Posted on 11/30/2010 7:46:09 PM PST by Al B.
In “America By Heart” folks will get a feel for some of my favorite writers and thinkers. One of them is the great economist Thomas Sowell. Some of you may recall that in “Going Rogue” I mentioned Sowell’s famous book “A Conflict of Visions” to explain the way the liberal or “progressive” world view and philosophy differs from the conservative view. Sowell’s articles are always worth reading, and his most recent column is no exception. He reminds us where our attention needs to be during this lame-duck session of Congress. He notes that the Democrats have articulated their tired class warfare argument about “tax cuts for the rich,” but conservatives have still not articulated our proven time-tested argument that tax cuts spur economic growth, which in turn helps everyone from all income levels and increases tax revenue as the economy grows. Sowell reminds us:
“These are not new arguments on either side. They go back more than 80 years. Over that long span of time, there have been many sharp cuts in tax rates under presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. So we don’t need to argue in a vacuum. There is a track record.
“What does that record say? It says, loud and clear, that cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues. In all four of these administrations, of both parties, so-called “tax cuts for the rich” led to increased tax revenues — with people earning high incomes paying not only a larger sum total of tax revenues, but even a higher proportion of all tax revenues.
“Most important of all, these tax-rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.”
But as Sowell later points out, having a proven time-tested policy isn’t enough if we don’t articulate it. We need to remind people that tax cuts help everyone. And we should also remind the Democrats that many of the so-called “rich” they’re dismissing are our small business owners who account for 70% of all job creation in this country. At a time when we need job growth, we should not target job creators with tax hikes. Closing our deficit gap requires us to cut spending, but we also need to spur economic growth. With that in mind, the last thing we should do is hamper our economic innovators and entrepreneurs with excessive taxes, overly burdensome regulation, and more uncertainty. This is not a difficult argument to make. It’s common sense.
- Sarah Palin
"Sarah Palin: The Case for Extending All the Tax Cuts"
returns:
About 1,600,000 results (0.21 seconds)
just since she posted it 10 hours ago.
Sarah got rid of property taxes in Wasilla. It became the fastest growing city in America!
What you said sounds to me like a great argument for eliminating congressional pensions. Don't want them to get too comfortable in office, this way they return to honest work the way the founders intended.
Yes but unlike the DUmmies and those other leftist sites we're not so quick to ban people here.
BTTT
The rino-progressives (Rove, Krauthammer, Nicole Wallace, any of the Bush family, and whoever else) are wrong to the point of being criminal (in spirit if not in deed) when they promote socialism while refusing to recognize Palin’s excellent qualifications for the Oval Office. As seen in Palin’s comments here.
You rinos have no rational argument against her. And yes, you are promoting socialism.
Who would want to be the Captain of the Titanic after the collision?
Damning with faint praise? What a surprise to see you on another Sarah thread.
It’s not just that....
A high school aged Bill Clinton gets his picture with JFK. He spends the rest of his life trying to work his way to the top.
Same thing with Obamba. As a college student, he was asked to write a paper on an influential American. He wrote a paper about himself.
There is something refreshing about a John Boener, who tells his story of owning businesses, working in a bar and “never dreaming” he would be in the position he is today.
And in the last two cases the cuts led to large deficits. Tax cuts are only half the answer. Spending cuts need to go hand-in-hand with them. I notice that Palin didn't talk about that.
Because the issue at hand before the lame-duck session is taxes.
Sarah Palin has talked plenty about cutting spending and you know it.
You mean Reagan used to be Union leader and a Democrat. Palin has always been conservative!
Marvelous! We need to do that nation-wide!!!!!
What I mean is...Some Democrats when Reagan was one, were more conservative than some Republicans are today...so comparing party affiliation now to then is apples to oranges.
Palin was always Conservative!
Ronnie was Pres. of the actors guild or something...not the Teamsters or SEIU. Good grief!
Your comprehension is not.
“Non-Sequitor” is claiming that tax cuts that led to increased revenues “caused” deficits? Speaking of, well, non sequiturs...
That’s well worth the read—I read it sometime in the last couple of months and finished it pretty quickly. Dr. Sowell knows how to nail just about any topic like few others do.
Put Sarah’s new book on my Christmas list—my parents gave me ‘Going Rogue’ last year and then bought themselves a copy because it looked so good. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.