« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

See, We Told You So

Back in 1994, Rush Limbaugh wrote See I Told You So. From page 88 of the book:

[T]he cure for: a) the budget deficit = more taxes; b) unemployment = more taxes; c) recession = more taxes; d) environmental problems = more taxes; e) illiteracy = more taxes; f) L.A. riots = more taxes. It doesn’t matter what the nature of the problem is.

This week, whether you listened to Rush, Sean, Mark, or even me filling in for Boortz, we’ve been telling you so. This whole farce in Washington is a way to get more tax revenue from you and despite public pronouncements from the Republicans that they were holding the line on tax revenue they were either (A) complicit behind the scenes or (B) going to get played.We were right.What we know about the pending deal is that the Democrats and Republicans are agreeing to a Deficit Commission. Despite the media spin — and the spin of some Republican sycophants — the deficit commission, which will be a super committee of the Congress, will have the power to come up with new tax revenue.And if the Congress rejects the Commission’s demands for new tax revenue, there will be a trigger that cuts both medicare funding and defense funding.Except, the defense funding cuts will be much more massive than the medicare cuts. And the GOP, in addition to seeing defense cut, would be hacking off seniors right before an election.In other words, Republican Leaders are asking their members to accept tax increases or massive defense cuts and senior anger right before the election. Oh, and the medicare cuts technically wouldn’t come from beneficiaries, but from providers. Those same providers who’ll just stop taking medicare patients.It’s not that the GOP got played so much as GOP leaders were collaborating on this. Boehner wanted a grand bargain and now he’s going to get it along with tax increases.But hey! At least we’ll get a vote on a balanced budget amendment — one without a requirement for a super majority to raise taxes.UPDATED: for the counter argument on why tax increases will not be practically possible, consider this post by Rich Lowry. I’ve been apprised of the same thing.Essentially, because present law presumes that the Bush tax cuts will go away and the commission, or super committee, must focus on reducing the deficit, any tax increases the commission offers would appear outrageously large and politically unpopular if they are to have an effect on the deficit.I’m still mulling this over.

Get Alerts