Can Republicans Talk?

Can Republicans Talk?

By Thomas Sowell

The biggest battle in the lame duck session of Congress may well be over whether or not to extend the Bush administration's tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire in January. The fact that this decision has been left until late in the eleventh hour, even though the expiration date has been known for years, tells us a lot about the utter irresponsibility of Congress.

Neither businesses nor individuals nor the Internal Revenue Service will know what to do until this issue is resolved. In a stalled economy, we do not need this prolonged uncertainty that can paralyze both consumer spending and investment spending.

Republicans want the current tax rates to continue and Democrats want only the current tax rates for people earning less than "the rich"-- variously defined-- to continue, with everyone making more than some specified income to have their tax rates rise next year.

What makes predicting the outcome of this battle very iffy is that Republicans won a big majority in the House of Representatives in the recent election, but the tax cuts are scheduled to expire before the new members of Congress are sworn in-- and the Democrats have a big majority in both Houses of Congress in the lame duck session, where this issue will be decided.

Theoretically, the Democrats could win, hands down, since they have the votes. But Congressional Democrats are well aware of how they lost big in the recent election, and some Democrats don't want to gamble their own jobs in the next election by going the class warfare route.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can afford to have all the tax rates go up in January because they couldn't get together and pass a bill to prevent that from happening. But the nature of that bill matters, not just for politicians but-- far more important-- for the economy.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, now a professor at Berkeley, has made the case for the liberal Democrats' position in an article in the November 28th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle titled "Extend benefits for jobless, not tax cuts for the rich."

Professor Reich points out that both Republicans and some conservative Democrats say that we cannot afford another extension of unemployment benefits because the deficit is already too large. Then he adds: "But wait. These are the same members of Congress who say we should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy."

Reich advocates "extending unemployment benefits for struggling families without a breadwinner" because "These families need the money. The rich don't."

This is the Democrats' argument in a nutshell. It seems very persuasive on the surface, however shaky it is underneath. But cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues, as Reich assumes. How the tax-rate battle in Congress turns out may depend on how well the Republicans answer such arguments.

These are not new arguments on either side. They go back more than 80 years. Over that long span of time, there have been many sharp cuts in tax rates under Presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. So we don't need to argue in a vacuum. There is a track record.

What does that record say? It says, loud and clear, that cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues. In all four of these administrations, of both parties, so-called "tax cuts for the rich" led to increased tax revenues-- with people earning high incomes paying not only a larger sum total of tax revenues, but even a higher proportion of all tax revenues.

Most important of all, these tax rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.

These are the facts. But facts do not "speak for themselves." In terms of facts, the Republicans have the stronger case. But that doesn't matter, unless they make the case, which they show little sign of doing.

Democrats already understand the need for articulation. Robert Reich is only one of many articulate Democratic spokesmen. But where are the articulate Republicans? Do they even understand how crucial articulation is? The outcome of this lame duck session of Congress may answer that question.

This article is right on the money, but every single mainstream media outlet ignores the historical record of cutting taxes. We have IRS statistics that PROVE that what Dr. Sowell is saying is, in fact, the truth. These aren’t just the opinions of an Ivy League PhD in economics; there are cold hard statistics that bear this out. This is what makes Obama’s lies about extending the current rates for the so-called “rich” (or as they’ve taken to calling them, millionaires and billionaires) costing the federal government $700 billion over the next 10 years.

However, the point that Dr. Sowell raises at the end here about the Republicans making their case ignores one critical element; the mainstream media are NEVER going to allow Republicans to make that case (even if they wanted or planned to). The mainstream media has become little more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, and more particularly, the far left “progressives” in that party. They are shills for the left and will never allow mere facts get in the way of forwarding their leftist agenda.

To make this happen, Republican's will have to get their shit together and start making this case with the alternative media and those cable outlets where they might have a voice! They are going to have to be willing to go on the network Sunday shows and make this case boldly and decisively and STOP trying to make friends with the media and ignore the pointed attacks that these interviewers will unleash and just repeat this message over and over again. The Republicans need message discipline in a huge way, and they need to pound this point home in every venue they can get an audience in! They need to talk over the heads of the mainstream media as Reagan did and speak directly to the American people.

This same media isn't going to tell you or me that leaving the tax rate for the middle class will cost 3 trillion dollars. They parrot on about the 700 billion for the "rich" but leave out that other "cost" for the middle class.

Then we come to the cost issue. It's costs nothing. Revenue will increase once things settle down economically. The deficits come from spending and lots of it. Liberals always ignore that issue. They like to show deficit numbers but leave out the far reaching and insane spending numbers.

Each tax cut in our country's history has ALWAYS resulted in more revenue. ALWAYS. It's indisputable and I dare anyone to dispute it. The increase that the left wants is nothing more than "because they can afford it" which is nothing but pure class warfare.

Exactly!

You know, I honestly don't understand why rank and file liberals and Democrats, citizens, not politicians, when presented with this information yet reject it. It is baffling to me, because what this information shows is that cutting marginal tax rates ALWAYS results in more revenue to the federal government, the "rich" paying even more in taxes and paying a higher percentage of taxes overall.

You'd think that liberals would be all for this.

I am asking those who are against tax rate cuts for the top income earners, why? Why are you against them? What is your argument for increasing marginal tax rates on upper income earners?

It's not about more revenue for the gov't (higher taxes). It's about soaking the "wealthy", plain and simple. It's all about the fact that they don't like seeing the wealth class growing. True conservative policy is about getting out of the way and making whatever money you have the ability to. Liberal policy is the exact opposite. They don't like to create wealth. Therefore, they keep people poor and that way more people (poor) will vote for them. Convoluted thinking but that's it.

If the liberals wanted to truly soak the "rich", they'd cut taxes to about 20% and the gov't would have so much money that it wouldn't know what to do with it all.

TexasBlue wrote:It's not about more revenue for the gov't (higher taxes). It's about soaking the "wealthy", plain and simple. It's all about the fact that they don't like seeing the wealth class growing. True conservative policy is about getting out of the way and making whatever money you have the ability to. Liberal policy is the exact opposite. They don't like to create wealth. Therefore, they keep people poor and that way more people (poor) will vote for them. Convoluted thinking but that's it.

If the liberals wanted to truly soak the "rich", they'd cut taxes to about 20% and the gov't would have so much money that it wouldn't know what to do with it all.

Yes, that is what the politicians want, and what the liberal intelligentsia and media want, but I don't think that that is what rank and file liberals and Democrats want. I think they genuinely believe that higher marginal tax rates on upper bracket earners is not only just being socially responsible and "fair," but that it also does, in fact, raise more money and results in the so-called "rich" paying more of their fair share. There are some not unintelligent people here who fall in with this argument for raising marginal tax rates, I would like to hear from them and what they think of Dr. Sowell's thoughts.