More Revisionist "History"

In today’s Ledger, one Professor Steven Conn (donations: Obama for America, per FEC) purports to defend the miserable failure known as The New Deal, not on its own terms, but on its purported long-term effects. A professor of "public history" – whatever that is – he resorts to revisionist history and, unsurprisingly, draws the conclusions unsupported by fact or logic.

FDR intended the New Deal to end the Great Depression. As the good professor feels compelled to admit, it failed.

Nonetheless, he justifies the enterprise on the grounds that some of its programs – planting trees, repairing roads – benefitted the country in the long run.

But a prudent government does those things anyway, and they have essentially no stimulative effect upon the economy. So a contention that the New Deal succeeded because it did what governments have always done is rather silly.

Respecting the legacy of the New Deal, Prof Conn notes that Republicans, having been burned by their attempts to usher in some sanity respecting Social Security, are no longer pursuing that avenue. True, that. But political popularity does not mean the program is sustainable; it simply means that people like getting checks and resist cuts to their own benefits. Big surprise, that. Heck, even Obama talks about the necessity for entitlement "reform", although, as we have learned, in liberalspeak, "reform" ALWAYS translates as "more", so the outlook is grim.

Obviously not a logician, the prof claims that the expansion of the middle class after WW II, resulted from governmental involvement in the economy and the "social safety net" created by the New Deal. Beep, sorry, wrong answer, but thanks for playing. This logical fallacy goes under the name post hoc ergo propter hoc, giving the New Deal, and government, wholly undeserved credit for prosperity which happened to follow a particular action. Query whether the good professor would accord W and the Patriot Act credit for preventing further terrorist attacks because nothing untoward happened after the passage thereof?

1950's prosperity owed as little to the New Deal as did to (say) to Joe DiMaggio’s 1941 hitting streak. It followed it, but nothing about the massive expansion of government created or nurtured that prosperity.

Conn blames a "devastating downturn" in the early ‘80's on the gutting or non-enforcement of salutary regulations under Ronald Reagan. Er, problem: that downturn started long before Reagan was president. Contrary to Conn’s assertions, the "nasty recession" of the 1990s was most assuredly not caused by a failure to regulate S & L’s, but by the collapse of the real estate bubble, caused by – you guessed it – governmental policy. Or, in that case, the ping-pong governmental policy of hugely favoring real estate through ACRS, included in the 1981 tax legislation, and its summary reversal in the 1986 tax reform act. Pricking the real estate bubble undercut the S & L’s, whose loan portfolios were almost exclusively based on now devalued real estate.

Alas, like most liberals, Conn appears to be leftist first, scholar second. One look no further the Paul Krugman for the preeminent example of a brilliant man so blinded by socialist ideology that he permits it to guide his conclusions rather than following the actual evidence.

Conn contends that the New Deal somehow provided for economic prosperity in the post war era, despite its patent failure to produce said prosperity in the period directly after its commencement in 1930. (Yes, I said 1930, because the policies Hoover adopted were essentially the same as those FDR employed later on) If this effort failed in the 1930's, as it unquestionably did, how is it that it suddenly succeeded after 1945?

Inconveniently for those who support massive governmental spending and economic involvement, socialism always fails, everywhere, every time it’s tried. The most prosperous economic period in the history of mankind occurred not in the 1950's, but after 1980 – in this case because of Reagan’s policies, not simply postdating them. Never have so many people been so wealthy. For Conn, apparently, because not everyone became a millionaire, because the distribution of wealth was not equal, that prosperity can be discounted. Once again, like most liberals, he apparently prefers a system under which all are equally miserable than one in which talent and drive permit some to excel and prosper.

Contrary to the professor’s assertions, wealth and assets were NOT "transferred" from the middle class to the wealthy after the 1980's. Instead, massive new wealth was created, but not equally shared. To which, the correct response is, "so what"? We could, like the socialist paradises of Europe, expropriate massive amounts of wealth from the talented and industrious, and distribute it to their less gifted or less motivated neighbors, but the result would have been that such wealth would never be created in the first instance.

