In their never-ending quest to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as they are so apt at doing, the three leading Democratic candidates have now all announced they plan to raise taxes if elected President.
John Edwards wants to raise taxes by approximately $120 billion – and that’s only to give health insurance only to the uninsured.
Today, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have announced they would like to raise taxes by similar amounts. Barack wants to give government health insurance to the uninsured as well (quick, cancel your health insurance in case one of these two guys wins!), and Hillary, as noted below, wants us to become the “we are in this together” society and get the government further into the business of redistributing wealth.
Ever since Walter Mondale announced that he would raise taxes if President, the American people have wisely rejected candidates that will cost them a lot more money. Even Michael Dukakis told the American people he would raise taxes “only as a last resort”… which I suppose puts Hillary, Obama, and Edwards to the left of Dukakis on this issue.
And keep in mind that this $100 billion tax hike is just for one program – and one that won’t even benefit 85% of the American population. Any other increased spending these candidates announce from here on out will require additional tax increases.
2008 should have been a fairly easy year for Democrats to keep control of Congress and win the White House, what with Bush fatigue and party fatigue eating at the Republicans. However, they are doing their darndest to make sure they lose.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
It’s a shame that some of the Republicans can’t do any better. The Heritage Foundation estimates that Bush’s amnesty bill will cost in the TRILLIONS.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
“However, they are doing their darndest to make sure they lose.”
It’s amazing, isn’t it? I have never met anyone who said, “Yes, please, raise my taxes, I don’t pay enough!!!” And I have certainly never met anyone who was excited to hear a political candidate promise to do so.
Makes ya just scratch your head and wonder what’s going through their minds…
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
It’s even better than that, Heavy. Can you imagine how perfect it will be when we have one of these Dems debating Romney after the primaries? You’ll have someone explaining why taxes need to be raised by hundreds of billions to give out free health care, and you’ll have Romney who actually pioneered cheaper universal health care using free markets, no government programs, and no raised taxes.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Good point Murphy.
Can’t wait to see Romney wipe the floor with Hillary. That’ll be a great day. 
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
It’s a shame that some of the Republicans can’t do any better. The Heritage Foundation estimates that Bush’s amnesty bill will cost in the TRILLIONS.
And lets not forget the prescription drug benefit and the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind. But this Amnesty thing is several orders of magnitudes worse. Way worse.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
HeavyM, Murphy, Republius, etc… keep on bashing Rudy and you all shall be granted the above.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I wouldn’t be so quick to write off the public being scared by tax increases…especially if they can be linked to universal health care coverage and if its communicated effectively who will get the tax increases. Fact #1 if you buy the polls 60-65% of americans favor some kind of universal health care coverage, and in recent polling it is issue #2 behind Iraq. Furthermore, IF and thats a big IF it is communicated that it will be paid for by tax increases on the rich, it will receive less criticism because the average american, rightly or wrongly, does not believe the wealthy pay enough in taxes.
Like was said above this will defy trends of Americans voting against tax increases, but I’m not so sure the tax issue holds as much water with the American public anymore, especially since so many can avoid it by taking credits for different things. The rich do vote, but Im not sure they could out vote those in the middle class and lower who could pull the lever for a D on this issue.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
KT, I’m interested in getting the most well rounded candidate who can keep the big tent together, communicate conservative principles to the public, and govern effectively. I have no interest in voting for a candidate who tells 1/3 of the GOP constituency to go pound sand.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I don’t know where to post it, so I’ll post it here…
Is conservatism losing? I don’t mean “compassionate conservatism” or whatever the hell you want to call liberalism with some moral platitudes. I mean the rugged, individualistic, Goldwater conservatism?
Here are the stories I saw on the news within 5 minutes:
~Bush asks for $30,000,000,000 for AIDS relief
~Hillary bashes individualistic, “On your own” society
~Bill Clinton recommended a federal ban on gay marriage
~There are calls in the WSJ or some publication to go ahead and bomb Iran now, and make them comply with “international laws” or some other frogwash.
And that’s just five minutes. Is conservatism (again, not Pat Roberston “conservatism”; I’m talking about Goldwater conservatism, the conservatism of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, etc…classical liberalism) losing?
May 30th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Google Peter Hitchens+Iran and read what you find.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Nusrat, Yes. Evolve or Die works in politics as well as biology.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
What does that mean, econ grad stud?
May 30th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Conservatism, the kind I am talking about, is in line with the natural laws of man. The natural laws of man do not have to evolve.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
econ grad stud, never mind….I just looked at your latest blog entry, and you have no aim in making government smaller…you just want to make it more efficient.
Where have all the goldwater conservatives gone?
May 30th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Nusrat, the conflation of libertarianism and conservatism is misleading.
An ideology that seeks to manage/minimize change is often at odds with an ideology that views private actions as inherently good and public actions as inherently bad.
Goldwater was more of a libertarian than a conservative.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Goldwater called himself a conservative. Are you saying that you are more of a conservative than the modern founder of your movement?
May 30th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
“Goldwater called himself a conservative.”
Not that i disagree with the point being made, but if a politician calls himself something its completely irrelevant. Giuliani reckons he’s conservative. Huckabee reckons hes a fiscal conservative. Et cetera.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
The column said “Even Michael Dukakis told the American people he would raise taxes “only as a last resort”"
This is quite funny actually, cos you forget to mention the key point of the 1988 election. Bush 41 said in response “read my lips, no new taxes”. Then he went back on that pledge. And the rest is history.
–> The important thing is what a politician DOES. Not what he SAYS he will do.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
But my point was that Goldwater was essentially the founder of modern conservatism, yet many people who call themselves conservatives today would disagree strongly with his views and call him a “fringe libertarian.” Much like the way Ron Paul is being treated.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Goldwater supported the New Deal until 1952. He was hardly the founder of modern conservatism.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Source?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
(Wow, i can’t believe you’re implicitly rejecting Goldwater from your ranks. I really can’t believe that the conservative movement has become this liberal)
May 31st, 2007 at 12:52 am
Straight from the Biography- “Barry Goldwater”, Robert Alan Goldberg
In 1952 during his first Senate race, Goldwater said concerning New Deal programs:
“No responsible Republican has any intention or desire to abolish any one of them.”
It’s funny you say the conservative movement has become liberal because in 1996 Goldwater said to Bob Dole;
“We’re the new liberals of the Republican Party,”
Goldwater is the closest thing to a libertarian icon. Reagan was the conservative icon.