Marco Rubio

Rubio-Lee's Problematic Tax Plan and the Coming Reformocon Class Warfare

A response to NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru

|

Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Mike Lee released a major tax reform plan last week with the aim of

Rubio.Lee.Cruz
Goat4421 / Foter / CC BY-SA

translating the reform conservative vision into a governing reality. It combines pro-growth tax reforms with allegedly middle class tax relief. But in my morning column at The Week, I point out that the plan is great on pro-growth cuts on corporate taxes and ending the perverse double-taxation of capital gains and dividends, among other things.

However, it goes seriously wrong on the middle-class relief front, even degenerating into a bundle of contradictions. This part has two key features:

One: Collapsing the current seven-tax bracket system with the highest marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent that applies to families over $464,850 into two brackets of 15 percent and 35 percent. Families who make under $150,000 pay the 15 percent rate and those above a whopping 35 percent.

Two: It offers a new refundable $2,500 tax credit (not deduction, mind you) per child on top of the current $1,000 to all families. The argument they offer for this tax credit – shoring up Social Security by boosting the "suppressed fertility" of Americans — is really quite remarkable. (And you really should read the whole column to fully understand why.)

However, the other big problem in their plan concerns middle class tax relief. At best, this relief is uneven and contradictory.

Why? Because many families between $150,000 and $411,500, the vast middle and upper-middle class, especially those without children who can't avail of the child tax credits, will face not a cut — but a three to seven percentage point tax hike. I note:

But that small advantage (of a simple tax code) is eclipsed by its big down side: the sharp 20-point tax cliff that families on the cusp of $150,000 face. This will create a huge disincentive for them to continue their climb up the income ladder, a point that the Heritage Foundation's otherwise laudatory analysis of the tax plan highlights. One might even call it an anti-mobility tax.

Worse, given that usually women are second earners, it's their income that would likely put families over the $150,000 threshold. This means that it's their work that would face the 20 percent surcharge, making this an anti-working-woman tax.

However, National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru, an avowed reformocon and a fan of Rubio-lee, disputes my analysis. He argues:

First: This is not a reasonable definition of the "vast middle and upper middle class." If your household is making more than $150,000 a year, you are in the top 10 percent of American earners. Second: Even within this group, many people would see lower tax bills under the Lee-Rubio plan. That's primarily because married couples currently in the 25 percent tax bracket, with taxable income between roughly $75,000 and $150,000, would pay a 15 percent rate under the plan. Households with higher income than that get the benefit of that tax cut: They would pay lower taxes on the second $75,000 they make. See the illustrative examples given on p. 23 of this document put together by the senators' offices. Using reasonable assumptions about mortgage interest and the like, the document projects that a household making $200,000—and thus in the top 5 percent—would get a tax cut of $12,300 from the plan. That example assumes the household includes two children. Assume the couple has no children, though, and the tax cut would still be $7,300. They don't sound like big losers to me.

Couple of points:

One: Look at the said table and you'll see that this $200,000-making couple would need to have two children and charitable donations of $10,000 before it comes out ahead under the Rubio-Lee schema. Otherwise, they lose—which only proves what I note later in my column that the reformocon point is not middleclass tax relief, but promoting their vision of large, taditional, families (with stay-at-home moms). If so, they should be upfront about their agenda, not hide behind misleading euphemisms.

Two: He claims that my definition of the middle class is too expansive because folks making over $150,000 are not the upper-middle class, but the rich. Many will dispute that. (I could equally plausibly argue that his definition of the rich is too expansive, more expansive even than President Obama's.) But no one will dispute that the real winners under the Rubio-Lee schema are those who make over $411,500 — call them whatever you want, the rich, the super rich, the ultra rich!

Now, this is fine with me because I don't buy the liberal soak-the-rich logic of peace and prosperity, in the first place. However, it makes no sense for the self-appointed champions of the "middle class" to give that cohort relief and go after the one below it (whatever he wants to call it), effectively putting at war the middle class (those making, say, $100,000) and the upper middle class (those making, say, $200,000).