Typically, when the left engages in counterfactual hypotheticals, it assumes the facts it wishes to assume however divorced from reality they might be. "If taxes had not been cut", they lament, "look at all the revenue we’d have to put to better uses than those to which those who actually earned the money put it". Problem: history demonstrates that if taxes remain high, a substantial portion of the wealth leftists wish to expropriate would never have existed.

Consider a simple, oft repeated example: some years ago, a GOP Member of Congress asked the economic gurus employed by the House what the revenue effects would be in we imposed a tax of 100% on all income over $100,000 (or so). "X hundreds of billions in the first year, and Y hundreds of billions in the following years" came the clueless reply. The correct answer? $0. What idiot would work after making the target salary?

So. The premise upon which the left bases its argument – that redistributing wealth will have little effect upon its creation – is patently silly. The New Deal, and its more statist European counterparts, proved conclusively that governmental programs do not produce prosperity. They didn’t work in 1935, they failed in 1978, and they will fail again today. Because government, while very good at destroying wealth and undermining prosperity, never produces either.

Full Employment for Governmental Accountants

While the asserted desire of the Obama administration to make governmental spending more "transparent" is laudable, it will not come without a hefty price tag. Under rules proposed, every recipient of taxpayer cash will be obliged to submit numerous reports.

That means that hordes of governmental bookkeepers, accountants, auditors, and such will be kept busy for the next ... century, writing reports, editing reports, reviewing reports, etc. If the purpose of this proposal was a full employment program for numbers-crunches, it may, perchance, actually succeed.

This nicely parallels governmental bidding requirements. In an effort to ensure a fair and open process, so that someone's brother-in-law doesn't get a leg up, contractual requirements are now so complex and arcane that the process becomes an end in itself, and costs so much that the benefits which might have flowed from truly competitive bidding evanesce. We'd do better, as taxpayers, if whoever needed the work done called a few contractors from the yellow pages and got their best prices.

And I will wage a year’s mortgage payment that six months do not elapse without huge incidences of fraud, waste, and abuse – of the illegal sort – making headlines. Such is the nature of government. Dangle lots of money around and, voila, instant School Construction Crisis.

But the difficulty with this undertaking, as with so many other governmental undertakings, is that which is perfectly legal represents the greatest difficulty. With "prevailing wage" laws, how many tens of billions in taxpayer dollars will be wasted, paying top dollar for projects which could have been undertaken for substantially less? Again, I will wager that, buried in all these bills and regulations are numerous set aside provisions, such that "minority" and women contractors get a certain percentage of the boodle, again inflating costs.

If one tracks the stock market averages, they began their swan dive when the polls showed Obama would win. With each new announcement of ever increasing borrowing and spending, and fearful that he will actually keep his campaign promise to hugely increase taxes, the market plunges further. This represents a massive, impartial vote of no confidence by those with money (many of whom are Democrats) in the "recovery" plan. They might be wrong, of course; it wouldn't be the first time the market predicted incorrectly. But this utter lack of confidence by the investing public in the Adminstration's policies should be sobering.

Couple this with the headlines today that unemployment levels continue to increase, and we arrive at the conclusion that this administration is simply floundering around, ideologically dedicated to increasing the size and scope of government, but without so much as a clue how a real economy actually works.

The problem we face, at this juncture, is not a want of spending, but a lack of confidence in future economic growth. People will not invest and businesses will not expand in the teeth of continued economic uncertainty. Instead of spending money, scattershot, hoping that some of it might actually help (to the extent that the people advocating this spending even care about prosperity rather than simply using this crisis as an excuse to advance an ideological agenda), why not permit those who actually employ people, provide services, and make products to keep more of their money, such that they can retain their employs, cut prices, and invest in production?

When one taxes something, one gets less of it. Subsidize it, and you get more of it. At this point, we’re providing large benefits to those who aren’t working and heavily taxing those who might actually provide work. Only in an Alice-in-Wonderland world does this make sense.

