Reader Jack Berens (“Fable and labels” Dec 2), liked Keynesian statistics presented in favor of unequal, taxes for the “rich” in dealing with tax cut extensions (Perspectives, Nov 28). He did not like my borrowed story, scaling distribution of tax burden (measured in trillions of dollars) into accurate but everyday terms, or my use of “Leftist”, “Socialist”, “class warfare”, etc.
I wrote “Taxes in Scale” weeks prior as a stand-alone piece and posted it here with a reference to bourgeoisie. It was selected, edited and re-titled by the editorial board (thank you) for their head-to-head spread along with anti-prosperity writer Brian Setzler. I would have used a different set of arguments for such a debate.
As to Mr. Setzler’s “reasonable, rational and clear reasons”, statistics (as Benjamin Disraeli so pithily explained) can be, and were, conveniently collected and presented to give false impressions.
I found and reported (as a conscientious conservative) my erroneous quote of the “700 billion [not 700 million] increase in debt” claimed by Leftists in opposing fair extension of Bush’s tax cuts. In fact, history and the Laffer Curve show that reasonable, across-the-board lower taxes increase revenue by encouraging robust employment, investment and spending, while singling out “rich” employers and investors for unfair tax burdens reduces revenue, thus increasing the debt. It was just proved again, in Maryland and New York’s “millionaire taxes”.*
Finally, my appellations were used for accuracy, since it is unfair to tar sincere democrats (small ‘d’) and honest liberals (small ‘l’) with the same brush as those that co-opted the DNC (and many Republicans) and now willfully run up disastrous deficit and debt, in violation of the Constitution. Most of the current administration uses “Progressive” to describe themselves, and “Progressive” only means “Progressive Socialist” (kin to Fabian Socialists of Europe). Obama appointee Van Jones prefers “Communist revolutionary”. So, the terms are neither “name calling” nor “meaningless” as Mr. Berens tries to convince readers that don’t watch “Fox News” as he does**.
*Note: a few billionaires (Warren Buffet, George Soros, etc) shout that “the rich" 5% should pay more than the 70% of all taxes that they currently do. However, though the government accepts donations beyond tax code minimums, not one of these "philanthropists" contributes. Their legions of lawyers shelter them from taxes. Each gives to charity, but many “millionaires” give more (far more by percent of income) to charity than any of them. Soros profits from collapsing economies, prepositioning his assets and then triggering the event with a doomsday letter (crushing people dependant on those systems), while Beck and O’Reilly donate over 10% of their income to churches and charity, as well as paying their share of taxes.
**Though the Left keeps a very close watch on outlets like FOX themselves, they prefer that only "politically mature" (dedicated Socialists) do the monitoring, as access to factual information would eventually lead to the "masses" becoming too educated to accept their lies easily. Not that Berens is necessarily a hard Leftist; he may simply be still in denial.
Anti-Trump anger has become a leading issue in Mexico’s presidential election - A growing anti-Trump sentiment in Mexico has fueled the rise of the leftist presidential candidate who polls now show as the frontrunner in Mexico’s upcoming…
24 minutes ago