Excellant article "Lying about Taxes"

[kcjenkins]

Robert Novak's column today is one every one should read, no matter which side of the aisle you favor.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In routine party-line votes last week, both houses of Congress completed action on a Democratic-crafted budget containing

the biggest tax increase in U.S. history.

That this was overlooked attests to the legerdemain of Sen. Kent Conrad of Bismarck, N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Conrad, a 59-year-old third-termer, is a monotone orator whose use of statistical charts betrays his dozen years as a North Dakota state tax collector. He seems so straight an arrow that it is hard to accuse him of the big lie.

But that is precisely what he has done.

Conrad has repeatedly insisted his budget contains no higher taxes. But how, then, can it increase discretionary spending $200 billion over five years, while promising immense budget surpluses in the future? By raising taxes not only on upper-bracket income earners but also on dividends and capital gains, affecting many more Americans.

Conrad has been in denial. After I described his budget as an old-fashioned Democratic tax-and-spend formula on March 28, Conrad wrote a letter to newspapers accusing me of "blind ideology and meaningless partisan rhetoric." His budget, he said, "neither assumes nor requires a tax increase." That is exactly what he has been saying for months on the Senate floor.

A typical exchange occurred May 9, when Republican Sen. John Thune displayed spend-and-tax charts. "Not true," responded Conrad. "There is no tax increase in the proposal before us." In the final debate last Thursday, Conrad again contradicted the assertions of higher taxes by his Republican counterpart on the Budget Committee, Sen. Judd Gregg.

Different in kind from normal congressional debate, this is based not on the merits of higher taxes but disagreement on the existence of any increase. The mystery is easily solved. Under the Democratic budget, the Bush administration's tax cuts are permitted to expire at the end of 2010. That means higher taxes if Congress does nothing.

Conrad has defended his no-tax-increase claim on grounds that the Democratic budget's five-year revenues total $14.827 trillion, compared with a "virtually identical" $14.826 trillion in President Bush's budget. But he is comparing apples and oranges -- calculations by the Congressional Budget Office and by the Office of Management and Budget using varying techniques and economic assumptions. That they are so close to each other was an accident.

After months of Conrad's assurances that his budget contained no tax increases, the Senate adopted, 97 to one, an amendment by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus that decreased estimated revenues by $195 billion. It would save the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, estate tax decreases and other expiring tax proposals. If the budget "does not raise taxes," asked Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, on May 10, "why has there been a discussion about whether or not to adopt the Baucus amendment?" It survived in the final version of the resolution.

Conrad's insistence has affected the way the budget resolution has been reported. The Associated Press account never mentions tax increases. The Wall Street Journal's headline cautiously refers to a "partial lapse of tax cuts." Conrad's fellow Democrats in the Senate buy into his euphemisms. Not a single Democratic senator voted against the tax-increasing budget -- not even Nebraska's Ben Nelson, who often departs from the party line and who supported the Bush tax cuts.

But the budget resolution's tax increases sounded a warning signal for the House, which passed it by only 214 to 209. Until now, the new Democratic majority in the House has been solid amid substantial Republican defections. But no Republican member voted for the budget, while 13 Democrats opposed it. Of the defectors, left-wing Rep. Dennis Kucinich voted no because he said the budget would fund President Bush's Iraqi war effort throughout his term.

The other 12 were moderates, including six freshmen who defeated Republicans last year. One freshman was Rep. Harry E. Mitchell of Arizona, who upset Rep. J.D. Hayworth in the heavily Republican Tempe district. "I simply cannot support a budget that allows key tax cuts to expire," said Mitchell, calling for extended capital gains and estate tax cuts. Kent Conrad didn't fool Harry Mitchell.

[joanmcq]

Of course the ones who 'lied about taxes' were the ones that passed the tax cuts with the sunset provisions in the first place. the sunset provisions were necessary to keep the projected effects of the tax decreases (deficits as far as the eye can see) to a lesser level. Then they could scream about 'raising taxes' if the cuts were allowed to expire, just as they are doing now, allowing the deficit to spiral even farther out of control. What's worse, tax and spend, or don't tax and spend?

I may be liberal to the extreme on most issues, but I'm a balanced budget fiscal conservative on this one. I hate it when ANYONE lies with statistics, and the current administration has been doing it for 7 years now.

[kcjenkins]

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.

Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.

The reason that much of this data is ignored in debates is politics, pure politics. It pays to engage in class warfare if you are a politician because it divides voters against each other. When the perception is that only the "rich" will profit from a tax cut, such policies become difficult to sell because those labeled as "rich" tend to be in the minority.

