This morning, the Boston Globe’s Derrick Z. Jackson did what he can always be counted upon to do: parrot the latest liberal talking point. This time, he’s pushing the “we can’t afford to extend the Bush tax cuts” line.
This is wrong — just plain wrong — on two points.
The first is the notion that this isn’t a tax hike. Oh, technically, it isn’t, as it doesn’t require an action to happen; it will just occur. As part of the original deal to get the tax cuts passed, President Bush and congressional Republicans agreed to a “sunset” provision that the cuts would expire this January — unless extended.
So, yeah, by the letter of the law, it’s technically not a tax “hike.” But practically speaking, if someone’s tax rate goes up after eight years of lower rates, that’s a hike.
There’s another aspect here. In the midst of the current economic slump, the government is planning on taking a very, very hefty hunk of change out of the hands of the people and dump it into the government’s coffers — and we all know how efficient the government is at “stimulating” the economy. Last time I heard, they were spending around $92,000 to create a single job.
But that’s all incidental to the most significant point here: “Repeal a tax cut no one can afford.”
Think about that for a moment. The argument here is that we can’t afford to let people keep their own money.
Ronald Reagan once described the Soviet attitude towards arms negotiations. “What’s mine is mine. What’s yours is negotiable.” It seems that that attitude has survived the death of the Soviet Union and is now official Democratic policy, now that they hold the reins of government: what’s theirs is theirs, what’s ours is negotiable — the question is how much will they let us keep.
That isn’t how things are supposed to work. Not in America.