Some reformocons such as Reihan Salam are quite open about the need for launching a new conservative, class warfare. I actually share some of Salam's specific concerns about how upper middle class professionals — doctors, lawyers etc. — create barriers to entry through onerous licensing rules that helps them obtain excess "rents" on their qualifications. However, one doesn't need a vocabulary of class warfare to fix those, much less class-based tax cuts. One needs to double down on one's commitment to markets and competiton. Nick Gillespie wrote a wonderful polemic against the problematic thinking informing Salam's call. But setting that aside, does this new conservative warfare even make sense on political grounds?

The liberal version of class warfare is between the rich and the poor, which has had only limited traction in American politics. The American political landscape is littered with liberal class warriors such as John Edwards (OK – he had other problems, too, but still). It was their corpses that forced Bill Clinton to tone down his rhetoric and become a New Democrat.

Do reformocons seriously believe that the new class warfare between the middleclass and the upper middleclass will fare much better in an upwardly mobile society like America's?  The American dream is based on an expectation of getting ahead, climbing up the income ladder. Declaring war on the upper middleclass, in essence, is like declaring war on the aspirations of the middleclass.

If they seriously believe that this can succeed, all one can do is shake one's head and say good luck (or maybe not)!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

116 responses to “Rubio-Lee's Problematic Tax Plan and the Coming Reformocon Class Warfare

  1. Ok. How would you improve the plan, or offer a better one? A plan other than Team Red Bad, I mean.

    1. Do you make these same comments whenever Reason criticizes a Democratic plan?

      1. I prefer to see a libertarian plan rather than criticisms of Democrat plans, all of which I despise, and of Republican plans which I sometimes despise a little less.

        1. Libertarian plan: 1) Repeal the 16th Amendment. 2) Slash government & impose service fees on any government services that are optional {you wanna passport — pay for it in full}. 3) General consumption tax for anything that’s left.

        2. Ok, it’s just that I only see you make those sort of comments when Team Red is the one being attacked by Reason. I’m sure you can find plenty of Reason articles on tax policy by searching through the archives.

    2. There should just be a flat tax rate on personal income. Zero income tax on corporate profits.

      Of course, this will never happen not because its a bad idea but because it offers no opportunity for influence peddling.

      1. There should just be a flat tax rate on personal income.

        Yeah. Zero. Tax consumption, not income or investments.

        1. So a national sales tax in place of an income tax? Or some sort of VAT scheme?

          1. A national sales tax gets my vote. The government keeps its proctoscope out of my life, consumption is taxed rather than savings and everybody pays something. Get rid of the corporate tax, since corporations only collect taxes, not pay them.

            1. “The government keeps its proctoscope out of my life,”

              Because they only know what you buy? Fail.

              1. They don’t know what you buy. They know what someone sells. Pass.

        2. I think you are right, this will be better. No ability for the government to use force against you. Everyone has skin in the game. The rich will pay more for extravagant consumption if they choose to consume extravagantly.

          1. When they tax your income, then you must report all that information to them. When it’s really none of their business. Not only that, but with tax law they encourage and discourage certain economic activity, which again is none of their business. Taxing income and investment discourages income and investment, which is what makes the economy turn. If there must be taxes to fund government, tax consumption. That way everyone pays, and to a certain degree you have a choice as to whether or not to pay.

            1. Agree, this would be far preferable.

            2. to a certain degree you have a choice as to whether or not to pay.

              I have that now, just go out and stop working and live in a cardboard box.

              Or send the IRS a nice post-card, offering for them to go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.

              I don’t think you have to pay taxes while you’re in a federal penitentiary or buried in a potter’s field.

              1. Or you could spend a week with the pain monster.

              2. “I don’t think you have to pay taxes while you’re in a federal penitentiary ”

                Actually, I think you do.

      2. Of course, this will never happen not because its a bad idea but because it offers no opportunity for influence peddling.

        Why do you hate the children? Don’t you want to boost the “suppressed fertility” of Americans?

        1. ” Don’t you want to boost the “suppressed fertility” of Americans?”

          Hey, I’m doing my part.

        2. And pay for the increased schooling costs, medical bills and student loan writeoffs from all that suppressed fertility? No thanks. And isn’t this just secret code for the War on Women?

          1. The gays have your back on this, CE. Note that in this context gays different from lesbians. Except now that they have the gay marriage you may see a slow change.