In addition, politicians have a stake in keeping the tax code complex because it allows them to extract campaign donations and favors from people and corporations who derive huge benefits from special tax laws and exemptions in return.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

In 2003, the most recent year we have IRS stats for, the top 10% of all filers, those with an adjusted income of a least $94,900, bore 66 percent of the income tax burden. Here are some other good links.

http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/20040407bb.htm

http://www.e-quadnews.com/index.php/m/arti...%20Tax%20Burden

[kcjenkins]

The fact is, most Democrats and Republicans want to make the bulk of Bush's tax cuts permanent for low- and middle-income Americans, including the family child credit, ending the marriage penalty and the capital-gains-dividend tax reductions. By itself, this could pass both houses tomorrow. Yet the Democrats refuse to let it be voted on by itself. That is the real issue.

[kcjenkins]

And am I the only one who finds these quotes scary?

Hillary Clinton, the likely candidate for the Democrats, said in June 2004, while opposing tax cuts, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

She also declared this past February, "The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them in a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."

I am 63, and I have never before heard a major national candidate for President make even one statement that sounded nearly that Communistic. Have we all forgotten History? Have the many examples of the failure of Communistic societies to work been just written out of our text books, and thus out of the minds of the voters? Are we so eager for the government to give us things for free, that our greed has overtaken our common sense?

[zeke]

yes

[redux]

And am I the only one who finds these quotes scary?

Hillary Clinton, the likely candidate for the Democrats, said in June 2004, while opposing tax cuts, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

She also declared this past February, "The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them in a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."

I am 63, and I have never before heard a major national candidate for President make even one statement that sounded nearly that Communistic. Have we all forgotten History? Have the many examples of the failure of Communistic societies to work been just written out of our text books, and thus out of the minds of the voters? Are we so eager for the government to give us things for free, that our greed has overtaken our common sense?

I agree with Zeke's thoughtful assessment of the greed in this country.

But, you know, To use one of Jimmy Carter's recent assessments of The president, I believe this Congress is the worst in history. Tell me one productive thing they have accomplished. After all the rhetoric during the last election campaign that they would do this or that...they have done exactly ZERO.

With the very limited time Congress actually works in any normal week, plus the vacations and holidays, and with their total obsession with hearings associated with the Bush administration when they are at work, there is simply no time left to conduct the business of the Country. I firmly believe we should be out of Iraq too. It is a no win situation for us there. As soon as we leave, no matter when that is, there will be another dictator take over and we will have accomplished nothing except to have cut short the lives of so many young Americans.

Spend the war money on developing alternative energy sources and create an independent America as far as oil is concerned. But greed is alive an well here in our once great America. Greed has caused us to squander so many of our resources, including our reputation around the world.

I agree that Bush has blown it as a President, he has trouble seeing the forest for the trees. I am totally disappointed with him and his policies. That said, I can't seem to get my mind around what the Dem's think they're going to accomplish with all this beating of the Bush. Their non-productive "occupation" of Capitol Hill has hurt this country nearly as much as Bush and his dangerous policies. In fact it wouldn't surprise me too much if Pelosi (who is actually running the country at this point) put out a hit on Bush and Cheney so she could beat Hildabeast as President.

WOW- Did I say all that....one would think I was upset with the present administration...

[kcjenkins]

I think every sane and alert adult in this country must be upset with both sides by now. I know I am. While I don't agree with all of your points, as I am sure you don't agree with all of mine, we do agree that none of them are really doing what they promised to do if elected. I'm more upset about Bush's immigration stands, and still think it's better to fight the terrorists over there than over here. But it seems to me, Bush is making it easier for them to come on over here than he should be. And the Dem's aren't offering any real options, either. They would rather stand around finding ways to attack Bush and his appointees than to offer some real solutions.

And Pelosi likes to talk about Republican corruption, but she can't see it when it's in her own party. As long as she is protecting Jefferson and such, and demanding bigger planes while she blames pollution on Bush, and blames high gas prices on Bush but blocks every reasonable and currently available domestic energy source, I will choose to ignore her opinions. And I am so sick of these wimps, on both sides, who say, 'we have to come up with alternative fuel sources to replace oil" as their argument against drilling here, whether it be off-shore, Anwar, or other 'protected' sources. Get real. Those things may be developed, but they are not here NOW, and we have to deal with the need now. Clearly anyone with half a brain knows that there are lots of people working on a workable alternative, and as soon as it is invented, we will move in that direction. In the meantime, we should be working on being less dependent on foreign oil.

