A Tax-and-Spend Orgy

National Review Online ^ | September 25, 2007 | Grover G. Norquist

[Delacon]

Congressional Democrats are attempting to make a down-payment on HillaryCare 2.0.

Every time Congress spends new money on a government program it adds to the bill that taxpayers must pay. The taxpayer is the “forgotten man” who never gets mentioned when Congress pats itself on the back for adding to the federal-spending leviathan.

Such is the case once again this week on Capitol Hill. Going against their promises to be “new Democrats,” the Democrat congressional majority will attempt to raise taxes and spending, all to make a down-payment on HillaryCare 2.0. The socialized medicine bill they will pass this week increases cigarette taxes by $0.91 per pack, while enrolling 25-year old “children” and adults from households making up to $82,000 per year.

Thankfully, the president has said strongly that he will veto this tax-and-spending increase.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, every man, woman, and child in the U.S. will owe $8,590 in taxes this year alone. Considering everyone’s share of the economy is only $45,737, that’s quite a tax bite. All told, nearly one out of every five dollars our economy produces each year gets sucked into federal tax coffers. Throw in state and local taxes, and it is one dollar out of every three. Going forward, the pressures that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will force on taxpayers will undoubtedly make that figure rise. Some estimate that half of national income will go toward paying taxes, and most of it for these entitlement programs. One would think that Congress wouldn’t create a brand new entitlement program to add to this burden. But such thinking would be wrong.

At a time when the forgotten man’s tax burden is again approaching record levels, Congress is looking to sign adults making $82,000 per year onto the government health-care rolls. This is particularly ridiculous when one considers the fact that S-CHIP, the program Congress is trying to expand, hasn’t yet even fulfilled its original, limited mission (which is to give health insurance to children in households with incomes less than double the poverty line).

S-CHIP was started by the Republican Congress in 1997 as the price taxpayers had to pay for getting President Clinton to sign a bill that cut the capital-gains tax to 20 percent. If the original intent of S-CHIP (enrolling low-income children) had remained in place, it would have been a good deal for taxpayers. States receive a set block grant each year, and have to make due. But states enrolled low-income kids in the millions and then killed the golden goose. They tried to enroll children from higher- and higher-income households, and then their parents. Not surprisingly, some of the most “generous” states (“generous” with the forgotten man’s tax dollars, that is) ran out of money.

So now we have Congress riding to the rescue. Only in Washington can a failure to properly manage a program be rewarded with more tax dollars.

President Bush has been very strong in calling to restrain the S-CHIP program to its limited, original intent, but his hands aren’t entirely clean, either. In order for states to expand their S-CHIP programs to insure post-pubescent children (what you might call “adults”), the feds had to give their consent. And President Bush’s secretaries of Health and Human Services granted waiver after waiver to states to expand S-CHIP. Some of this, then, is the chickens coming home to roost. In fairness, though, current HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt has announced that no further waivers will be granted until states can demonstrate they have fulfilled the original S-CHIP mission.

This current fight on S-CHIP is the first act of a three-act play. In Act I, Congress bloats S-CHIP spending and fleeces taxpayers to pay for it. In Act II, President Bush vetoes this down-payment on HillaryCare 2.0, and sends it back to the Hill. In Act III, Congress and the president come to some accommodation. That may involve a smaller expansion, but the most likely outcome is the can is kicked to 2009 and a new administration. The current fight might be compared to the “phony war” that preceded World War II: We’re using real bullets, but the host of armies has not yet gathered on the battlefield.

Either way, the news is bad for taxpayers. Congress, in flipping Democrat, has made call after call for higher taxes and more spending. President Bush, meanwhile, is the only protection taxpayers have from the unwanted advances of liberals in Congress. It’s essential for taxpayers that they hold their representatives and senators to account for this tax-and-spend orgy. Sixty-one Democrat congressmen (about half of them freshmen) come from historically red — i.e., Republican — districts. Some decapitated heads might have to be hoisted on the city wall before Congress gets the message.

— Grover G. Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of the forthcoming book, Leave Us Alone (HarperCollins).

[BKerr]

President Bush has been very strong in calling to restrain the S-CHIP program to its limited, original intent, but his hands aren’t entirely clean, either.

Bush ought to outright vetoe this legislation and use his lame-duck status as a way to finally be a conservative. I certainly can't wait to have a true conservative like Thompson in office to finally start standing up for conservative principals.

[nonliberal]

the Democrat congressional majority will attempt to raise taxes and spending

S-CHIP was started by the Republican Congress in 1997

Pot, meet Kettle.

President Bush, meanwhile, is the only protection taxpayers have from the unwanted advances of liberals in Congress.

God help us all!!

[K-oneTexas]

If this chart is accurate then it shows that the Congress is out of control on spending.

 

[from Nealz Nuze, 09/25/07]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Guess Congressional Democrats and Republicans haven't seen a project/recipient they don't like. Anyone still wonder why the deficit ceiling must be raised?

Tax reform will be a good thing. Say the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax. But spending reform must accompany it. Saying you can not spend more than you raise in taxes (Balanced Budget) will not truly help ... Congress will just raise the rates of the new tax or the old one (if no change is made). It's the same old Congressional Cycle.

[Libloather]

Over three trillion $ - every year - and they still can't provide for the poor without raising taxes?

RATS really do suck...

[Eric Blair 2084]

Socialists using the Chilruns as pawns to advance their agenda.

I can easily imagine them sitting in their Dem caucus thinking...”Hey, if we paint this as a battle between the poor chilruns and the evil tobacco companies, everyone will be on our side and we can get an easy backdoor to Socialized medicine.”

Liberalism is easy. Limited government and conservatism requires real thought and effort.

[Eric Blair 2084]

"There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income."

---Milton Friedman

[q_an_a]

I have not picked a player in this race, but Thompson was weak during Watergate, weak during Klinton and weak during “In the line of Fire”; I’m not yet convinced he is as conservative as some of this radio talks. He seems to be a great spokesman, but not a great in-fighter.

[Non-Sequitur]

A Tax-and-Spend Orgy

As opposed to the Republican's Borrow-and-Spend Orgy.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think your chart is inaccurate. The federal budget is a about 4 time higher than the $430 billion shown.

[Smokin' Joe]

Handing the Congress a new way to levy taxes (as opposed to our current leviathan) without controlling spending makes almost as much sense as deporting illegals without controlling the border.

[MurryMom]

If that big hypocrite, Nover Gordquist, really wanted to bitch about “tax and spend” he would point out that Secretary Gates recently upped the ante in Iraq by a third. I don’t mind having my taxes pay for poor childrens’ health care, but any rational humnan being ought to be outraged by Bushco’s using many hundred billions of our tax dollars to slaughter and displace into refugee status a few million Iraqis.

[Wuli]

Libloather: MurryMom is a leftie working on her 11th banishment from FreeRep. Don’t respond and maybe she will self-destruct before she’s ZOTTED.