The Media's Tax-Hike Fixation Is Getting Old
Bored with the Penn State scandal because it didn't implicate any prominent Republicans, the mainstream media have suddenly become obsessed with Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." They are monomaniacally fixated on luring Republicans into raising taxes.
If Democrats could balance the budget tomorrow and quadruple government spending, they'd refuse the deal unless they could also make Republicans break their tax pledge. That is their single-minded goal.
But the media are trying to turn it around and say that it's Republicans who are crazy for refusing to consider raising taxes no matter how much they get in spending cuts.
At Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.
Terrorism can wait -- first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.
Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan's statement in his autobiography, "An American Life," that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted -- implying that today's Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they'd refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.
Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes "in return for (the Democrats') agreement to cut spending by $280 billion," but, Reagan continues, "the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts."
Maybe that's why Republicans won't agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.
For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats' history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans' opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That's why Republicans need to remind them.
From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 -- which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats' subsequent caterwauling -- he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.
You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.
So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes -- though not income taxes -- in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: "The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts."
But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion -- only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.
Meanwhile, Reagan's tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years -- as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.
If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)
But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.
Even the gusher of revenue brought in by Reagan's tax cuts couldn't pay for all the additional spending piled up by double-crossing Democrats -- more than twice as much as Reagan's spending on defense.
Reagan's defense spending crushed the Soviet war machine. What did Tip O'Neill's domestic spending accomplish? (I mean, besides destroying the black family, increasing single motherhood and creating government bureaucracies that can never be eliminated.)
Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later.
Pretending to care about the deficit -- created exclusively by their own profligate spending -- Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a "balanced budget" package with both spending cuts and tax increases.
In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his "read-my-lips, no-new-taxes" campaign pledge.
Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.
The Democrats didn't care: All that mattered was that they had tricked Bush into breaking his tax pledge, which they celebrated all the way to Bush's defeat in the next election.
On CNN's "Crossfire," then-congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., gloated: "All the spin control in the world can't undo the fact that the president is moving away from (no new) taxes."
An article on the front page of The New York Times proclaimed that "with his three words, ('tax revenue increases') Mr. Bush had broken the central promise of his 1988 campaign."
As the next presidential campaign got under way, CNN interviewed a "Reagan Democrat," who said: "Bush says, 'Read my lips.' Remember when he said that? We got taxes anyway. Clinton says, I will raise your taxes because we have to do something about that national debt."
Democrats had effectively taken away the Republican Party's central defining issue -- low taxes -- and the Republicans got nothing in return.
(I take that back: We got a stained blue dress for the Smithsonian. So, an OK trade.)
On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton taunted Bush for breaking his tax pledge, saying, "He promised 15 million new jobs, no new taxes, the environmental president, an education presidency. It was a wonderful speech.
But now we don't have to read his lips; we can read his record."
Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats' record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.
It's been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it's time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these "deals," the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.
- Ann Coulter's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
If the money fell out of the sky it wouldn't matter to me.
Submitted by thestalkinghorse on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 11:07pm.
You just can't make it simple enough for some people to understand: We want the government to be smaller.
So why aren't republicans talking about this
Submitted by Lipton on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 11:25pm.
I spoke with a staffer at my congresswoman's office and brought up the Democrats reneging on their promise to Reagan (something I only learned about recently via THE INTERNET -- not TV news or newspapers), and she (staffer) had no knowledge of it. By the way-- my Congresswoman is very conservative. The most conservative in my state.
I applaud Coulter for this article, but frankly, we need more conservatives beating this drum. I love Coulter, but her voice is not enough to get past the MSM-liberal firewall.
Conservatives need to not
Submitted by ant on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 11:50pm.
Ah, the good old days when we only spoke of billions, rather than trillions. Funny how the amount of money government handles has increased so dramatically but the average citizens wages have not.Conservatives need to not only beat this drum, but keep reminding people that tax hikes are not going to put a golfball size-dent in the debt death spiral the Dems have sole responsibility for.
Do you really believe?
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 4:59am.