But us sane people also know that most of the 'hybrid cars' that were pushed so hard turned out to not be much more efficient, or clean, than the normal cars. So we want solutions that work NOW, as well as research for the future. And we see that the so-called 'Green' pols don't want that 'clean' energy to disturb THEIR lifestyles. They want to drive their Hummers and Suburbans, fly their private planes, block wind farms that would interfere with their sailing or intrude into their view, etc. They just don't want the ordinary folk, who can not afford all that, to have a choice. I'm about ready to say "a pox on both their houses", but really, that will not work either, because we have to live with what we elect. So I'm going to look real hard at the choices and then work hard to get my choices elected. I just wish Fred would hurry up and get into the race! :lol:

[redux]

I just wish Fred would hurry up and get into the race!

Fred Flintstone?

By the way KC, is it redundant to say "While I don't agree with all of your points, as I am sure you don't agree with all of mine,"

If you don't agree with all my points...that implies that I don't agree with all your points...doesn't it?

[kcjenkins]

Fred Thompson, I don't think Fred Flintstone is eligible, although I could be wrong on that.

And yes, I guess it is redundant, but what's a little redundancy among friends, Bob?

[Gail in Virginia]

Fred Thompson, I don't think Fred Flintstone is eligible, although I could be wrong on that.

And yes, I guess it is redundant, but what's a little redundancy among friends, Bob?

I really thought you meant Fred Flintstone since he has the only car with a really "green" alternative energy source that I know of! :P

[redux]

Fred Thompson, I don't think Fred Flintstone is eligible, although I could be wrong on that.

And yes, I guess it is redundant, but what's a little redundancy among friends, Bob?

No harm done KC - I'm just pushing your foot. There is certainly nothing wrong with a little redundancy just as there is nothing wrong with saying the same thing twice or more than once. As we all know there are many redundancies such as "free gift;" "close proximity;" "lying about taxes." Some, of course, are more subtle than others.

[OldJack]

>>But, you know, To use one of Jimmy Carter's recent assessments of The president, I believe this Congress is the worst in history. Tell me one productive thing they have accomplished. After all the rhetoric during the last election campaign that they would do this or that...they have done exactly ZERO.<<

I had to read your quote twice as you must not be old enough to remember Jimmy Carter as President. He was pegged by society as the "Do Nothing President". It was not until after he began charity work that he was recognized as doing anything. With charity he has accomplished many things and deserves that credit, but as President.. he should be the last to point a finger at anyone.

I agree totally with KC. Give'em hell KC.

[redux]

>>But, you know, To use one of Jimmy Carter's recent assessments of The president, I believe this Congress is the worst in history. Tell me one productive thing they have accomplished. After all the rhetoric during the last election campaign that they would do this or that...they have done exactly ZERO.<<

I had to read your quote twice as you must not be old enough to remember Jimmy Carter as President. He was pegged by society as the "Do Nothing President". It was not until after he began charity work that he was recognized as doing anything. With charity he has accomplished many things and deserves that credit, but as President.. he should be the last to point a finger at anyone.

I agree totally with KC. Give'em hell KC.

It's amazing how wrong you can be, I remember Carter all to well. If you look closer you'll see that I didn't "quote" Carter...I used a likeness of his statement about Bush in my assessment of this Congress. My statement had NOTHING to do with praise for Carter. I was simply using his latest faux pas in which he publicly criticized Bush and said "he was the worst President in History."

[kcjenkins]

Actually, Bob, he'd have been a better president if he HAD been a Do Nothing, but in fact he did a lot of things, mostly bad things! He elevated the terrorist Arafat,and gave him our protection, he turned Iran from an ally to an enemy, he gave control of the Panama Canal to [indirectly] China, he gave us the highest inflation rate and lowest unemployment [at the same time] in history, he....

Well, enough thinking of the Carter years, it gives me heartburn just remembering. Anyway, I caught your humor in turning his words that way. Glad to see that I am not the only one who saw the irony in the man who really WAS the worst president in the last 70 years, and maybe in History, calling the current president that.

[JohnH]

Carter - what a joke. He should stick to the only thing he's ever done well - sawing & hammering for Habitat. He's spent the intervening years trying to put lipstick on that pig of a presidency he mismanaged, but it just won't work.

The incredible thing to me is that he continues to try and insert himself in international affairs when he single-handedly handed the Islamofascists their permission slip to continue misbehaving during the Iran hostage crisis. He did more to empower their movement that any American who ever lived. The president of the most powerful & prosperous nation on earth puts himself under "house arrest" because a small band of thugs manages to break into our embassy and violate every basic tenet of civlized society. We're still paying for his lack of leadership and will continue to pay for decades.