      3. Well, I prefer a flat tax rate of 0 percent. Since most people think we need some type of government, how about a flat income tax rate of 10 percent on income and 10 percent on capital gains? That way Warren Buffet will pay as much as his secretary per dollar.

        1. I think sarc is correct when he points out that a tax on a behavior acts as an impediment to that behavior.

          A tax in income is a discouragement to work. A tax on capital gains is a discouragement to investment. Both of these are necessary for a functioning economy. In addition, as sarc correctly points out, these taxes require onerous requirements of proof on pain of force from the government.

          A tax on consumption is a discouragement to consumption, true, but a lack of consumption would mean more saving and investment instead.

          Seems like a win-win, at least for people that actually work for a living.

      4. I’d prefer a flat property tax. It’s much simpler to manage. It doesn’t put a burden on the business sector, and it is nearly impossible to cheat on.

    3. And seriously… where on earth does she get this concept of the middle class? After being called out the first time, she revised her definition so middle class is $100k and upper-middle class is $200k. WTF? Roughly speaking, $100k (household income) is top 20% and $200k is top 5%.

      Is she working from a different set of facts or just out of touch with reality?

      I am not suggesting that someone who makes $150k is “rich” or a good target for raised income taxes. But, they sure as hell aren’t middle class.

      1. It really depends on where you live. In metro-NYC, a two-earner household with $100k in AGI is practically working class.

        1. I’m referring to averages across the US. Makes sense because we’re talking about federal tax rates vs. income. But, because of cost-of-living differences, income doesn’t uniformly dictate social class. For every lower-middle class New Yorker making $100k, there is a filthy rich 1%er making $80k in a place like BFE, Idaho.

          So, yes, socio-economic class depends on both income and COL (plus other things). But, she starts by saying, “… many families between $150,000 and $411,500, the vast middle and upper-middle class.” Unless she is referring to the vast middle and upper-middle class of NYC, SF, and Vail, it’s hard to take her statement seriously.

      2. Depends on where they live. 100K is barely middle class on the coasts.

        1. Depends on where on the coasts. There are still places south of DC where you can do very nicely on less than 100K.

        2. There are places where 100k will buy you two stick-built homes in a nice rural town.

          “Wait a second…” seems an entirely valid response.

      3. Remember, she wrote an article saying open borders is good so people can get nannies for less than minimum wage.

      4. In SF 100k a year is just scraping by if you are working and not on the gubmint handout roll.

    4. Two taxes:

      (1) A tax that is used exclusively to fund all federal transfer programs (SocSec, Medicare, etc.) set annually at a level that will fully fund those programs for that year. Imposed as a payroll tax, no “employer share”, no cap, no exemptions. This will allow a full discussion of the amount of welfare we write every year, as a reduction in that amount will lower the tax, and an increase will raise the tax.

      (2) A national sales tax, applied at a flat rate to every single sale except groceries. Also set at the level necessary to fund government for that year, reset every year. Debt would only be allowed in the event of a national disaster (and solely to fund recovery/rebuilding) or to fund a declared war.

      There. Was that so hard?

    5. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
      http://www.jobfinder247.com

    6. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
      http://www.jobfinder247.com

  2. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  3. how upper middle class professionals ? doctors, lawyers etc. ? create barriers to entry through onerous licensing rules that helps them obtain excess “rents” on their qualifications

    Is it the MDs and JDs that create these rules or the politicians?

    1. The pols probably wouldn’t give a crap if the trade associations were not marketing and lobbying.

  4. I’d like to see charts that show a range of delta’s for a variety of common conditions, single data points don’t cut it for this sort of analysis.

  5. Why in god’s name are all these tax reform plans so complicated? End all deductions for everything. Flat tax for everyone.

    1. But what about disabled vets, and blind people, and… And that’s how it creeps in. You look like a monster if you want to do away with the special deductions for those groups, and before you know it you’re back where we started.

  6. Under this plan, if I were making $149,000 a year I think I would shoot anyone who offered me a raise.

    1. The 35% rate only applies to income over $150,000. Still not a great plan.

    2. Why? The higher rate would only apply to the income over the threshold. You’d keep 85% of your current income, and 65% of your raise.

      1. “Should 5 percent appear too small, be thankful they don’t take it all” — noted liberals.