The permanent elimination of federal business taxes would provide a huge boost to the private sector (the "stimulus" program provides money to retain governmental employees, a large number of whom we would probably be better off without). It would not require spending one thin dime; instead, it would let those who actually know how to run a business put their own money to where it will do the most economic good.

In short, the "stimulus" program gets just about everything wrong. It won’t work, because it can’t. The economy will recover – it always does – and the Obamaniacs will claim wholly undeserved credit for that turn around. But while the spending they cemented in place will act as a drag, retarding future growth, and leaving out children with a multi-trillion dollar legacy of debt, it will help the economy recover not one whit.

Not exactly the "change" that most people thought their votes would support. Indeed, it sounds pretty like the irresponsible Bush spending that Obama rarely misses an opportunity to condemn. Despite his rhetoric, Obama simply represents Bush spending on steroids.

Let's Look at Those Links

It becomes truly wearisome to hear the Left aver that governmental spending is preferable, as a stimulant, to tax cuts, because governmental spending will "multiply" through society, as same will be spent, whereas a portion of tax cuts will be saved. (Horrors!!) Taking the time to work through the "evidence" offered for this "stimulus" plans, one finds they all harken back to the same source, and that’s based upon ... well, nothing.

A recent post on Bluejersey takes Congressman Garrett to task for his wholly reasonable and thoughtful analysis of the deficiencies inherent in the fraudulently named "stimulus" package of massive spending increases, about to be endorsed by President Obama.

The authors on Bluejersey often link to the sources of their "information", making it relatively easy to spotlight the patent silliness of their assertions. Consider this passage:

"Someone please tell me how a corporate tax cut or credit will actually create more jobs or help people stay in their homes or deal with the rising costs of pretty much everything. How will corporate tax breaks, as Garrett says, "provide an immediate cash infusion to American families"?. Has this happened over the past 8 years, as corporate tax breaks (if not outright rate cuts) have resulted in less (sic) jobs in the US as more are outsourced overseas and have led to more profits in certain sectors, even as prices have increased for consumers? Garrett not only fails to cite any support for his assertions, but studies have shown that this is simply not true - even if one were to look at the impact on Bush?s tax cuts on jobs in New Jersey. In fact, here is a comparison of the impact of various cuts/spending programs on GDP, and here is another chart that shows the impact a bit differently. And, for good measure, here is a post that cites similar results, using data compiled by John McCain's economist - making this even more credible."

Let’s have some fun, shall we?

What "studies" have shown that tax cuts fail to stimulate the economy? Clink the link and arrive at a press release (authoritative, that) posted on a site called Common Dreams, from an entity called One World, and hailing the release of a "study" by another entity called "United for a Fair Economy". As if one could not predict the result from the entity’s name, it describes itself as follows:

"United for a Fair Economy (UFE) is a national, independent, non-partisan organization, founded in 1994 to raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermines the economy, corrupts democracy, deepens the racial divide, and tears communities apart. UFE supports and helps build social movements for greater equality."

The press release quotes one Gloribell Mota, who, of course, is an economic expert in her role as a "bilingual education expert." One of the author’s holds the office of "Co-director for Responsible Wealth". In other words, an advocacy group with an axe to grind arrived at precisely the result to which its ideology predisposed it. Do tell.

Quick the next link and you arrive at that bastion of impartial journalism: Mother Jones. (At least it wasn’t The Nation.) But give the devil his due: just because a socialist says something doesn’t make it untrue. Maybe they might actually have evidence to support their ideological predisposition, yes? Well, no.

While first citing to "liberal economists" like Paul Krugman (liberal does not begin to describe him), the article than cites to one Mark Zandi, whose name repeatedly appears in leftist writings. Zandi works at Moody’s and released a study averring that spending produces better stimulus than tax cuts, about which more in due course. Mother Jones further cites to a report from the Congressional Research Service, contending that the report demonstrates that GOP assertions "place ideology over good economics".

