White House Throws Principle Out Window (Rush Limbaugh)

Rush Limbaugh ^ | June 10, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

White House Throws Principle Out Window

June 10, 2003

We spent the first hour of Monday's program on the idea that we're going to extend the child tax credit to families that don't pay taxes. Many of you told me that I was making a huge mistake opposing this. If you think you're conservatives, you have a long way to go, because what some of you people were saying is not conservative at all. It's purely political.

However, I have to hand it to you people. You were right in one sense. The White House is leaning on reluctant Republican leaders in the House to act fast on making millions of low-income families (who don't pay taxes) eligible for the 400 dollar per child tax rebates already in the works for middle-income parents. Ari Fleischer said the president's advice to the House Republicans is to pass it, and to send it to him so he can sign it.

The bottom line is the White House wants this and they want it now. They want these people who don't pay taxes to be given the child care exemption of $600 up to $1,000. Principle is out the window, and political calculation is the coin of the realm. Once again illustrating that, but for this program, no one is talking about core conservative principles out there.

by Rush Limbaugh

[jammer]

Okay, you explained your reasoning, which is what I asked. You asked a question. I probably cannot disagree with either of your postulates, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives. So, you think it is good--or politically necessary (as I understand; I don't want to put words in your mouth)--and I disagree strongly. There will be other times for agreements and disagreements.

[supercat]

I probably cannot disagree with either of your postulates, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives.

Well, if you would like to offer alternatives, I'd love to hear them. I don't particularly like the idea of giving money to people who don't pay taxes, but I see such as being the only action consistent with those postulates.

[Consort]

"So, give them a real break - cut sales tax rates."
HUH??! They already DON'T pay income tax.

You don't want to pay a lower sales tax? Why not.

[mikenola]

Not to overreach here, but to say we're "locked into" ever expanding government, is eerily similar to Marx's prediction that capitalism must inevitably and inherently fail. (Hasn't happened yet of course)

One could certainly speculate that as govt expands to consume ever more wealth that the next logical step is for govt to assume the means of production. And we know where that leads.

As I've thought over this, I can see Bush's tax cuts as a fairly logical solution to the dilemma. He's starving the govt out. Since we have deficits now, the dems have two choices , cut spending or raise taxes. Now, which do you think will resonate in 2004?

[irish_lad]

I can't believe you're serious! I agree it is a welfare program pure and simple, but Bush does not need the media bashing Republicans over this. The Republicans can only stand to lose, and it's not a battle worth fighting.

Principles be damned if principles means Democrats gain control of either Congress or the White House.

[StriperSniper]

Once again illustrating that, but for this program, no one is talking about core conservative principles out there.

Most who are, he would describe as 'fringe'.

[TLBSHOW]

I can't believe you're serious!

( What am I thinking? )



I agree it is a welfare program pure and simple,

(Oh you do?)

but Bush does not need the media bashing Republicans over this. The Republicans can only stand to lose, and it's not a battle worth fighting.
Principles be damned if principles means Democrats gain control of either Congress or the White House.

Never happen but anyways you see the bottomline as it is is this......

We don't have to be like liberals and socialist to win in 2004, the bottom line with the voters is who will protect America from the terrorist and that is W and the Republicans. So you will witness a landslide in 2004.

If W stood up and slammed the liberal agenda and socialist ideas and programs the people will cheer him on. If he held back support for them and said why to the American people again they will support him in droves. You see there are really 2 enemies we face its the terrorist and the liberals.

So since we are not trying to become like the terrorist to win we need not become rats to win. We should and can use the rats playbook against them but we do not become them.

[jammer]

Give tax cuts proportionate to the taxes paid, of course. That's generally the way it works.

[jammer]

If you meant by postulate #1 that we give money through EITC or tax "rebates" for 'people who earn nothing' (your words), then I disagree with it. From the standpoint that we cannot let them starve, which I agree with, we have programs for that. I read your words literally.