    3. Apparently I suck at reading. At least on Friday afternoons. Is it drinking time yet?

      1. Isn’t it always?

  7. Me and my wife would be completely fucked by this plan, and we are far from rich.

    1. As Dual-Income Empty Nesters — we’d get fucked in the ass by this.

      1. As an empty-nester, you need something to spice up your love life, this would just be the government’s way of helping.

        1. So, Bob, are you saying we need to peg the tax rate to something?

          1. *snort*

  8. This stuff makes my eyes glaze over, but can I (continue to) assume that single folks making over 75K and living in extremly expensive cities get fucked the most by this plan?

    1. No…but make more and you will.

      1. By my understanding such folks are getting a tax increase & none of the babymaker benefits – and are still paying 40-50% of their income to rent. At least if they were poor they’d get a free apartment or something….

    2. I sometimes think that housing costs should adjust gross income to compensate for this discrepancy, but that creates its own problems.

      So instead of bitching, just find a nice girl and knock her up already. If you’re some kind of godless homo, then I bet your getting screwed is a feature, not a bug.

      1. Hey now…

      2. Yeah, but I’m a top.

        *shrugs*

  9. OT (but tax related): http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax…..fice-.html

    “silently poring over returns”

  10. It doesn’t matter whose math is right. The problem is the entire idea that we owe people favorable tax treatment because they have kids. That is bullshit. We don’t owe anyone favorable tax treatment. Tax everyone the same regardless of their behavior and let things workout however they do.

    The point is to get the government the fuck out of the business of managing society. It is no better to use tax policy to try and get people to have children than it is to get people to invest in solar energy. And why is Rubio so concerned fertility? He is pretty up front in his opinion that immigrants are superior to natives and his desire to replace the native population with a superior immigrant one. So why the hell does he want to give natives who breed a tax break?

    1. Blame the lobbying of Big Diaper.

    2. He is pretty up front in his opinion that immigrants are superior to natives and his desire to replace the native population with a superior immigrant one

      You miss Bo already?

      1. Is he gone? OPLZOPLZOPLZOPLZ

        1. I doubt it but his absence today is pleasantly refreshing.

      2. In fairness, I was merely giving Jeb Bush’s opinion. Given Rubio’s history on the issue, I think it is safe to assume he shares it.

    3. I tried to explain to someone one time that if you killed the mortgage interest deduction the price of houses and the rate of interest would fall because market demand would drive them lower. This deduction is really a subsidy to builders and bankers.

      1. and state and local governments.

    4. “The point is to get the government the fuck out of the business of managing society.”

      Yes.

    5. While I’d like to agree with you, at the same time, we need people having kids.

  11. Families who make under $150,000 pay the 15 percent rate and those above a whopping 35 percent.

    “Congratulations, you got a promotion! You’re now making $151,000!”
    “Noooo!!!”

    “… say, how about you save any promotions or bonuses for me in a separate account. I’ll give you a nice cut. Then I can use the company card to charge purchases against it”

    1. Unless… I’m reading that wrong. It’s got to be 35 percent only on the portion above ($1,000 in my example)

  12. Fuck all the rest of you. GIMME THAT FREE BABY MONEY

    1. I don’t think you understand. The “baby money” can’t be used to buy babies to start your own army. I’ve tried.

      1. Of course it can, sillyhead. Money is fungible.

        1. And children are easily trained.

          1. And if you have rape dungeon, they’re fairly easy to make.

        2. No, it’s the babies that are fungible.

          1. Does this mean they can be sauteed with mushrooms?

            1. No way, babies are better braised.

            2. Baby oil is a marinade and a cooking sauce.

  13. Yeah but people making 150K-400K are all lawyers and govt managers and union leaders — you know, Democrats.

    1. Hey!

      Oh, you set the top of the range at $400K. Never mind.

  14. “The argument they offer for this tax credit ? shoring up Social Security by boosting the “suppressed fertility” of Americans ? is really quite remarkable.”

    If that’s what it takes to improve the double taxation problem, I really don’t care about the justification.

    And we’re not talking about sending each of those people a $2,500 check for every child they pop out.

    Isn’t it just letting them keep more of their own damn money?

    Let the progressives talk about the money Americans earn as if it already belongs to them. We’ll be the weirdos that think people should be free to keep more of the money they earn.