But, once again, they make the mistake of actually linking to the report, enabling us to follow up their dishonesty. Consider the following gem:

"Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com has estimated multiplier effects for several different policy options. The multiplier estimates the increase in total spending in the economy that would result from a dollar spent on a given policy option. Zandi does not explain how these multipliers were estimated, other than to say that they were calculated using his firm’s macroeconomic model. Therefore, it is difficult to offer a thorough analysis of the estimates. In general, many of the assumptions that would be needed to calculate these estimates are widely disputed (notably, the difference in marginal propensity to consume among different recipients and the size of multipliers in general), and no macroeconomic model has a highly successful track record predicting economic activity." (Emphasis added).

In short, the report almost universally cited by the left in support of its proposition is nothing more than a Keynesian model, which, of course, reflects the assumptions and prejudices of those who designed them. Garbage in, garbage out.

Click the next link and end up at Jon Shure’s old stomping ground, New Jersey Policy Perspective, another impartial source, which contends that the Bush tax cuts fell short of their job creating targets in NJ. The time period measured was July, 2003, through January, 2005, and the assertion: the Bush tax cuts failed to create as many jobs in NJ as promised.

Hmm. Might something have occurred locally which tended to offset federal tax cuts? Does the name Jim McGreevey strike a responsive chord? McGreevey took office in January, 2002, and went on a massive binge of taxing, borrowing, and spending. Government grew at an astonishing pace. McGreevey publicly threatened businesses who dared voice displeasure at his job killing tax increases. But the blame for NJ’s economic malaise rests ... with George Bush and his tax cuts. That must be it.

The next link is, again, to the Zandi chart which, as above, is demonstrated to be nothing more than a Keynsenian pipe dream. The last links are to Daily Kos and Open Left, the sources for which are, again, Zandi.

The conclusion: liberals favor Big Government. Who could have guessed?

Having demonstrated that Zandi bases his entire analysis upon thin air, we arrive back the beginning, and ask the very simple question posed by Congressman Garrett: what real world evidence exists to support the proposition that massive borrowing and spending will yield positive results? Having reviewed all the authority cited by our friendly Bluey, we find the answer is, yet again: NONE.

If our Blue friends want to see how corporate tax cuts assist the economy, take a gander at Ireland. Ireland’s 12.5% corporate rate (1/3 America’s 35%) produced huge prosperity. (Don’t take my word for it; take Thomas Friedman’s.

Put simply, the left offers models; if their assumptions are wrong (and they always are), the model fails to describe reality. Conservatives offer real world examples of what works (low taxes: Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore) and what doesn’t (governmental spending: US, 1930's; Japan, 1990s).

Nothing guarantees economic prosperity at all times; no one has yet been able to repeal the business cycle. As the market is composed of people, and people sometimes act irrationally, bubbles will happen and, when the pop, people will suffer. But there is, quite literally, nothing government can do about that, until it finds away to work irrationality out of the human race. Good luck with that.

So, in the face of "crisis", what to do? Even Krugman admits that the present disaster resulted from too much borrowing and spending. Even Krugman admits that the New Deal did NOTHING to end the Great Depression (although, paradoxically, he believes that failure resulted from too little recklessness rather than too much). Already, Obama, Krugman, and the rest of the left are warning: don’t expect results quickly from the so-called stimulus. But if this will not to produce prompt results, why are we doing it at all, as we know for fact it will not produce long-term prosperity?

The answer? Take those actions which history demonstrates produces the greatest prosperity: cut taxes, cuts governmental spending, encourage and reward savings and investment.

No one can predict when the economy will turn around with any degree of certainty, but one thing is essentially certain. When it happens, the "stimulus" bill will have had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Lear Envy

Sometimes, one wonders if the left is capable of admitting error. Oh, not just the simple "I screwed up" offered by the President when he appointed a tax evader to a high cabinet post, but a "mea culpa" for repeatedly making the same basic, ideologically-driven mistakes.

Liberalism, like Marxism, finds its roots in the belief that government can alter human nature, and in its appeal to baser human emotions, like envy. One might think that, faced with an unbroken record of policy failure, the left might reassess the merits of its philosophy. But, if it did that, it could not longer advocate for Big Government and its entire raison d’etre would vanish. In short, honesty and leftism are mutually exclusive.