[Jhoffa_]

If you think you're conservatives, you have a long way to go, because what some of you people were saying is not conservative at all. It's purely political.

A noteworthy distinction..

[F16Fighter]

"You don't want to pay a lower sales tax? Why not."

IMO, ALL taxes should reduced by 75%, but out of principle, EVERYBODY should pay some tax -- even if it mean alienating the traditional Democratic voter base whom the GOP hopes to bribe.

[Technogeeb]

Hmmmm? I don't think that exactly answer my question ... in fact - it has no relation to my question

Sorry; the direct answer to your question ("Can anybody tell me what happens to this "tax credit" when we go to a flat tax or a sales tax...") is "nothing", i.e., it is still in effect or some variation of it is still in effect.

All the proposed sales tax / flat tax plans still involve the bureaucracy, and still have some kind of income redistribution (whether it is called a "rebate" or "refund" or something else) mechanism. Is that a clearer answer, or did I misunderstand your original question?

[Maximum Leader]

I agree, I don't like the idea of mailing out "refundable" tax credits to people who don't pay taxes. The problem is the Feds have two income tax regimes... the income tax and the FICA taxes (it's not an "insurance premium" if the government forces you to pay it).

Since FICA taxes over and above what it takes to pay social security and medicare just go into the general revenue pool, it would make things less complicated if the two systems were combined (incidentally the flat tax keeps the two systems, while a national retail sales tax would eliminate both).

We could eliminate refundable tax credits (and tax credit fraud) by giving a FICA tax deduction for the first, say, $10,000 of income (not sure what the precise threshold would be to be revenue neutral) and then eliminate these tax credits.

[supercat]

If you meant by postulate #1 that we give money through EITC or tax "rebates" for 'people who earn nothing' (your words), then I disagree with it. From the standpoint that we cannot let them starve, which I agree with, we have programs for that. I read your words literally.

Part #1 was referring to welfare programs, not the EITC. Part #2 was referring to the fact that someone who works but doesn't earn a whole lot should end up with more at the end of the day than someone who doesn't work; given the steep phase-outs imposed by welfare programs, something like the EITC is needed to prevent people who work from losing more in welfare benefits than they earn in income.

[kesg]

I still don't get it. Let me ask again: what exactly is "conservative" about opposing a measure that shifts wealth from the individuals who earned it in the first place to the government, who didn't?

[Sandy]

Your question doesn't make any sense. The $400 comes from individuals who earned it and goes to other individuals who didn't earn it. From those with ability to those with need, by force. Conservatives generally are opposed to this sort of thing.

[kesg]

The $400 comes from individuals who earned it and goes to other individuals who didn't earn it. From those with ability to those with need, by force. Conservatives generally are opposed to this sort of thing.

I agree -- if this statement correctly describes what is actually happening. But how is the $400 coming from someone who has earned it and being redistributed to someone who hasn't? I thought that the $400 was merely an increase in the tax credit. That's what I am not following here.

[nunya bidness]

It's always a pleasure to see your name in the latest posts page.

[jla]

Can anybody tell me what happens to this "tax credit" when we go to a flat tax or a sales tax, instead of the current tax system ...??

[Senator Hollings abruptly rises]
"That ish-yooo willbuh di-bated 'n hammer'd out in cuh-mit-tee"

[Sandy]

Look at a tax table. Take for example a married couple with 2 kids and a gross income of $32,000 in 2001. Subtract only the standard deduction of $7850, and subtract $12000 for the 4 exemptions--that's $32,000 minus $7850 minus $12000--and you get a taxable income of $12,150. The tax on that amount is about $1200, and the family gets back all of that $1200--600 bucks for each kid--they paid it, they get it back, no problem. However, should this couple get an additional $400 credit per child? Remember, their total tax liability was only $1200, not $2000. Yet we're going to give them $2000. Where's the extra $800 going to come from? Other taxpayers.