As Hitler said, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true. How many times have you heard from Democrats that George Bush’s tax cuts only benefit the rich? Earlier this year on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, held at Harvard, Democratic VP nominee John Edwards categorically stated that the Bush tax cuts shifted the tax burden from the rich to the poor. This assertion was cheered by the smartest people in the world there at Harvard, and went unchallenged by anyone in the audience or by Chris Matthews. This Democratic shibboleth has been repeated so often that even Republicans seem to have concluded it must be true. Most recently, Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry said in Coopers Union, NY: “Over the last four years taxes have been cut for people making more than $200,000 a year and for Haliburton, but have been increased for middle class taxpayers. The tax burden has been shifted from the rich to the working class.” (CSPAN, 8/24/04).
But is it true? Do the Bush tax cuts primarily benefit the rich? And do they shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor?
I hate to upset the politicians who have been demogogueing this issue by mentioning a few actual facts, but let’s take a look at those tax rates to see who really benefits from the Bush tax cuts. The marginal rate on those in the highest income bracket was reduced from 39% to 37%. The rate on the middle bracket was reduced from 28% to 25%. And the rate on the lowest bracket was reduced from 15% to 10%. The biggest cut in taxes came not for the top bracket, but for working people in the lowest income bracket. While the top bracket received a modest 5% reduction in marginal rates, the lowest bracket received a whopping 33% reduction as a percentage of tax paid. The lowest income earners received more than six times as great a reduction in their burden than the highest bracket as a percentage of tax paid, reducing their taxes fully by one third. This is of course exactly the opposite of what the Demogogoueocrats have been saying. The Democratic candidates have been, well – lying.
Unless, of course, we charitably construe the Democrat mantra about “tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich” the only way it could be construed to make it true. Since the Bush tax cuts clearly benefit all taxpayers, the only way the Democratic complaint about “tax cuts for the rich” can be true is if all taxpayers are rich. Apparently the Democrats believe that anyone who pays taxes must ipso facto be rich. This must be what the Democrats think because anytime anyone ever proposes cutting any taxes a chorus of Democrats is promptly heard moaning about “tax cuts for the rich.” You see? Since the majority of Americans pay taxes, we’re all rich.
But could this strategy backfire for the Democrats? Suppose you’re Joe Sixpack, earning $35,000 a year. You notice that after the Bush tax cuts your tax bill goes down by one third. Then you hear the Democrats intone that the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich. What are you to conclude? Clearly, you must be rich. So, having learned from the Democrats that you’re one of those rich people George Bush is always trying to help, your whole perspective changes. Maybe you should start voting Republican like the other rich people. It won’t belong til millions of newly rich taxpayers making $35,000 a year create the emerging Republican majority. And the Republicans will owe a great debt of gratitude to Kerry and Edwards and the rest of the Dumbocrats.
Serving all of humanity, but mainly serving myself – this is ...
Jim Greenfield