The latest target of leftist ire is those benighted corporate executives who DARED travel to DC in corporate jets. (Curiously, the 500 or so big shots who flew such jets into the capital for the inauguration get a pass from the angry left) As a matter of public relations, flying a corporate jet into DC while begging for a governmental handout ranks pretty high on the dumb meter, but let that pass. Assume, for the moment, that every corporation in American, fearful of incurring Barney Frank’s wrath, bags the corporate jet. Who gets hurt?

Righty-o: the not-rich folks who make them, sell them, crew them, and service them. Once again, the left allows envy of rich folks’ toys to hit those who make the toys right between the eyes.

You may recall, during the Clinton Administration, that the left took aim at the rich and their yachts, and, in high dudgeon, fired a fusillade of new taxes on yachtmakers. Now, any reasonably bright ten year-old could predict the consequences, but in their righteous fury, the left aimed a mighty blow against the rich, and struck a knock out blow against boat builders. A few months later, they sheepishly repealed that silly tax, but not until wrecking the livelihood of a lot of not-rich folks.

But do they LEARN?

Leftists see government as an engine designed to "spread the wealth around", as our chief envycrat opined during the late campaign. The difficulty is that a division of said wealth inconsistent with rewarding those with talent and drive, who take risks and devote long hours to earn it the first place, tends inexorably to discourage them from doing so. As NJ demonstrates, a graspy, greedy government succeeds only in driving its most productive folks, and most investment, away.

Now, we’ve taken McGreevey-Corzinism national. The same policies which produced such economic misery in NJ have now come to DC. If the point of those policies is to produce prosperity, any honest leftist would be compelled to admit the futility of that endeavor; they have never worked anywhere before and, therefore, cannot be expected to work now.

Which raises the inevitable question: are there any honest leftists?

Leftists prefer "fairness" – in the sense of offering massive guarantees to every resident (I dare not say "citizen") – over freedom. They believe that the market reward for talent and effort produces unfair results; not everyone can afford (fill in the blank: a home, a college education, health insurance, etc.). And, so, leftists believe government exists to compel the taxpayers to make the distribution of present income "fairer".

Not that such proposals – (say) Pell Grants or Medicaid – aren’t popular among those with little idea of how an economy works. Folks conflate that which should happen with that which must happen. And, then, they’re puzzled when the economy stagnates, jobs go overseas, etc.

Leftists inevitably prevail in the debate when the jury is composed of economic illiterates. While the citizenry can see the direct benefit of a subsidy, they fail to connect the resulting economic collapse to the cause: the high taxes and Big Government necessary to underwrite these nifty sounding programs.

That economy prospers most which is freest. Unlike leftist ideology, for which no real world evidence of efficacy exists, examples abound of how economies respond to freedom. China ditched communism in 1975, embracing a very free economy instead, and, in the next 30 years, saw astonishing growth. Singapore, perhaps the freest economy on the planet, routinely sees growth rates in double digits. Meanwhile, Europe, even further down the socialist path than are we – for the time being – muddles through, with persistently high unemployment and paltry growth.

Interestingly, some of our European friends, belatedly aware of the pitfalls of socialism, are incrementally ditching it. Sweden eliminated its wealth tax and is cutting business taxes. Ireland, which boasts among the lowest business tax rates in the world is, unsurprisingly, repeatedly at the top of the scale for growth.

So, consider an honest discussion of economic policy with the polity:

"We can enact all sorts of social guarantees and pay for them through massive taxation or borrowing which will eventually fall upon your children’s shoulders, but which will certainly result in a moribund economy. You may lose your job, but we’ll make sure you have unemployment insurance and that you get health insurance, even if you have to wait months or years to actually see a physician.