And we haven't even mentioned his sneaky anti-Semitism, recession, high mortgage rates, gas lines, and famous "malaise" speech, which was actually a pretty good illustration of his sorry leadership skills. He was a whiner when he was in a postion to lead and he continues to be a whiner in trying to rewrite his own history.

[kcjenkins]

Amen to that!

[JohnH]

And I haven't mentioned the worst part - I VOTED FOR HIM!

My only excuse is that I was young, just out of the military, and a bit of a Liberal. Of course, this was a time in my life when I had a big heart and a little brain.

[kcjenkins]

And I haven't mentioned the worst part - I VOTED FOR HIM!

My only excuse is that I was young, just out of the military, and a bit of a Liberal. Of course, this was a time in my life when I had a big heart and a little brain.

Remember the famous quote often attributed to Churchill, although he probably did not say it, it's still a good one. "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."

[JohnH]

Yes, and in hindsight that's my only defense for voting for him.

All the signs of incompetence were there at the time I cast my ballots.

I also like the quote that "a liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet".

[jainen]

I believe this Congress is the worst in history. Tell me one productive thing they have accomplished. After all the rhetoric during the last election campaign that they would do this or that...they have done exactly ZERO.

This is a very strange thread, trying to argue that because the Democrats haven't yet reversed the tax increases that the Republicans scheduled for 2010, somehow that proves it's the Democrats who want higher taxes! And their first budget isn't even due until next October! (The Iraq money and other emergency measures were necessary because the Republicans didn't even bother making ANY budget for this year, not even funding the troops.)

Well, aside from such domestic issues, the Democrats have already made enormous progress on the most pressing issues in the world. In the past five months the Bush administration has totally reversed their diplomatic position about negotiating with Korea, Syria, and Iran. As late as January our Secretary of State was sarcastically refusing such talks--"That's not diplomacy -- that's extortion." Since then they have opened discussions all around the globe, so what changed? The balance of power in the three branches of government, that's what.

[JohnH]

It's neither diplomacy or extortion - it's capitulation.

It may even yield some seeming results for the short-sighted, but in the long run we will pay dearly for this appeasement which is being forced by people willing to sacrifice long-term security for short-term political advantage. Our children & grandchildren may curse this generation for having sold them out if things continue on the path we appear to be taking at the present time.

[SCL]

Our children & grandchildren may curse this generation for having sold them out if things continue on the path we appear to be taking at the present time.

[redux]

This statement will come as no revelation to many of us, but I just feel like saying it.

There are people in our country who insist on sticking their head in the proverbial sand. By doing so, they can somehow justify their refusal to see the obvious. Many of us wish things were different. However, refusing to see the obvious doesn't make their assessment of things different than they really are...after all, they're voicing an opinion with only half the facts.

Sticking one's head in the proverbial sand may be an attempt at hiding and could be akin to refusing to disclose anything about one's self on this and other boards. Sometimes remaining anonymous provides one with the psychological boost needed in order to make reckless claims. Anonymity, it seems, gives some people the impetus they need to make statements containing half truths.

That is not to imply that all persons who don't disclose their stats on this and other boards are hiding something, some people simply want to limit their identities for other reasons and that is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

[redux]

Half truths abound here. Of course, if the Dems retain control in 08, the onus will be on them to do something about the expiring (not scheduled) tax cuts of 2010. And, don't forget to ignore the fact that it was the present administration that implemented the tax cuts to begin with. If I restore and give away 2000 bicycles and then quit doing so...I should be condemed for not continuing, strange logic.

The 2007 budget that was signed into law in February was one negotiated by the NEW Congress. See:

"Domestic Funding Increased Under Approved 2007 Federal Budget

The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy

By: Anne Farris, Roundtable Washington Correspondent

First published: February 20, 2007

After missing a budgetary deadline months ago, Congress last week passed a $464 billion spending bill that included more money for education, housing and health care programs that benefit the people assisted by religious organizations.

The bill, signed into law by President Bush last week after both House and Senate leaders negotiated a final agreement, pulls together nine unfinished spending bills for almost all government operations except homeland security. Government services would have ceased if Congress had not acted last week.

The bill covers spending for fiscal year 2007, which began on October 1. The bill should have been completed months ago. But Congress was at a standstill on its passage, and instead passed a series of continuing resolutions to keep the government running."

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/new...cle.cfm?id=6066