Davis: Walz Wrong to Support Tax Hikes
Davis is a fool. He's pulling the usual election year tax B.S. How will the war and its aftermath be paid for? How will basic services be maintained or created? How will infrastructure be repaired?
I grow weary of this tired pablum from Republicans. Someone has to pay for things. And no privatization is not the answer.
I myself would rather pay in money than blood. Have a publically educated (and not Home Schooled, and have college education available) society. Drive on safe roads. Not have to worry about health care. We don't have this. We won't have this until people move beyond this idiocy of all this stuff comes magically. Taxes pay for these things.
The GOP, of which Davis is a part, also like to confuse 'American families' with 'the rich'. Look deeper into this proposed budget plan, it is non-binding and won't affect tax law. It expires the Bush tax breaks on the upper 5%, capital gains, and a lot of other sources and rates of income most 'American families' don't have.
Overall, the Democrats’ budget plans assume that at least some of Bush’s signature 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (PL 107-16, PL 108-27) will expire as scheduled in 2010. Others that have helped lower- and middle-income taxpayers would be extended but offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere.
Democrats say added revenue from allowing taxes on the wealthy to increase would allow them to boost spending in areas they say have been neglected during the Bush administration, such as infrastructure and education programs.
Davis is just regurgitating the tired GOP party line and mudslinging.
The GOP is the one who is short sighted. Their "tax breaks now" mentality for re-election (or the bullshit Pawlenty's been playing since 2002) mean that someone, both us when we're older and our children and possibly our children's children will be paying for actions taken now. Cutting spending and axing, in what my opinion are important, social services can only get you so far.
I wonder how many have ever used MNCare? Or Medicare. Or served in Iraq or in the service and use VA benefits? The GI Bill? The Pell Grant?
His three talking points have issues.
A taxpayer bill or rights? Sounds awfully short-sighted. What if there is another national emergency? Another war? A new beneficial social initiative? While I applaud the idea of paying down our debt, the idea of returning the money to the taxpayers, which I am assuming in this case to be some kind of rebate, is flawed. That money is better spent paying down more of the debt, or benefiting taxpayers in some form of social service (roads, medicare, social security, education, etc.).
A 2/3 majority for tax increases is idiocy, as is making it Constitutional amendment. This would pretty much guarantee any tax increase would never be passed. Pawlenty plays that game with MN and its hurting us, imagine this on a national scale?
I also find his supporting a 'line item veto' interesting, since Republicans weren't too keen on it when Clinton had it in the 90s. Paradoxically they argued it gave the President too much power.