    And if the progressives want to send more of the money they earn to the IRS, they’ll still be perfectly free to do so.

    1. ” And we’re not talking about sending each of those people a $2,500 check for every child they pop out.”

      Sometimes that’s exactly what it is. It’s not a tax deduction, it’s a refundable credit. So, if you have two kids and paid $4,000 in taxes you’d get $1000 from the feds.

      1. To be clear someone who had two kids and likely hac $4K in taxes taken out, likely falls square into the EITC territory, which means with deductions and what-not they likely get most of their taxes returned to them and then up to $5.4K more as a tax credit.

        So really, about $10,000 from the feds.

  15. “Do reformocons seriously believe that the new class warfare between the middleclass and the upper middleclass will fare much better in an upwardly mobile society like America’s?”

    They don’t give a shit as long as they get re-elected. I hate to be so cynical but I don’t understand how anything these clowns say warrants serious analysis. It’s nothing but a continuous pep rally for mouth breathers.

    1. They don’t give a shit as long as they get re-elected

      Why, yes, that is 100% correct.

      I hate to be so cynical

      Embrace it for this way lies the Truth

  16. ITT: People who don’t understand how marginal tax rates work. A better percentage than the American populace as a whole though.

    There are only a few people who get hurt by this (not saying that it is a good thing). But the people making $150k-$250k will benefit from the cut to capital gains and dividends. Plus the cut in corporate taxes should, in theory, increase wages, so people will win on that front too.

    I agree with others. A flat tax would be ideal. If not, perhaps 15% then 25% rather than 35%.

    1. But the people making $150k-$250k will benefit from the cut to capital gains and dividends.

      No they won’t. Most people in that income range are just two income couples who don’t have children. people who would actually benefit from cutting capital gains and dividends are people whose income largely comes from those things and that is going to be people making much more money than that.

      1. I make less than $150k and would benefit from the capital gains cut. Maybe people making $150k+ should be saving and investing more.

        I frankly don’t care if you don’t, but our current tax code doesn’t incentivize you to do so. By removing the tax, you decrease the disincentive, and hopefully more people would take advantage of it.

        1. There is more to saving and investing than capital gains and dividends. The ans

    2. The trouble with any income tax is that the government gets to scrutinize your life and pass out favors and punishments by deductions and prejudicial treatment of certain types of income.

      A sales tax would certainly end up rewarding and punishing with different rates for different products but at least we the all seeing eye is out of our individual financial lives.

      We could still have means tested benefits. If you want the benefit, show Uncle Snoop all the information needed to prove you’re qualified. If you don’t want the benefits, you’re left alone.

      1. Thev bonly good thing about replacing income tax with a consumption tax would be the lulz watching people freak out as the government takes the big one-time cut from tax deferred retirement savings. I’m sure the government would appreciate the windfall.

        1. What one time windfall? You mean the way the government takes a cut from your tax deferred 401k/403b when you start withdrawing? The only savings losers are those with Roth’s and there can be a one-time offset at the time of implementation.

          Yeah, thanks for playing.

  17. From the other column: “Moreover, thanks to public schooling, parents already receive a huge subsidy from childless Americans.”

    Someone hasn’t looked at LAUSD lately if she thinks free access to it is “a huge subsidy.”

    1. Well it’s certainly an expensive subsidy. Just not valuable.

      1. True. And while it’s public, I wouldn’t call it schooling.

        1. Someone here, a while back, suggested it be called ‘gov’t schooling’ rather than ‘public schooling’. I think that’s a better label and I’ve been using it ever since.

          1. Oh, and the proggies pick up on that immediately and start shrieking about libertarians and teabaggers. So, yeah, if you’re preaching to the choir, but avoid that when posting in a general forum without tipping your hand. Many individual libertarian ideas are extremely palatable to the public if they are pitched properly.

  18. It’s cute that the republicans think that the media will allow any tax plan they come up will see the light of day.

  19. One: Look at the said table and you’ll see that this $200,000-making couple would need to have two children and charitable donations of $10,000 before it comes out ahead under the Rubio-Lee schema. Otherwise, they lose

    No, that’s the point they come out $12,300 ahead.

    Two: He claims that my definition of the middle class is too expansive because folks making over $150,000 are not the upper-middle class, but the rich.

