It's Time to Be Patriotic

“I was coming back from Africa on one of my trips,” she said. “I had taken one of my wealthy friends with me. She said, ‘Don’t you just feel guilty? Don’t you just feel terrible?’ I said, ‘No, I don’t. I do not know how me being destitute is going to help them.’ Then I said when we got home, ‘I’m going home to sleep on my Pratesi sheets right now and I’ll feel good about it.’ “
-Oprah Winfrey, 4/11/06 People Magazine


C'mon you Democrat fat cats....why not 90%? What's keeping you from donating as much of what you care to spare to the federal government and for the greater good? No one's holding a gun to your head, saying, "keep your money." Matt Towery:

Rather than arbitrarily declare someone "rich" when they cross that $250,000 level, let's raise the bar. Heck, let's even let an individual keep the first $1 billion he or she earns. After that, let's let them have a taste of what real taxes are all about.

How about a net worth tax? I know I've kidded about it before, but it's even more fun thinking about it under the current circumstances, both political and economic.

Let's tax the excess amount of anyone's net worth that exceeds $1 billion at 90 percent. Of course we would have to undo those charitable foundations where the super-wealthy have the ability to demand, say, accountability and successful results for the use of their generously given dollars. They would instead have to let the old wheel of fate known as the federal government spend those dollars. There would be no huge parties honoring them, no honorary doctorates for their donations, not so much as a thank you letter.

But think how happy folks like Gates and Buffett would feel. Gates alone would be "donating" $45.6 billion to the United States Treasury. And hey, we wouldn't need cash from Bill -- the government would be happy to just take possession of his excess assets.

As for Warren, the $54.9 billion he would owe could help cover Fannie, Freddie and so many other worthwhile causes. Of course no one would be meandering over to Omaha to hear his wisdom on making money, because he would be "just another billionaire," instead of the richest man in America.

Sound absurd? Of course. But it makes a strong point.

The two wealthiest individuals in America believe that if you strive to become wealthy, government should take more of your money and determine where and how it can be wasted. The problem is, there aren't enough "rich" $250,000-plus living on the edge, scared to death, stretched-to-the-max people in America to cover for the billions of dollars being printed and distributed before the ink dries. All of it to prop up rotten lending institutions and Wall Street crooks.

From Power Line:

Stephen Moore previews the most recent data in today's Wall Street Journal: "My contacts at the Treasury Department tell me that for the first time in decades, and perhaps ever, the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%." Moore's preview does not include the companion income data.

Given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," warned Aristotle.

The founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle's worry. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." James Madison and others therefore made it the "first object of government" to protect personal property from unjust confiscation. Numerous provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were included to protect the property rights of citizens. We've fallen off from the spirit of the founders on this issue, but it would be good to recall it in connection with the release of the income tax data previewed in Moore's column.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Other articles of interest:
Presidents and the Economy by Randall Hoven at American Thinker
Scapegoating Tax Cuts by David Limbaugh
Who Pays What on Tax Day? by Scott A. Hodge and Brian Phillips
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts by Brian M. Riedl
Democrats Lie About Reagan Tax Rates by Michael Medved

The Truth About McCain Voting Against the Bush Tax Cuts

Not a unique charge amongst conservative critics:

McCain abandoned Bush on tax cuts as 1 of only 2 Republican senators that did so,

Which is why I feel that it is important to illuminate this fact.

This is one of those issues where the whole story and context is important. From Kevin Stach of the Wall Street Journal:

In 2001, with the bitter primary battle still fresh, Mr. McCain voted against the final Bush tax-cut package. Why would he deviate from a pro-growth, tax-cutting position, built up over 17 years in Congress and dozens of votes, even after running on a tax-cut plan himself in 2000?

Mr. McCain's protest that he wanted spending cuts to accompany the Bush tax cuts has persuaded few conservatives. But what is not remembered is that, two weeks earlier, Mr. McCain voted to approve the final version of the Budget Resolution -- the blueprint used by congressional committees for spending and tax bills -- which included $1.35 trillion in tax cuts (the Bush proposal) coupled with a $661 billion cap on discretionary spending. When the promised spending cap never materialized, Mr. McCain denounced the wasteful earmarks and pork-barrel spending that he felt jeopardized the budget, and lodged the now famous protest vote against the tax cuts.

To not recognize the reason why, is to distort his record when it comes to tax cuts. In his 25 years serving in the Senate, he has never voted for a tax increase. And he has pledged to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Nothing in his record should indicate he is untrustworthy on this.

On the economy, I believe that Senator McCain is to the right of President Bush.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Giving to the Rich....and the Poor!

From the NY Times:

The Senate voted 54 to 44 on Thursday to pass almost $70 billion in tax cuts, mostly for the nation's wealthiest taxpayers. The action ensures that virtually all of President Bush's tax cuts will be locked in place until after the next presidential election.

Charles Schumer had this to say:

"The Bush administration and the Republican leadership are far more interested in helping their wealthiest friends than hardworking, middle-class Americans. The GOP made its choice, and they chose millionaire investors and oil companies over middle class families."

And how does creating policy to "punish" the rich, benefit the poor? The "wealthy" already shoulder the majority of the tax burden of this nation. The tax cuts benefit everyone. If the wealthy see a larger tax return, that's because they pay more taxes than the bottom bracket income earners. The poor might not get a huge tax return, but that's because those on the bottom end don't even pay income tax. As President Kennedy said: "A rising tide lifts all boats." Everyone benefits or suffers together. Not just one class. In the 80's, tax revenue rose by 99.4%, outpacing inflation. This is what is happening now.

Stephen Moore, member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal explains it very well in this Marketplace interview, from April 26th:

The Bush tax cuts have been routinely assailed as multimillion dollar giveaways to the Rolls Royce owners of America at the expense of the middle class.

But new IRS statistics on the taxes Americans pay show that George Bush's tax policies actually soak the rich.

It turns out that the income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the wealthy. The percentage of federal income taxes paid by those who make more than $200,000 a year has actually risen from 41% to 47% in recent years.

In other words, the richest 3 out of 100 Americans are now paying close to the same amount in income taxes as the other 97% of workers combined.

It's also a common myth that the rich are hording all the wealth, while the middle class stays stuck in economic quicksand.

The IRS data show that the share of all income earned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans has actually fallen since 2001. The rich are earning less of the total income but paying more of the total taxes.

During this economic expansion, the middle class is growing and becoming more prosperous. About 4 out of 10 Americans now make more than $50,000 a year -- that's up from 3 out of 10 in 1990.

There's more good news. Tax revenues over the past two years are up more than half a trillion dollars — the largest two-year increase in tax collections in history.

Bush cut the capital gains and dividend taxes, but guess what? Now those tax receipts are through the roof in the last two years.

It's called the Laffer Curve: a lower tax rate has increased economic growth and investment and thus the government gets more tax revenues.

The Bush tax cuts have pumped steroids into the US economy and created 5 million new jobs, a surge in new business investment and record worker productivity.

Those are the reasons to make the tax cuts permanent. But for those who really want to sock it to the rich, the Bush tax cuts have done that too.

President Bush's tax cuts work: Everyone benefits. The kind of economic policies- of raising taxes- that Democrats favor, punishes all classes. We should be creating more wealth for everyone to enjoy by allowing more people to keep more of their own earnings; not stifling growth.