"Alternatively, you can be independent, without any legal claim to what your neighbor earns or owns. If you lose your job, you may have to depend upon your family, friends, neighbors, church, community or charity to muddle through. But the chance of losing your job will be much less. There will be much more work and much greater prosperity. You may see others getting rich because of their particular skills, talents, and efforts. But that does not come at your expense; it’s newly created wealth, not money stolen from you. And we ALL benefit when the economy booms, even if we don’t all benefit equally. As noted above, if someone is flying a corporate jet, someone has to build it, maintain it, and crew it. It’s not hard for government to kill all those jobs in the name of envy; the question presented is why anyone would want to do so.

"If you want egalitarianism, we can all live together in poverty through the simple recourse of confiscating wealth, which will result in no one bothering to produce any. It’s your call."

Unstimulating

Consider this particular gem from The Times, commenting on the agreement by (cough, hack) "Republicans" to support the megabazillion socialist pork package cobbled together by the radical left under the guise of economic "stimulus":

"Mr. Obama also called the two Republicans (Collins (T-Me) and Specter (B-Pa), as well as Senator Olympia J. Snowe (I) of Maine, another Republican expected to support the agreement, to acknowledge that they were acting against pressure from their party and, one official said, to thank them for their patriotism in helping to advance the bill at a critical time."

Ah. So, now it is "patriotic" to bury our kids under a sea of debt to advance the socialist agenda. It’s "patriotic" to support a massive spending plan which will do precisely zip to assist the economy, but quite a bit to cast unprecedented deficits into stone. As Joe Biden said, it's "patriotic" to pay high taxes. Humpty Dumpty, please call your office.

Why, one wonders, don’t these traitors, boobs, and idiots dispense with the deception and get rid of that (R) after their names? I hope the Bushies, who did so much to ensure that Specter got returned to the Senate, when opposed by a sensible Republican in a primary, are happy with their handiwork. All in the name, then, of Party loyalty and unity. A lot of concern he shows for his Party now, eh? It’s sometimes difficult to determine whether it’s more embarrassing to be a Rangers’ fan or a member of a Party with such inept officeholders. The Democrats make no pretense of having any common sense, so one can excuse their behavior. We purport to be sensible, which is why it hurt so much to see an allegedly Republican Congress run amok, an allegedly Republican President spend like a socialist, and, now, these three clowns actually support the indefensible.

What, pray tell, is the least bit "moderate" about some $800 billion in new spending, on top of $700 billion for the "bailout", a hundred billion more for AIG, and the possibility of another $1 trillion lest Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac completely tank? By covering this monstrosity with a veneer of bipartisanship (the real bipartisanship was in the House, where sensible Democrats and every single Republican joined to oppose this horrific proposal) these three folks (and, who knows? Perhaps a few other fools) simply deprive the GOP of the ability to lay the blame for this clunker precisely where it belongs: at the feet of our new President.

The GOP, theoretically, could have blocked this proposal outright, through a filibuster. As horrible as the policy is, they probably should have eschewed this tactic, although it’s a tough call. Instead, they should have given the Dems the one vote they needed for cloture – after cutting the best deal they could to pare it down – then refused to cast a single vote in favor, making it the wholly owned property of the Pelosicrats.

Let them crow about it. Let them run on it. Let them take the blame for its inevitable failure.

Thankful for small blessings. the bill will, at least for the moment, refuse to bail out profligate states like NJ. As The Times notes:

"The biggest cut, roughly $40 billion in aid to states, was likely to spur a fierce fight in negotiations with the House over the final bill. Many states, hit hard by the recession, face wrenching cuts in services and layoffs of public employees as they struggle to comply with laws requiring them to balance their budgets."

Aw, that would be terrible, wouldn’t it? NJ might actually have to reconsider whether it was really a good idea to add 58,000 new folks to the government payroll. If the cut survives, it will force the Democrats here to actually balance the budget without an early Christmas gift. Here’s betting, though, that enough "Republicans" cave to get that particularly odious goodie reinserted into the final product.

Summing up reality:

"We want to stimulate the economy, not mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren by the kind of fiscally profligate spending embodied in this legislation," said Senator John McCain of Arizona, the defeated Republican presidential nominee, who has emerged as a chief opponent of the proposal."

