Newsmax TV & Webwww.newsmax.comFREE - In Google Play
Newsmax TV & Webwww.newsmax.comFREE - On the App Store
Tags: Tax | Cuts | and | Media | Bias

On Tax Cuts and Media Bias

Thursday, 05 April 2001 12:00 AM

We can thank two Northeast Republicrat Senators, Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Lincoln Chaffee from Rhode Island, for this. The Bush $1.6 trillion tax cut was maimed in a Senate vote yesterday. Well, the Northeast is becoming more and more leftist – and job number one for Jeffords and Chaffee – not to mention most other politicians – is to keep their jobs.

Yesterday, with the help of these two, an amendment was approved to reduce the size of the Bush tax cut. It will go from $1.6 trillion to $1.25 trillion. That's $.35 trillion less for tax cuts, $.35 trillion more for government spending programs.

You can bet this $.35 trillion will come from the same place most of the other income taxes come from – the higher end of the income scale. The evil, hated, despised, dirty, filthy, crooked rich.

The Senate's lead class warlord, Tom Daschle, was just beaming on last night's TV news. He had reason to. The Democrats prevailed. They won this one. The class warfare worked, with a little help from Daschle's New England Republican friends. The Imperial Federal Government of the United States will continue to soak the rich for the benefit of income redistribution and vote-buying for politicians.

Know this – if there is no tax cut now for those who are paying the bulk of the tax bills, then all chances for a tax cut will be gone for a good, long while.

The Democrats tell us that their opposition to the tax cut is rooted in economic fears. They say that they are opposed to the size of the Bush tax cut because it might send us back into deficits.

Not so.

The real reason the Social Democratic Party is opposed to the size of this tax cut is because they fully expect to be back in the driver's seat in two years – and the presidency in four – and they need that money to spend on more government vote-buying programs. They want to make sure that money is in the treasury four years from now – not in the bank accounts of the people who earned it.

The Democrats have a plan. I have to admit, it's brilliant in its simplicity! They want to make Social Security and Medicare Programs welfare programs for the lower- and middle-income voters. That is, they want to make Social Security and Medicare benefits available to retirees and wizened citizens who have NEVER paid one penny in Social Security or Medicare taxes.

Here's how our Democratic friends are working to accomplish their vote-buying goal. They are loudly arguing that any tax cut ought to extend beyond people who actually pay income taxes. They want to include people who don't pay income taxes, but who do have their Social Security contributions and Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks – the dreaded ''payroll taxes.''

Here's the long-term Democratic plan.

As part of any tax cut they approve, the Democrats will insist on some relief from payroll taxes for those at the lowest end of the income scale. Just a little foot in the door this time. That's all they'll need. They will want to take just a little of the excess taxes seized from the evil rich and use those excess taxes to relieve other taxpayers from just a little of their responsibility to pay for their future Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Bear in mind, now – even though the Democrats propose lifting the payroll tax burden for these lower-income wage earners, there is no corresponding proposal to adjust full Social Security and Medicare benefits. Bottom line, the beneficiaries of this new welfare entitlement program just won't have to pay for their benefits like higher wage earners will.

OK. The camel's nose is in the tent. Move ahead now, a few years. The Democrats and their Republicrat friends from the Northeast will, year after year, provide more and more payroll tax relief to low-income workers. In no time those at the lowest income levels will be paying no income taxes at all – none. They will, in essence, be getting a completely free ride. They will be able to work their entire lives (if they have no real ambition) without paying one single penny in federal income taxes, Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes and still be entitled to full and complete Social Security and Medicare benefits when they retire.

And year after year the Democrats and Republicrats will work to add more and more lower-income voters to the freebie list. Then they will move into the middle-income ranks. Finally, they will accomplish with Social Security and Medicare taxes what they have almost accomplished with federal income taxes – the top 30 or 40 percent of income earners will be carrying the entire funding load for Social Security and Medicare.

That brings us to election campaigns. Social Security and Medicare are important elements of Democratic scare campaigns during elections. In every single federal election in my memory the Democrats have tried to frighten seniors with charges that the evil Republicans are going to threaten their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

The 1996 election was particularly egregious. The Republicans put forth a plan to reform Medicare by introducing some elements of free choice. The Republican budget provided for annual increases in per capita Medicare spending equal to twice the rate of inflation. The Democrats went screaming to their senior citizen followers, warning them that the Republicans wanted to ''slash,'' ''gut'' and ''eliminate'' Medicare. It was a lie – a provable lie.

