"We know you think Democrats are gonna raise taxes, but before they do, they'll cut yours."
That's essentially what CBS's Sharyl Attkisson was selling viewers of the November 14 "Evening News" with her story on Rep. Charlie Rangel's plan to reform the alternative minimum tax (AMT).
Attkisson showed Rangel complaining that the AMT soaks the middle class, so it should be reformed and taxes on "the rich" raised. She didn't ask him if that was a bad idea seeing as the AMT began in 1969 as a, well, soak-the-rich tax scheme. Over time it's crept into soaking the middle class, a much more politically unpalatable result of the law of unintended consequences.
Nowhere in her story did Attkisson suggest that Congress needs to rein in spending, nor did she include conservative critics who would remind audiences that Rangel voted for the Clinton tax hikes of 1993, but against the Bush tax cuts of 2001.
You can find my story here.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I happened to catch Rangel f
November 15, 2006 - 15:39 ET by Roger the ShrubberI happened to catch Rangel for a segment on Hannity last night (I was passing by and not a Hannity fan), and Rangel was his usually self. He would not commit to not raising taxes, with "The Praying Mantis" Alan Colmes rushing to Rangel's defense with "The first Bush promised 'no new taxes'" as justification of Rangel not promising to not raise taxes on the middle class.
I wonder when Rangel will start pushing for the draft again?
shrub --rangel
November 15, 2006 - 15:52 ET by misterbillShrub, I usually do not watch H&C either, but, like you. surfing through, I decided to watch for a couple of minutes. Within a minute, I was shouting at the screen, :Damn it you slick, filthy politician, just answer the question asked." Of course, he kept dancing and no answer. I think we should have a law that politicians must answer yes or no to a "yes or no" question. Then they should be allowed to explain. I do not live in Rangel's district. (I wouldn't if given a free residence and no taxes.) I do not even live in his state. He is a lying bag of excrement
Considering big government'
November 15, 2006 - 15:41 ET by sarcasmoConsidering big government's spending levels over my lifetime, I'm not sure how anyone can credibly call inflation an unintended (or unexpected) consequence...
JMR
It's like with the telephon
November 15, 2006 - 15:46 ET by Ken ShepherdIt's like with the telephone tax to fund the Spanish-American War. At that time, telephones were the province of the industrialist class, the very wealthy. Now it's among the most democratic of technologies we have. Heck, there are probably homeless bums who have em, at least prepaid cell phones anyway.
Or like quarterly witholdin
November 15, 2006 - 15:49 ET by sarcasmoOr like quarterly witholding for WW2's "emergency" period only, which has likewise never-ended.
JMR
One must define government
November 15, 2006 - 16:14 ET by JDWOne must define government spending. Think about Mr Reid's new bridge, what it connects, and how such 'projects' justify our tax dollars. What is the general rule for states when they spend under budget? They loose that money and must work at a lower level.
Also, if you recall, last summer the news media attempted to push the lie of inflation on the general public by comparing income to inflation and omitting benefits, home values, market values...
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Blog banner
November 15, 2006 - 16:14 ET by misterbillBanner should read Charlie Rangel Wind Breaker.
He lets out so much empty air. There is no substance to his statements. The artful dodger!!!!
Ken, Chris Matthews painted it as
November 15, 2006 - 16:18 ET by Gary HallKen. Chris Matthews, this morning also painted the repeal of the AMT it as a Democratic party vision - and of course, without any review of the history of the once - tax the richest top few tax that it was intended to be. Indeed, if fully vetted to the left side of the isle, it would receive warm support from the left for it's original intention.
This issue has only been an asset to the Democratic party, in my view, because the MSM continues to help the Democrats use it (in error) solely against the Republicans. My guess is that President Bush and most Republicans would love to see the AMT permanently killed.
The problem being that it is seen as yet another $600-$1Trillion in future tax revenues that would disappear over 10 years - and implicates continnued success of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
The Democrats would, I believe, propose that the way to get rid of the AMT, would be by repealing the Bush tax cuts.
Also, although the AMT was initially dreamed up in the LBJ administration as a way to help pay for the Vietnam War, LBJ was not about to be the guy responsible for it, and let it slip forward. It was actually Richard Nixon who publically pushed it in 1969. The idea was that by generating additonal revenue, by ending loopholes for the very richest, tax relief for the rest of us would be easier to come by.
IRS = American Gestapo
November 15, 2006 - 17:04 ET by LionKingRepealing a portion of the Tax Code is a waste of time. The entire code should be repealed and the IRS eliminated.
If more cases go against the IRS, the Feds will be forced to make a change.
Freedom is not Free
Charlie Rangel, tax-cutter, a
November 15, 2006 - 17:14 ET by Roger the ShrubberCharlie Rangel, tax-cutter, and condom-user.
Taxes
November 15, 2006 - 18:04 ET by iveseenitallYour taxes will now be raised. You and everyone else wil be working a little more each day to feed the Democrats' social agenda. It's socialism at its best ( or worst ). Count on it.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
There you go. You're right
November 16, 2006 - 05:19 ET by Andrew H.There you go. You're right as rain and I don't want to pay the bastards any more--I want to pay much less. Democrats--and more than a few Republicans forget whose money it is. IT'S NOT THEIRS!
Never relent to those who would enslave our life... fight the leftists until death!
When Sean Hannity talks about
November 16, 2006 - 08:49 ET by thepukeWhen Sean Hannity talks about the Democrats' plan of increasing taxes on "the rich," he is always sure to remind listeners that their idea of "the rich" could very well include households making as little as $50-60,000 a year. I hardly think that's "rich" by today's standards... and I would venture to say that most people would agree with me. I think that's why the MSM has to come to the defense of guys like Rangel, and why they refuse to answer any questions regarding their position or the details of their plans.
What that basically means is
November 16, 2006 - 13:59 ET by dscottWhat that basically means is everyone gets a tax hike who currently pays taxes. The poor don't pay federal income taxes, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay no federal income tax and if they qualify, they get EIC which means they get money not pay it. BTW- why would any politician want a tax increase when the budget is almost in balance? The real reason is they plan to hike the social spending in a major way.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
thepuke taxes
November 16, 2006 - 14:06 ET by misterbillPuke, I never really figured out the exact amount, but the tax cuts via the Bush admin has put more dollars in the misterbill bank account to pay the bills. It may be only $60 a month, but it fills the gas tank a couple or three times. It makes me feel more encouraged to buy things. I retired at 73 years of age. I would like to have the money to take care of my family instead of having some government bureaucrat taking and giving it to someone that he (they) deems more deserving.