline as biased as possible: “Republicans shift away from tax cutting mania.”
Something is missing from this year’s midterm elections.
Republicans are talking about ISIL and President Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act and Harry Reid. But what they aren’t talking about?
Slashing tax rates.
Though tax cuts have been a mainstay of their campaigns since at least Ronald Reagan, though the top marginal tax rate is now the highest since the 1980s, though the party could win control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in almost a decade, Republicans are barely mentioning reducing tax rates with voters.
“In a campaign, you talk about what people are interested in,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “I keep notes on all my town meetings” and “tax cuts haven’t come up.”
They haven’t come up because, at the moment, Americans are distracted by war. How convenient for Senator Grassley!
But it gets worse:
Some lawmakers — including ones no one would confuse for moderates — said they’re less interested in tax cuts than tax reform, a subtle distinction that has major political and policy implications.
But with overall revenue levels about in line with historical averages and the economy still soft, some Republicans are looking past the party’s old playbook on taxes.
“We have to stop being one-trick ponies,” said California Rep. John Campbell, a member of the arch-conservative Republican Study Committee and the No. 4 Republican on the House Budget Committee.
“I want to see taxes come down, but it’s not a panacea,” he said. “It won’t cure all our ills. We can’t say tax cuts will cure this, cure that and cure the other thing, because it’s just not credible.” He said, “The purpose of tax reform is not to cut revenue to the government or to cut taxes — it’s to grow the economy.”
No, the point is that people should get to keep their money rather than have it plundered from them! It is a matter of simple social justice. It is properly an end in itself without having any need to be justified on the basis of curing any ill or growing the economy.
Government is supposed to prevent and punish crime and fraud. We have a government that spends most of its resources regulating people, redistributing wealth, and interfering in other nations. All of that needs to be stopped, and cutting down the revenue the government collects can encourage a smaller government. I don’t mention this to justify government as a means to the end of smaller government. I’m just pointing out that, just because the government requires taxes, doesn’t mean they require the level of taxation that they are now extracting from the populace.
But take this to heart: every time the news media succeeds in getting you to worry about “bad guys” overseas, they have an excuse to ignore the great needs you have been promoting for years. In a blink of an eye the pledge to reduce the tax burden is forgotten as the spending spikes!
Republicans once argued that allowing the increase would wreak havoc on the economy, but lawmakers say their constituents are now more focused on issues like the battle against Islamic militants in Syria.
So that’s all it takes to tame the Tea Party? Just point to a few Islamic psychopaths on the other side of the ocean?
The bitter irony is that the government is increasing spending to arm and train “Islamic militants in Syria” to fight the “Islamic militants in Syria” that it already armed.
It won’t be long before we look back on the Obama spike in the national debt with nostalgia for the mere $17 trillion that it attained. And the increased spending is just as likely under a Republican President at this rate. That national debt eliminates the will to really cut revenue.