Democrats care about spending less? Democrats want to have stuff given them and want to decide who it will be that pays for it. That's the little part left out of Marx's "from those to those" theory -- who gets to decide who is in each group. Nancy Pelosi wants to decide. Harry Reid wants to decide. Barack Obama wants to decide. The American people better hurry up and decide.
Sounds like the old Lucy
Submitted by rockyracoon on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 6:24am.
Sounds like the old Lucy pulling the football away at the last second from Charlie Brown routine. The media know that they have a powerful megaphone, and they're gonna use it like they always have in calling for increases in both taxes and spending. I can only hope that the Republicans don't fall for it yet again.
If ya keep doin what ya did, you'll always get what ya got.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
always remember democrats lie
Submitted by ohio granny on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 9:19am.
republicans should always remember that democrats LIE. They are the party of LIARS. If republicans remember this they will never believe anything any democrat says.
democrat party = party of LIARS, CHEATS, CROOKS AND THUGS.
Repubilcans should look up
Submitted by Bhaal on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 10:21am.
Repubilcans should look up the definition of "is". That may help clear things up.
And just like they did with
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 9:53am.
And just like they did with George H.W. Bush, they will then jump all over those Republicans for breaking their pledge.
HHAHAHA see? you can't trust these guys!!
However, they always excuse themselves for not cutting spending. (It's for the children!!)
Bored with Penn State but seemingly not of football ...
Submitted by ombdz on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 10:01am.
... the left seem to have dusted off their Palin playbook to go after a certain prominent QB ... http://bit.ly/qVdDUt
Grover Norquist is one man
Submitted by Gat New York on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 10:31am.
Grover Norquist is one man with his own ideas. He has no power other than his ideas even though liberals have trying to paint him as the emperor of conservatives. If there were no so-called pledge and no Norquist liberals would find some other excuse.
For liberals facts and history are inconvenient truths to their narratives. If we were to tax all of the 1% at 100% it would still not make a dent in our budget problem now. If the Bush era tax changes were abandoned it would not affect the 1% nearly as much as the small business owners.
Our financial problems are a direct result of lliberal policies and in particular the actions imposed by this President and a liberal Senate and Congress in less than 2 years. the only way out for them is to tax Americans - all Americans - at unprecendented levels in order to compensate for their own failings.
Ann Coulter, I love your steel trap mind!!!
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 12:57pm.
But... you do have to love it though - because D's *always* got the R's to compromise, and then used that to beat them up forever afterwards, the R's are gunshy!!!
As long as they keep their spines straight, and (politely, of course) work in the *why* when they tour the Sunday shows, the right minded, small gov't, what the heck happened to our economy crowd will vote the spineless out!!!
I can't wait!!!
Ronald Reagan
Why oh why
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 4:13pm.
Why don't the Republicans turn the tables and promise the Democrats a future tax increase for immediate spending cuts?
Oh, right. Because unlike the idiot Republicans the Democrats are smart enough to see through that little subterfuge. They may be despicable at times but the Dems are far more accomplished at playing politics.
Meanwhile back in bizzaro world....
Submitted by acumen on Fri, 11/25/2011 - 7:48pm.
Why don't the Republicans turn the tables and promise the Democrats a future tax increase for immediate spending cuts?
Don't beat yourself up over this. Maybe it would help knowing Pelosi struggles with the same moral questions. I think she calls it that conscience thing (or not smart enough if you prefer). But yeah, I'm on board. Politicians just aren't sleazy enough. We really should encourage all of our leaders to be even more deceitful. Then we can all relocate to an occupy site and whine about greed and corruption.
Don't be obtuse
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 2:12pm.
The purpose wouldn't be to make politicians (leaders??) more deceitful. It would be an exercise to expose the deceit of the Democrat party and their false promises.
Everyone knows that if the Republicans offered future tax increases for immediate spending cuts the Democrats would balk, whining and kicking the whole time. Their oft-used "scheme" of empty promises would be exposed for the uninformed to see.
Perhaps I should have included a /sarc tag to make things more clear.