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

[snopercod]

At least W is smart enough to not give the socialist bastard Democrats an issue to hit him over the head with.

You assume that the RATS are rational and will change their minds when the republicans hand them what they want like they always eventually seem do do. They're wrong, and you're wrong.

republicans (lower case intentional) always expect that if they are "nice" to the "evil party" and their media lap-dogs, that those enemies will somehow "like" them and re-elect them. It has never worked, and never will work, because it is impossible to win a philosophical battle by agreeing with the premises of your opponent.

All it does is drive us non-statists away from the stupid party.

[jammer]

You're right.

[billbears]

And he isn't doing well at earning mine again (CFR, AWB, Patriot Act...)

Oh, come on!! We can't be concerned with, how do the 'conservatives' say it, one issue voters...It's all a big plan, a big plan of what I have no idea.

[Mudbug]

I'm not familiar with Lincoln's voting record, but personally do not support a refundable child credit (or any child credit for that matter). But if the argument in favor is payroll tax relief, it's disingenuous, imho.

[GSWarrior]

Rush has how many tune in each day for the truth?

Good question. Inspite of Rush's large audience, I think many of us(myself included) sometimes forget it's a very small number of Americans who actually listen to talk radio. Just because Rush said it doesn't mean that his views are sweeping the nation. Unfortunately.

[jammer]

Another point to consider is that programs like this tend to encourage people to seek employment rather than sitting around collecting welfare for doing nothing.

I am interested in the train of thought that derived that conclusion. Are you talking about the rebate to non-taxpayers? Please explain.

[clintonh8r]

Yeah it's stupid politics all right...because it betrays W's base while attempting to buy votes from people who won't vote for him anyway. Don't pay taxes? Then no tax cut and no welfare-state child tax credit either! What's so complicated about that? It's an INCOME TAX (not sales tax...not FICA...not excise tax...not import duty...not a user tax...) cut...if you don't PAY INCOME TAXES how can you get an INCOME TAX CUT?

Otherwise, call it what it is, please,....welfare state income/wealth redistribution.

[jammer]

Oh, my. First, we aren't "denying" them a damned thing--they never had it. If I don't move out of my home and give it to the homeless, am I "denying" them? We still at least pay lip service to private ownership--which is what my tax money is until the government takes it.

[jammer]

Everyone who would benefit from this is not a welfare sucker...lots of rural single income families (ie Republicans) would benefit.

In the long term, NO ONE benefits from redistribution of wealth. That issue has been settled long ago by people much more educated than you or I.

[cardinal4]

The liquor stores are gonna love this.

And in turn so will the economy. Cmon people, politics have to be about compromise sometimes. I dont like the two compromises proposed by the WH,(Roadmap)but we cant have evrything. Give the money to the poor this time, it will get spent at the liquor store and walmart, so thats good for the economy. As for the roadmap, the Arabs cant handle the responsibility, it will fail. And Bush and co will say we tried, and turn it over to Sharon. But to not vote for Bush, or not vote at all, or worse for one one the clowns on the other team in addition to being childish, is just plain assinine. Can you imagine Breck-girl in charge? How about Ketchup boy?

[clintonh8r]

Of course I'll still vote for Bush, but I resent that my vote is taken for granted. I was invited to a $2000/plate fundraiser later this month. I'll go, because my tax cut will cover it many times over. Still, I feel we're taken for granted by the WH, and that they can get away with stuff like this give-away. The sad irony is that it won't gain W any significant number of votes among those who will benefit from it. Plus, the RATs will take (and get) credit for it!

[F16Fighter]

"Denying them the $400 is mean spirited and stupid politics...Its easy for people who dont have to win a national election to run around talking about who is a 'conservative'."

"Mean spirited"?? It's UNFAIR to America's taxpayers who pocketbooks actually foot the bill -- it's NOT the confiscatory U.S. Government's money TO BEGIN WITH.

Moreover, if winning an election in the United States of America is now ALL about buying votes, we are finished -- and PRINCIPLE BE DAMNED.

During the next Presidential election how much more will our 'Parliament of Whores' be "offering" for votes? $500? $1000?

We may as well get it over and replace the Stars and Stripes with fifty Hammer and Sickles with orange and red stripes...

RUSH is indeed calling it LIKE IT IS.

[plain talk]

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 ...??

You mean when bats fly out my arse. I won't care then.

[cardinal4]

I understand your frustration, but politics are about compromise in some situations. Thats just my opinion.

[supercat]

I am interested in the train of thought that derived that conclusion. Are you talking about the rebate to non-taxpayers? Please explain.

The credits people are talking about are paid to people who work and earn money, but whose earnings are below a certain threshhold. Up to a certain point (which is below that threshhold), the amount paid out via this credit increases with each dollar earned; between that point and the cutoff threshhold, it decreases.

I guess one way to look at the argument for these credits is to look at a graph of earned-income versus money-in-pocket (the latter being earned-income minus taxes plus government payouts). In the rough [not to scale] graph at the right, the black line represents a 1:1 relationship between income and money-in-pocket (i.e. no taxes and no welfare). The blue line represents a system with taxes but no welfare. The red line represents the net system without the EITC (each dollar earned causes the loss of more than a dollar of welfare and other benefits). The green line represents the effect of the EITC.

While one might well argue that the starting point of the red and green lines is too high for families with many children, I think it not unreasonable that the function of money-in-pocket versus income-earned should be monotonic.

[Beck_isright]

Worse. WE, the real conservative/libertarian VRWC have elected a right wing version of bubba. And what is really terrifying is that we are turning a blind eye to the "Patriot Acts" not realizing what would happen to our civil liberties if another President Clinton OR if a President Boxer were ever elected. Be scared people. Principle is for sale. Nothing has changed.

[Gary Boldwater]

I must agree. What ever happened to reducing the size of government or extending freedom or defending the Constitution?
Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.

[Beck_isright]

"How can is be a tax "rebate" when no taxes were paid in the first place? It's WELFARE. Socialism."

You mean like sending $15 B to the largest socialist organization, the UN, for an "AIDS" program for Africa, instead on insuring that our men and women serving in the service don't have to draw food stamps if they elect to have a family?

[supercat]

An additional comment: in many ways, it would be good if the green line were as nearly-parallel the black line as possible, since a significant difference in slope would corresponds to a high effective marginal tax rate. Unfortunately, this has the side-effect of pushing the intercept between the green and black lines way to the right. Not sure what the best solution to that is, except perhaps to reduce the baseline welfare payments for people who should be able to work but don't.

[Beck_isright]

"I think it's pure welfare. But at least it gets the money out of Washington. The liquor stores are gonna love this."

No it doesn't. The massive sow distributes the money. It does nothing of the sort. It's communism, or income redistribution, pure and simple. W has 6 months to change my mind. I'm on the sidelines as of now.