    No, he disputes that “vast” is an accurate description of 10%. One clue is the definition of vast. Another clue is that he never uses the word “rich.”

  20. So the Republican plan is to take away my itemized deductions, reduce the standard deduction by 33%, and hike my tax rate 3% so they can afford tax cuts for people making way more than me already…

  21. Goddammit! Even when I want to agree with Shikha, she’s a moron. Ponnuru’s closer to the truth, but he’s still functionally retarded. Can no one even use a fucking spreadsheet?!

    OK, it took me 20min to generate a table of comparisons. I’m only interested in final AGI (all deductions included). What do we see?

    Biggest losers are lowest (net) incomes because the lowest marginal rate is increased from 10% to 15%. The net increase in taxes falls from 50% (10% to 15%) to breakeven at about $85k. The biggest winners are those earning ~$150k. Again, not a surprise because their marginal rate goes from 25% to 15% just prior to hitting $150k. Then the benefit starts falling off again until it’s a net loss (higher taxes) at about $300k. This continues until about $505k at which point it turns beneficial again and asymptotically approaches an 11.6% ((39.6-35%)/39.6%) cut for incomes much much greater than $450k.

    What she gets right is that a marginal rate of 35% is STILL bullshit, but, fuck, do a LITTLE homework.

    p.s. Yes, I dislike this plan and strongly, strongly, strongly prefer a progressive consumption tax.

    1. Ponnuru at least has the excuse of being a General Purpose Bloviator. Reason actually gives Shikha money to be an “analyst.”

  22. “a progressive consumption tax”

    How would that work – the govt keep track of your annual spending levels? Or report all your assets at 1/1 plus income less assets at 12/31 factoring in unrealized losses and gains all year?
    Pretty complicated, no?

    1. Or you could use your head.

      You get a progressive consumption tax by giving everyone a monthly prebate up to whatever level you desire to set. Typically it’s set so that if you spend at the poverty level you pay no net tax. You asymptotically approach the ultimate consumption tax rate the more you spend.

      Really the only risk in this scheme is for deaths failing to be cataloged, But that’s an even bigger problem with entitlements themselves.

      Pretty simple, no?

      1. giving everyone a monthly prebate

        GOVERNMENT CHECKS FOR ALL !

        1. And taxes from all. Thanks for playing.

      2. You get a progressive consumption tax by giving everyone a monthly prebate

        I believe I see a new opportunity for exceptions, complications, vote-buying, and social engineering.

        How, in practice, would this monthly check from the government not be universal welfare, subject to constant vote-buying expansions and the subsequent ruinous debt?

        1. The only tax plan worse than the Fair Tax (as written) would be what actually passes as the “Fair Tax”. I’m convinced it is nothing but a stalking horse for a VAT.

          1. A nice retarded statement. It’s more transparent and much simpler. Any tax can be corrupted. And if you’re in the property tax camp you have exactly the same problem along with some others such as the fact that it’s a wealth tax.

        2. That is true of EVERY tax out there. A consumption tax is more transparent and harder (not impossible) to target.

  23. I am so tired of people with children having to pay a lot less tax than single people. We all work and pay tax and I need my money as much as the married people and a lot of them have two incomes. It just make no sense to me and angers me. Paying married people to have children has not worked , hence the flow of immigrants.

  24. Wouldn’t it be better if government treated everyone as individuals, rather than playing favorites if they are married or have kids? What’s wrong with taxing individuals for their individual income, regardless if they are married or not? Anything else is social engineering and playing favorites.

    Social conservatives (Cruz and Rubio qualify) will argue that it’s in government’s interest to ensure there are future generations. Which is stupid if you think about it, because most people want children regardless. They might as well say it’s in government’s interest to have dairy price supports, the Import/Export bank, and every other vote buying/campaign cash generating scheme. If you’re going to subsidize children, why not food, shelter, clothing, health care and everything else?

    Government’s purpose isn’t to subsidize what we want, it’s to protect our lives, property, liberty and freedom to pursue our own happiness. Not to tax some for the benefit of others.

    Dalia should see this simple argument. Perhaps she hasn’t been thinking as a libertarian for 40 years as I have. Hopefully she’ll think about this more.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.