A little late. Where was that determination during the late campaign? But welcome back to the Party (for the time being).

We’re staring down the maw of multi-trillion dollar annual deficits. Obviously, having moved mountains to increase governmental spending and governmental employment, the Dems will not be inclined to cut one solitary verschnagel come budget time (except, of course, from the military). These new spending initiatives will lock in baselines, essentially for all time. (Just TRY to cut Pell grants or unemployment insurance levels back once the needs for "stimulus" evaporates. TRY to eliminate programs to further federalize health care. Ain’t agonna happen. Once people grow accustomed to sponging off their neighbors, they come to feel entitled.)

Why bother electing "Republicans" if, at the end of the day, they act just like socialists, er Democrats? If the people want this sort of idiocy, let them get it by electing True Believers. Let them suffer through negative economic growth, massive tax hikes, inflation, stagnation, and the huge, perpetual unemployment endemic in socialist paradises.

In all likelihood, the economy will rebound somewhat – it always does – and the left, as ever shameless, will take credit for it, despite having absolutely nothing to do with it. (C.f. Bill Clinton) But as we descend further down the road to Euro-socialism, the recovery will prove anemic and temporary. Perhaps not next year or the year after, but unemployment levels will creep up and remain stubbornly high. Inflation will rear its ugly head. Health care, increasingly under federal control, and "free", will be rationed, ala Britain or (say) Oregon (in which expensive life prolonging treatment is denied, but assisted suicide is covered). Taxes will increase markedly, especially on business and "the rich".

But we will all suffer together. No one will be able to escape through dint of talent or drive. So, there will be no gap between rich and poor, because we will ALL be poor. And the left will, finally, be happy, because we will ALL be miserable.

Liberals and Taxes

The problem presented by the various tax difficulties experienced by numerous Obama appointees is not that they couldn’t afford to pay their taxes – each of them was very wealthy and more than capable of paying the taxes they should have paid – but that they attempted to evade taxes they rightfully owed.

Many folks – especially small business owners – occasionally find themselves in financial difficulties and, as a result, find themselves in hock to the IRS or state authorities. That’s understandable. Faced with the choice between paying Uncle Sam or Uncle Jon, and attending to the needs of one’s family, the latter, clearly, come first.

But Tom Daschle made millions over the course of the past two years. Timothy Geithner, presumably, hauled in a fair salary during his employment with the IMF and could not have been so stupid as to fail to understand his tax obligation. (Curiously, media reports indicate he used TurboTax to file his returns). Nancy Killefer failed to pay taxes due on account of her employing a housekeeper which, presumably, most middle class folks cannot afford. (Having served in the Clinton Administration, it’s simply impossible to believe that she hadn’t heard of Zoe Baird or Kimba Wood. In fairness to her, though, the sum was trivial -- less than $300 -- and involved DC unemployment taxes, probably something relatively easy to overlook. Absent information to the contrary, she apparently paid the social security taxes on her employees and made an honest mistake, something that cannot be said of her male counterparts.)

In the case of the two men, a relatively – or outright – rich guy – presumably, a liberal who believes in high taxes – deliberately failed to declare income. This is not merely taking a problematic deduction, or making a late payment of taxes one acknowledges one owes. But for their subsequent appointment to governmental office, it’s clear that these men were outright tax cheats who had no intention whatsoever of paying taxes they owed.

One can easily draw a distinction between an understandable late payment and a deliberate attempt to stiff the government, between an inability to pay and an unwillingness to pay. In each of these cases, liberals attempted to beat the government out of the sums they owed. A conservative who attempted to so anything of the sort would be drawn and quartered.

Recall Bob Torricelli’s memorable lament: "when did we become such an unforgiving people"? It’s not that the people won’t forgive, it’s a question of the offense. If Daschle were a struggling businessman who owed back taxes, the people might understand. (Well, not the left, if said person were a Republican and there was political advantage to be had) But the people tend to be less understanding when a rich liberal, acting like Leona Helmsley, blithely refuses to pay taxes while advocating higher taxes on everyone else.