I love the lead-in to this CNN story on Charles Rangel's plan to overhaul the tax code:
AMT repeal. Lower corporate tax rates. A bill by Rep. Charles Rangel offers $1 trillion in cuts. Here's how he would pay for them.Hmmm...I wonder! Something innovative and original, but fair to all taxpayers?
Rangel said on Thursday the bill "would reform the tax code to provide a greater sense of equity and fairness."Sounds promising!
The bill proposes that high-income filers would pay at least a 4 percent surtax on adjusted gross incomes (AGI) above $200,000 for married couples filing jointly or above $150,000 for single filers.Oh.
12 comments:
When your only tool is a credit card, every problem looks like a distant speck in some other poor schmuck's lap, part MLVVI
The GOP isn't big on consequences lately. Whereas Rep. Rangel has an irritating habit of publicizing legislation that emphasizes those consequences, such as his advocating a draft to address the strain on our military.
His 4% tax proposal is a direct response to this news:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN24507537
WASHINGTON, Oct 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a study released on Wednesday.
With President George W. Bush indicating a large contingent of U.S. troops likely will be engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years to come, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the total tab for the wars from 2001 through 2017.
CBO estimated that interest costs alone from 2001-2017 could total more than $700 billion.
But let's ignore that. Oh, those tax and spend Democrats! Tax and spend Democrats! Tax and spend Democrats! Rrrrawkk! Righty want a cracker!
Well, when a draft was called for a vote, where was Rep Rangel? Evidently he wasn't "big on consequences" since he voted against it. Maybe he only cares about consequences part of the time.
And he *could* just 'patch' the AMT that *HE* along with other Democrats passed in an effort to punish 'the wealthy'. OR, he could continue to punish 'the wealthy' by just letting the AMT continue unabated. But, then, there would be "consequences" for that, like angry voters. Maybe Rangel just isn't very "big on consequences."
He could also push to de-fund the war in Iraq, couldn't he? But, then, that would have consequences, and evidently Rangel isn't "big on consequences."
And, if he really, REALLY, wanted to continue his "irritating habit of publicizing legislation that emphasizes those consequences" he could push his current tax scheme really, REALLY hard along with defunding the war in Iraq, and the Democrats could run on a "CUT AND RUN & TAX AND SPEND" platform.
But, then, that might have consequences, and Democrats aren't real "big on consequences." Especially the consequences of their own actions.
Charles Rangel is a Clinton stooge, and always has been. (If I were a liberal talking about a Republican, I would have inserted a racist comment there). Rangel is testing the waters for her. Go ahead and vote for Hillary, and this is what we will get.
So did Charles Rangel specifically associate this surtax to paying for the war in Iraq? Or was this just a straw man argument? (It's the 2nd one.)
The Democrats are for the war when it suits them and against it when there's a twitch in the polls. But at least they're consistent on one thing: somebody else should pay the taxes.
So did Charles Rangel specifically associate this surtax to paying for the war in Iraq? Or was this just a straw man argument? (It's the 2nd one.)
The Democrats are for the war when it suits them and against it when there's a twitch in the polls. But at least they're consistent on one thing: somebody else should pay the taxes.
Charles Rangel: "The package I proposed today is entirely revenue-neutral to ensure that the tax cuts we provide are not paid for by future generations or through reckless borrowing as has been the case in recent years."
So he didn't "specifically" tie it to Iraq (let alone a particular finance report issued just 2 days ago), but to reckless borrowing in recent years. Well spotted!
Now let's see, whatever is Bush borrowing money for? What has he got that he can't afford? Alas, my head is filled with straw; I just can't sort out an A/B equation that complicated.
As for voting against his own draft legislation:
Rangel voted against his own bill because it was not subjected to hearings and testimony from Bush administration officials. "This is hypocrisy of the worst kind," he said. "I would not encourage any Democrat running for re-election to vote for this bill."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-05-draft_x.htm
Rangel has also introduced legislation to require universal national service three times. But you stick with your cartoon enemy, and your three-word catchphrases, if those work better for you.
Maybe by reckeless borrowing he meant the $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities in entitlement spending. Nah.
Maybe with $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities in entitlement spending already on the books, a responsible leader and legitimate conservative would have thought twice about tacking on the additional cost of an optional military sinkhole. Let alone be pumping for a replay in Iran. Nah.
So when Rep. Rangel says "...as has been the case in recent years," we're supposed to assume he's NOT including Iraq costs until further study shows otherwise.
But his comment SHOULD have been about Medicare and Social Security. After all, both programs began "in recent years" (as compared with the steam engine, anyway).
Borrowing Derangement Syndrome 1, Logic 0.
Give me a break: borrowing to pay for government programs has been going in full-force before Reagan signed SS reform in 1983. FICA taxes jumped to fill the pending gap and all that extra money was (by law) put into government bonds that masked the true size of the deficit. For 20 years, the government has been "borrowing" against itself and stuffing U.S. bonds into file cabinets.
And if Democrats are so concerned about the cost in Iraq they should either stop voting for funding or ask all Americans to pay the cost. After all, nothing would stop the war quicker than asking everybody to kick in an extra percentage on their taxes. But instead it's always the standard: "Let's everybody vote on having somebody else pay." Such leadership.
Although it was nice of you to walk around Rangel's mind. Are there mice up there?
Here's that rabid right-winger Robert Reich in Salon:
"Considering the magnitude of challenges ahead for America, it seems only reasonable that taxes should rise on the wealthy. Taxing the rich is not about class envy, as conservatives charge. It's about the nation having enough money to pay for national defense and homeland security, good schools and a crumbling infrastructure, the upcoming costs of boomers' Social Security (the current surplus has masked the true extent of the current budget deficit, but it won't for much longer), and, hopefully, affordable national health insurance. Not to mention the trillion dollars or so it will take to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is now starting to hit the middle class."
Yes, this borrowing only started a couple years ago.
Although it was nice of you to walk around Rangel's mind. Are there mice up there?
You're the one framing Rangel's "recent years" remark as a probable allusion to 24 years ago, but not to 3 years ago. Are there floating neon mice where YOU are?
nothing would stop the war quicker than asking everybody to kick in an extra percentage on their taxes.
Considering the cratering support for the "free" war, this is undoubtedly correct. And considering Rangel's history of floating unlikely legislation to dramatize larger points, Iraq is a whole lot more relevant to his intentions than the 1983 SocSec bill. What you call mind reading, most of the country calls deductive inference.
Or maybe it's coincidence. Maybe Rangel's had his tax bill drafted and ready since 1985, but only just noticed it in one of those file cabinets, underneath all the paper bonds.
Post a Comment