Perusing Instapundit I came across this from Hilary Clinton:
Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Every libertarian should already know this is how the political class thinks. What's remarkable is she came out and said it, and in very precise words.
She might as well say, "We know what is best for everyone. The ends justify the means. Any abuse is justified as long as we deem it benefits the common good."
It made you giggle, though, didn't it?
What is scarier than the rhetoric is that there is a large percentage of Americans who believe she would be a swell president. I got into an argument a while back with a coworker who thought she should be president.
I'm not sure. I almost find the candor refreshing. She says that there's a gap and that her recommendation is to fill it with a tax increase. This way, you know what she's about, and can take it or leave it.
Bush, on the other hand, said "This is your money, so I'm giving it back to you" and then took out a huge loan in our name and gave us a little of that instead, while increasing spending and deficits. No fiscal responsibility, and a pretend tax cut.
I'm waiting for the politicians to say "This is your money, so we're going to be responsible and cut spending so we don't have to use as much of it."
I commend her for her straight-forward honesty. I found it very odd that "Sharkey" at Sgt. Stryker's quoted the same quote, and condemned Clinton for her "dishonesty." I asked him what he meant, because I found that baffling.
What I find odd, however, is condemning Clinton, or Democrats, for supporting the income tax, without equally condemning President Bush, the Republican leadership, or any Republican, particularly those in Congress, who doesn't support, and put forth, and work for, a bill to abolish the income tax. Either it's wrong, or it isn't, or we're just quibbling over the details of percentage points (unsurprisingly, I'm with the latter two positions, but since you're with the first, I don't understand the differentiation).
I'd be curious what you think of this
this, by the way.
"She might as well say, 'We know what is best for everyone. The ends justify the means. Any abuse is justified as long as we deem it benefits the common good.'"
Another, less dramatic, but more accurate, way of putting that, by the way, would be "every administration that has not abolished the income tax has been elected, as have most Congressional representatives. There is therefore no reason to believe that the income tax, per se, and much federal spending, does not have majority support."
Your personal opinions on personal autonomy and the lack of justice in the government or majority of citizenry to compel you to cooperate via means of law are, of course, completely valid as personal opinions. I hold many minority opinions myself.
Bush, on the other hand, said "This is your money, so I'm giving it back to you" and then took out a huge loan in our name and gave us a little of that instead, while increasing spending and deficits. No fiscal responsibility, and a pretend tax cut.
good!!!