Friday,
March 25 2005
REPUBLICANS ARE FROM MARS AND DEMOCRATS ARE FROM VENUS:
The other day the Kentucky General Assembly passed (and Republican
Governor Ernie Fletcher signed) a
tax reform package that will drop an estimated 500,000 of
the poorest families in the state off the income tax rolls completely.
The top tax rate is only going to fall by 0.2% and taxes paid
by families making more than $75,000 per year will remain unchanged.
If you think
this sounds like the kind of tax relief "progressives"
would support then you don't understand how they think:
"Overall,
we're very disappointed that the bill is revenue neutral at
a time when Kentucky needs to make some important investments,"
said Heather Roe Mahoney, co-director of the Democracy Resource
Center in Lexington. "Revenue neutral is really
going in reverse."
In other
words, tax cuts are fine as long as 1) they are targeted only
toward the poor and 2) government spending continues to increase.
The bill
also contained a reduction in the corporate income tax designed
to stimulate business investment and job creation in the state,
an idea that struck the aforementioned Ms. Roe Mahoney as totally
foreign: "We just don't buy the argument that tax cuts equal
economic growth." Like I said: Venus.
Not all Democrats
think this way, of course, but as a whole it's fair to say they
suffer from a rather well-deserved reputation as the party eager
to tax and spend more and usually less willing to make tough budget
choices (for reference see newly-elected
Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire).
The GOP exists
at the other end of the ideological universe, opposing tax increases
with a ferocious zero-tolerance policy that often sees them eating
their young. Republican Governors dealing with budget deficits
are usually the victims: if they so much as even think of raising
taxes or fees on anything (other tobacco and alcohol, that is)
they're labeled heretics and apostates.
The names
on the Republican tax-raising blacklist continue to grow: Bob
Riley, Mike Huckabee, Don Sundquist, Bob Taft. Last week Robert
Novak reported that former OMB Director and supply-side darling
Mitch Daniels, now the Governor of Indiana, is under assault from
fiscal conservatives for proposing a one-year, one percent property
tax increase on people making more than $100,000 to help balance
the budget.
Ditto Governor
Bill Owens of Colorado who, after delivering the largest tax
relief package in the state's history, is now fighting to protect
his good tax cutting name for recently agreeing to a referendum
that will ask the people of Colorado to allow for a small tax
increase.
The fact
is, there are only a couple of things that will kill a Republican's
presidential hopes dead in their tracks: one is being seen as
pro-choice and the other is being seen as a tax raiser.
Jeb Bush
and Haley Barbour know this, which is why they have staunchly
refused tax and fee increases of any kind, much
to the chagrin of some Democrats and the media in their respective
states. It's no coincidence that rumors have been swirling about
presidential runs for both of them.
And while
Democrats
who vote for tax increases (or against tax cuts) can still
easily win their party's nomination, the smart ones understand
how broad and powerful the message of tax cuts can be with the
general public. This
guy is one of the smart ones.
THE
WORD OF GOD: Last week at a conference on faith-based
initiatives a nationally recognized elected official told the
crowd that "God has a lot of trust in me."
This is the
sort of religious expression that causes the secular left in this
country to start squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance. We'll
see if it happens this time, given that the
words came out of the mouth of Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic
Governor of Michigan.
HE
SAID IT: "There is no higher priority for our party."
- RNC
Chair Ken Mehlman on helping Rick Santorum win reelection
in 2006. - T. Bevan 8:32 am Link
| Email | Send
to a Friend
Monday
March 21, 2005
HAS CONGRESS LOST ITS WAY?: I'm beginning to wonder.
Consider that in just the past few years we've been treated to
legislation dictating to us what is and what is not to be considered
political speech and what is and what is not to be considered
"decent" and "indecent" material for consumption
over the airwaves.
Last week
we watched members of Congress devote their time and energy to
examining the chemical intake of certain professional athletes
and justifying it under the guise of an archaic anti-trust exemption.
This past
weekend we saw members of Congress, displeased by the ruling of
a Florida state judge, marshall the resources of the federal government
to pass legislation intervening in an individual case involving
the right of a family to make decisions about one of its members.
Understand
this: I feel an enormous sadness for Terri Schiavo and the situation
her family is in. I don't know whether the husband is telling
the truth when he says this is what Terri said she wanted or whether
he really is the monster some have made him out to be.
What I do
know is that it's dismaying to watch members of Congress set a
precedent in this case that is as dangerous as it is offensive.
If people want to use the Schiavo case as the launching pad for
a crusade to change the right-to-die laws in this country, may
God bless them with quick and total success.
But to I
had no idea creating a "culture of life" meant jettisoning
some of the core principles of conservatism like demanding a smaller,
less intrusive federal government. Call me naive, but I thought
it meant using the power of argument and persuasion to change
public opinion (and thus eventually legislation), not writing
and ramming through federal bills on a moment's notice designed
to not only muscle in on, but essentially to take sides in a specific
case dealing with one of the most intimate of family matters.
What happens
if and when the federal judge rules in favor of the husband? What
will our elected leaders do next? How many hundreds of other terribly
tragic circumstances exist in America that our Congress may now
feel empowered and encouraged to examine and perhaps to intervene?
It's only
fair to acknowledge that the Schiavo case is unique, complex,
and deeply emotional. But it's also fair to wonder whether Congress,
in a rush to demonstrate compassion for a person trapped in a
tragic situation, has overstepped its bounds and set what could
end up being a rather disastrous precedent.
TIMELY
FICTION: As I said, I do feel terribly sad for Terri
Schiavo and for the entire family. I think we kid ourselves if
we think making decisions about someone's "quality of life"
isn't well above our mortal pay grade. We simply don't know.
Years ago
I wrote a piece of short fiction on a very similar topic. It was
about a young man who lived a perfectly happy life for years,
only to have it taken away by those who could not possibly have
known that it even existed at all - or how much it meant to the
man.
I don't
have the faintest clue what inspired the idea, but it seems quite
timely now. It was never published (or even edited properly) but
if you're so inclined you can take
five minutes and read it here. - T. Bevan 2:32 pm
Link | Email
| Send
to a Friend