But it worked. Oldsters panicked, the Republicans lost many seats in the House, and Clinton was re-elected.

Things will only get worse in the future. After the Democrats have managed to get millions of their constituents out of having to pay for their Social Security and Medicare, they will have a powerful new campaign theme: ''Vote for Republicans and you're going to have to start paying payroll taxes again.''

This is the plan, folks, and this plan is the equivalent of a fast-moving malignant tumor in our body politic. It will keep Democrats in power, but it will kill economic liberty and our free enterprise economy. That's fine with Democrats – they've been moving us to socialism for years anyway. I just hope it's fine with you, your children and grandchildren.

Did you hear the union anti-tax-cut ads this morning on WSB? Listeners are asked to call Georgia senators Max Cleland and Zell Miller and urge them to vote against the Bush tax cut. The ad says, ''This is a fight we can't afford to lose.'' Then you get the tag line: ''Paid for by the working employees of the Service Employees International Union.''

First of all, just why is this a fight that ''we can't afford to lose''? Easy. Because these unions want the excess taxes collected from upper-income groups to be redistributed to their members rather than returned to the people who actually worked for and earned the money.

To soften the image of income redistribution, the unions play the ''working people'' game. That ''paid for by the working employees'' tag line is designed to support the leftist idea that the people who pay the bulk of the income taxes don't actually work for their money – only people in lower- and middle-income tax brackets really work. The rich most certainly don't. Since the rich didn't really ''work'' for their money like these wonderful union members, there is no real problem with taking a good hunk of that money from them to give to the people actually doing the work.

Whenever you hear this ''working people'' concept argued in tax and economic matters, just remember – it's an integral part of the leftist class war against individual achievement.

Slip the idea into an episode of NBC's "The West Wing."

That's exactly what happened to the Congressional Progressive (read: Democratic) Caucus idea for a $300 rebate to all "working" Americans. The American People's Dividend Proposal, which Joe Lieberman supported, failed to gain support in Congress.

Well, if you can't get any mileage for your income redistribution plan in the Congress … just go to your Hollywood pals. That's just what California Democrat Barbara Lee did. She contacted Lawrence O'Donnell – former staff director of the Senate Finance Committee and current executive producer of "The West Wing" – to float the Democratic plan.

Well, guess what? The Democrats' income redistribution plan will get a mention in an upcoming episode of "The West Wing." Apparently it's that easy for Democrats to call up their buddies in Hollywood to talk policy and get a little help in prime time.

What do you think would happen if a Republican caucus wanted to get its tax cut proposal inserted into an episode of "The West Wing"? The producers of the show would accuse the Republicans of trying to influence their medium with political messages. They'd demand an apology from the Republicans for trying to interfere with the creative process! They'd decry the bias the Republicans are attempting to inject into wholesome family entertainment ... all the while failing to see their own liberal biases.

Think about it. When was the last time you heard a television character say something complimentary about a Republican politician or a conservative idea?

Apparently, Dan Rather's cheerleading for the Democratic Party extends past the time he's on "CBS Evening News."

At a March 21 Democratic fund-raiser in Austin, Texas, Rather was the star attraction. Donors paid as much as $1,000 to spend a private evening with him. The Travis County Democrats raked in about $20,000 that night.

Rather claims he didn't know the event was a fund-raiser, but stopped short of calling his appearance a mistake. He also didn't say he would have attended if he'd known in advance that he was being used to raise money.

Right, Dan. Tell us another one, Dan.

One needs only to look at your storied career to see that you're a bedwetting liberal. During an interview with Bill Clinton in 1993, you asked him to "tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we're pulling for her." And didn't you say at one point last year that Hitlary Clinton ought to be Time magazine's Person of the Year?

Yeah, you're unbiased. If you're unbiased, then I'm the king of Spain.

How should Rather make amends? The Media Research Center has an idea: Maybe he should write a check for $20,000 to the Travis County Republican Party.

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Travis County Republicans shouldn't hold their breath.

© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

We can thank two Northeast Republicrat Senators, Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Lincoln Chaffee from Rhode Island, for this.The Bush $1.6 trillion tax cut was maimed in a Senate vote yesterday.Well, the Northeast is becoming more and more leftist - and job number one for...
Thursday, 05 April 2001 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
Join the Newsmax Community
Register To Comment Login To Comment
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved