Democrat switches Parties – Updated!
By Brian Kirwin | Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009 | PolicyA few days ago, I wrote how Parker Griffith and Glenn Nye were the only two Democratic Congressional cosponsors to the bill to end the Death Tax.
Not anymore.
Politico reports that Rep. Griffith, a freshman Dem, is announcing his switch to the GOP today.
Can Nye be far behind?
UPDATE: WAPO lists “voting with their Party” averages:
Griffith 84.5 %
Nye 83.6 %
Nye votes with the Democrats less than the Democrat who switched to the Republicans today!
h/t Mike Gruss http://twitter.com/mikegruss
MORE UPDATES:
It keeps getting better! The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Chris Van Hollen, is whining about all the money he gave Rep. Griffith and he wants it all back!
“Mr. Griffith, failing to honor our commitment to him, has a duty and responsibility to return to Democratic Members and the DCCC the financial resources that were invested in him.”
Sounds like you need a bailout, Chris.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
65 Responses to "Democrat switches Parties – Updated!"
I got a feeling that this Democrat to Republican Party switch will not be the last before the 2010 Election. As for Glenn Nye, will see!
I meant we’ll see not will see.
We don’t want him. We don’t need him. He would lose a GOP primary by a ton and we will beat him in November.
After what he did to Thelma Drake he can F off!
I hope not. Stick with the party that brung ya. Besides, the Republican field for the seat is crowded, and Glenn Nye is guaranteed to be on the final ballot as a Democrat. He might not be conservative enough for the members of the Tea Party movement who might be energized enough to deprive him of such a position on the final ballot if he attempts to run as a Republican.
By the way, I am disappointed in Glenn Nye’s position on the Estate (or Death) tax. In my opinion, the Estate Tax is one of the most beautiful taxes our nation has. It helps to encourage meritocracy within our nation. But, even without his vote, the repeal of the Estate Tax happened within acceptable boundaries.
I think Glenn’s prospects are best to stick with where he is at. His district was quite fond of Owen Pickett. We threw Thelma out to get Glenn in there. Being Democratic is not an Achilles Heel as long as you are the right type of Democrat.
Being the right type of Republican is probably going to be a more difficult hurdle for him to overcome. To be the right type of Republican, you have to be acceptable to and win the endorsement of the Tea Party movement and I do not think that is an obstacle he can overcome.
David, his district is a bit different from Owen Pickett’s district.
Little David,
Meritocracy for whom? For the young farmer who just lost his dad and now finds that he has to sell the family farm to developers because the assessed price of the land now exceeds 1 million, and the taxes on that assessed price are too high? Is it a meritocracy for the workers on that farm who are now unemployed because the farm work that they used to do cannot be done in the middle of a subdivision? The Death Tax never was, and never will be about meritocracy, it is about getting prized land for certain fatcat developers who are set to make a lot of money off of other people’s misfortune.
That kind of injustice is probably one of the reasons that Rep. Griffith has now switched to the GOP. I expect other conservative Democrats may soon do the same.
No taxation without respiration!
SO: Isn’t the limit $5 million? If Mark Warner’s kids and Paris Hilton can’t make it in in the land of opportunity with a $5 million head start, they don’t deserve to make it at all.
I attended every hearing when the General Assembly was considering repeal of the estate tax. We heard a lot about that guy losing control of the family farm. Interesting, he never showed up himself. Probably because he’s fictitious. The repeal effort was funded almost entirely by the Mars family. They didn’t make their money on farms, they make it in candy bars. And it’s a whole lot more than $1 million.
BK: No problem, the person taxed is the heir. He’s breathing.
And the money still does not belong to government.
You folks are talking as if it’s the government’s money, and people need to justify why the government shouldn’t get it.
That’s completely backwards.
If any more democrats are contemplating a change, they had best do it now so they can lose next time around. Point is, with the recession over, with growth starting to reassert itself, with housing rebounding, with the stock market climbing, with health care reform close to a reality, with the job market stabilized with no where to go but up, with our local economy rated as one of the few in the nation that has not only recovered, but added productivity in the 2nd quarter, the next round of elections will take place in a much changed economic ands political environment. Sure, the result of the Governor’s race could cloud judgment today, but next time around, it will be a different story. The anti tax, anti government crowd has had a field day recently as the effects of the Bush disaster have been dealt with, but the times they are a changin. So crow now; you may be eating it next year.
SO, In 2001, the American Farm Bureau, which supports estate tax repeal, admitted to the New York Times that it could not provide any example of a family farm that had to be sold to pay estate taxes. There are a litany of exemptions for family farms. It’s a red herring.
Steve Vaughan,
Do not even go there with the whole “fictitious” line. There are a great many farms in the Northern Shenandoah Valley that are rapidly increasing in value due to the overall growth of NOVA. The liberal leadership in Washington has completely ignored these people who live just and hour and one half outside of D.C.
Yes, the scenario that I just played out for you is not only possible it is happening now on a regular basis in agricultural areas around NOVA. Don’t believe me? Just observe these areas for about three or four years and you will see successful family farms gobbled up by developers because the new farmers can no longer afford the price tag for the land, nor can they afford the property and/or the estate taxes that come with the land.
I oppose taxes on red herrings, too.
“And the money still does not belong to government. You folks are talking as if it’s the government’s money, and people need to justify why the government shouldn’t get it.”
Good post Brian.
Quite frankly I don’t care if it’s a family farm, $1, or a gazillion dollars…if it’s a gift from one generation to the next, building upon the hard work of that generation to add to the family net value, it is not the government’s business to tax the begeezuz out of the inheritence. The government didn’t add value. The person leaving the inheritance, however, dutifully has paid their corporate, income, state, property, etc. taxes over their lifetime, why do they have to be double-taxed on what is not new income?
I just can’t fathom how greedy liberals are. Unbelievable. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY!!!!!!!
When you buy a stock and sell it at a higher price, you pay taxes on the gain, right?
So what you’re saying is that it’s OK for some people to buy a stock and pass it to their heirs and NO ONE pay taxes on the gain.
But even more than that – how many of you would ever face an estate tax? Given that only about 6,000 estate tax returns are filed, my guess is none. So why do you worry about and advocate for something that will never affect you?
Steve Vaughan & John are correct: the “family farm” thing is a bogus argument.
Back to the original point: who knows what Nye is going to do. He already votes with the Republicans so I’m not sure there is much to be gained by him changing parties. I mean, it’s not like the Republicans are going to re-gain the majority in the House.
“But even more than that – how many of you would ever face an estate tax? Given that only about 6,000 estate tax returns are filed, my guess is none. So why do you worry about and advocate for something that will never affect you?”
What logic is this? We shouldn’t debate the merits of the estate tax because most of us will never have to pay it? That’s a horrible response. It would be like saying that women had no right to protest the draft in the 1960s; because they would never have to deal with it. Should only those affected by the new health care reform bill be allowed to discuss it? Better yet, lets limit debate on the War in Afghanistan to only those who fight there.
Unlike cases in a court of law, those engaging in political discourse don’t need “standing” to represent their views or present alternatives. The idea that we should only concern ourselves with policies that affect us individually is the antithesis to the high ideal of republicanism that our founders espoused.
Statement from Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC:
Wow, Little David, you have no clue about the Tea Party movement. I like Glenn Nye’s voting record. He’s voted against socialized medicine and against Cap & Trade. Just WHAT do you think the Tea Party is concerned with? Spending us into oblivion and those two Far Left Wing paths to socialism! So, if any Democrat can win Tea Party praise it would be Nye. How many times have we seen Nye being positively recognized on Bearing Drift? Several.
If Nye switched parties I wonder if it wouldn’t nullify the very many candidacies of the Republicans vying for the Republican ticket. It would change from a Dem. opponent to a Republican challenge. I don’t know…
Nye would do well in either party. Brian is right that the 2nd district has changed a little, but it is still conservative Dem. friendly. The real test for Nye is whether even with his outstanding voting record, will the Obama backlash cause people to vote against him to gain house seats to more effectively oppose Obama/Reid/Pelosi in the future.
With Nye’s voting record going against Obama on crucial issues, what message are we sending if we vote against Nye? If you’re a Democrat, there is no reward or incentive to vote how we ask you to? Vote commie all the way, because we only care about the letter after your name, anyhow?
What message would we be sending to any Republican if we vote out Nye? Your voting record doesn’t matter? Vote for socialism, only the letter “R” and you House leadership vote matters? Sounds like a RINO recipe to me.
I’d love to see Nye switch, however.
Death Tax-
Sell a stock pay on the gain. DON’T sell it but pass it along to your heir, no tax should be paid. If that heir sells that stock then that heir pays the capital gain. Sell the farm….pay sales tax. Don’t sell the farm and pass it to the heir, there should be no tax! If that heir sells it, they pay tax at that point. It is that simple. The analogy to the hypothetical farm doesn’t fit at all.
Under the Dem. Death tax scenario, the corporate farm is favored over the family farm. If a stock holder dies it doesn’t affect the corporation but, if a family owner dies, their passing can force a sale in order to pay the tax. A sale……..to a corporation more than likely. Then we are left with corporate agriculture and lose a beautiful piece of America.
Vivian’s absurd arguement that this only affects a tiny minority is no justification for violating the property rights of said minority of our population. I won’t even bring up what THAT kind of thinking can lead to.
When you are alive you have property rights. The earner decides how to use it. If it is your last will to give all your money to your spoiled brats or like Warren Buffet, to charity………that is your F@^%in’ business! Some Democrats seem to advocate robbing the dead.
Funny how the Left only favors meritocracy when you die. They acknowledge “earning” only after you’re dead and buried. If you’re alive, then its “from each according to their means to each according to their needs”.
Um Vivian, wouldn’t I pay a tax on the gains when I sold the stock, no matter whether I bought it or inherited it. Conversely, when I inherit the “family farm” and sell it, I’ll still have to pay a tax on the gain from the sale in addition to the estate tax. Or, is that appreciated stock I inherited part of the estate
Golly, tax law’s confusing. Glad it doesn’t affect me!
Vivian, Steve, and John,
Again you guys are missing the point. Two acres of land in the Northern Shenandoah Valley is double the value of two acres of land in Southside Virginia. Someone could be upper middle class and technically own a piece of land that is worth over a million dollars. It comes down to principle, no taxation without representation, if the person is dead he cannot vote for a representative, and if he cannot vote for a representative then he should not be taxed.
However, the Democratic leadership is still in the pocket of certain developers that stand to make a lot of money on over taxed properties.
Except that’s not how it works (right now). If you inherit stock, you get what is known as a stepped-up basis, equal to the value of the stock at the time of inheritance. So if you turn right around and sell it, there is no taxable gain.
No, as I explained above. And no, you wouldn’t pay tax on the gain from the sale of the “family farm” either.
Steve – I’m not sure what your point is. If the value of the estate is less than $3.5 million (in 2009), there is no estate tax. So land worth $1 million wouldn’t be subject to the tax.
And I notice that outside of attacking me, none of you answered the question as to why you care about the estate tax at all.
Vivian, I care about abortion, too. Some things matter even if they don’t selfishly impact me.
I’m no big fan of capital gains taxes that distort the investment process – holding on to an asset or not based on the tax liability is a stupid way to do investment.
And I don’t think government should be standing at the door during a funeral with its hand out.
First: Don’t argue with Vivian about the specifics of tax consequences because she is an accountant. I will question what she states as the threshold of the beginnings of the estate tax under legislation just passed. I think it is now higher but I can not remember just how high it was set.
Second: OK, let’s use the example of the “family farmer” trying to keep the “family farm” going but who is forced to sell because of estate taxes. It is not his fault the big city is expanding and all the farms around him are becoming subdivisions.
OK, for this rare case, allow for a special exemption for this rare individual. His land is exempted from inheritance tax as long as he sticks to farming. He only pays the inheritance tax when he attempts to convert this rich farmland to wealth by selling out to the developers.
I love the estate tax. I am not in favor of putting an estate tax on the small businessman. But I decline to describe Bill Gates as a small businessman. Even Bill Gates’ father said….?
If I turned right around and sold the stock. Pardon me, I just think it’s cruel people, in the process of grieving, should be forced to consider tax implications.
Your average citizen should never have a need for an accountant, litteldavid, and I will argue specifics of tax consequences with anyone, because no person can ever have full command of the tax code.
“Don’t argue with Vivian about the specifics of tax consequences because she’s an accountant”
Say what?
I’m pretty sure Vivian will be the first to say that the first amendment applies to all and all are entitled to their arguments right, wrong or indifferent on matters of public policy – whether they’re trained experts or Joe Average.
It’s that kind of mentality, LD, that leads to despotism and tyranny. And, of course, inheritence taxes.
Back on point – I think Nye switching parties would be a shock to many – and initial reaction might even be “we don’t need that guy”, but after the initial griping, Republicans are most likely to welcome him as the incumbent and renominate him.
Seriously, we’ve had a very difficult time here on BD, other than his 80% voting record with his party, to find things to be critical of him on.
He’s strong on veterans issues.
He’s voted against cap-and-tax.
He’s voted against health care reform.
He’s voted against raising the debt ceiling (despite voting for the president’s budget…hmmm, perhaps something there though).
He does have overseas service experience.
He’s not altogether a bad Republican. And, when you compare his actual voting record and record of service against the Republican candidates, he’s competitive.
Of course, that being said, as the incumbent Democrat against all the Republican candidates, he’s competitive too.
Only as a Democrat, the argument will be made that he’s still in the party of Obama, Pelosi, Reid. He still votes with them 80% of the time. He still voted for the president’s reckless budget. Etc.
He can either go into this campaign being guilty by association, despite his votes. Or, he can go into this campaign as the guy who stood tall against government continuing to intrude into our lives.
Switch parties, Glenn!
“And I notice that outside of attacking me, none of you answered the question as to why you care about the estate tax at all.”
Vivian, I apologize for two things. One, if I came across as personal with my passion,(not intended). Two, for not making my “caring about the Death Tax” more clear. Addressing multiple subjects on my part might be to blame for that lack of clarity.
I care about property rights. I care about individual freedom to buy/sell/use their property. All attempts private,corporate, and governmental to steal should be aggressively thwarted and rewarded with imprisonment. I see the Death Tax as a legal excuse to steal. Placing a “toll on the road to Heaven” is distasteful to me. The government need not send out the vultures. It is not a good idea to give the government incentive(taxes) to see that we die. The Spanish Inquistion brought great wealth in exchange for false allegations of heresy,witchcraft, etc. and the killing of citizenry. In a time where people are afraid of possible governmental healthcare rationing and alleged “death panels” for seniors, do we really want the government to have even more incentive(the death tax) for its own people to die? Especially with our deficit spending to consider?
I don’t care if I am never wealthy enough to be personally affected by whatever threshold the Death Tax covers. The freedom that is the foundation for what makes this nation the greatest, is more valuable to me. I don’t hold ill will against an individual for working harder, smarter, or innovating more than I have. I don’t hate the wealthy unless they’ve stolen assets from others in gathering said wealth. I disagree with the notion that a wealthy person must have done something crooked to become extraordinarily wealthy. I don’t hold it against anyone born into wealth. Would I personally respect a self-made person more for their talent? Yes, of course. My personal judgement however, has no bearing on natural rights of others and neither should any lawmaker’s.
I’ll take your point on the basis thing. I’m certainly no fan of our tax system. However, that doesn’t change the ghoulish nature of the death tax. It also doesn’t change the appearance that the government always has its hands out for more of our money/property. This being on all levels of government. We see a complete disregard for personal property rights on the local level as well. Thank goodness for Eminent Domain reform here on the state level, at least.
In essence, I care about the Death Tax because I care about individual liberty. I see the Death tax as as a disregard for property rights(money of the wealthy)and a horrible precedent that the people can be turned against eachother and convinced to remove the rights of a select few on the basis of inflamed jealousy or a conditioned hatred. Yes, the wealthy are people too.
“Vivian’s absurd arguement that this only affects a tiny minority is no justification for violating the property rights of said minority of our population. I won’t even bring up what THAT kind of thinking can lead to.”
My thought exactly… I wonder if Vivian therefore things we shouldn’t care about anything that only affects a small minority of people. Plus her statement is telling… it shows there no respect for rights in of themselves… its all about majoritarian rule… what ever the bulk of people care about.
Vivian, nobody answered your question about “why you care about the estate tax at all” because it is based on an absurd premise.
Like you can’t have an opinion on the second amendment if you don’t own a gun? Baloney.
I liked the response from Ben above, that maybe you shouldn’t be able to discuss the proposed health care reform travesty if you’re not going to be affected by it. That would disqualify all of the current Senators and Representatives, since they have conveniently exempted themselves from inclusion under the wonderful system they’ve fashioned for us. Now that’s not too bad of an idea…but I digress.
Nobody can reasonably say that you shouldn’t care about or discuss an issue if it doesn’t directly affect him or her. We’re talking about the liberties and rights guaranteed by our Constitution (the right to the fruit of one’s labor, for one), and trampling on one means they’re all expendable.
Vivian,
I hope that I did not come across as attacking you, I did attack your ideas and the leadership of your party. As far as the assessment of the land being 1 million, I was using that as an example, some family farms could eventually be assessed at above 3.5 million. Especially considering that any farmland left in Fairfax County would be worth even more than land in the Northern Shenandoah Valley.
You ask me how the estate tax affects me, and my answer is that it does not directly affect me. However, it does affect many of the people who make their livelihoods working on farms in the No. Shenandoah Valley. When these farms are sold off to developers, the farm workers are forced to find a dwindling source of employment. I have seen first hand the kind of poverty that is created by burdensome taxes and tax assessment tricks that drive up the cost of living in a community. The average income person is affected when you tax the rich.
Of course we need a fair and balanced system of taxation. Just as we have progressive income taxation, so it is reasonable to have a contribution to the system from the estate tax. As Vivian has so ably pointed out, that has been used by many as a red herring to stir up the anti tax zealots. But if there is no contribution from the estate tax, it will need to come from somewhere else. Why not tax capital gains, that is, unearned income, at the same rate as earned income? Why not use the income tax to make up for the loss of car tax revenue? Fact is, we live in a civil society that must be supported by taxation that is reasonable, fair, and equitable. That won’t fit on a bumper sticker, so it is hard to run on that premis.
If Glenn Nye switches parties I am going to vote against him. I like Glenn Nye. I like Blue Dog Democrats. I am opposed to someone who always says NO. Within what is going on in Congress right now, we have consideration from moderates coming from those of the Democratic Party that lean that way. But all the Republicans just fall in line and vote no to anything proposed. If Glenn Nye switches parties I’m going to go back to voting for Bozo the Clown to run him out of office.
Mike, you say that we need fair and balanced taxation, but what is fair and balanced about progressive income taxation and an estate tax that kicks in at an arbitrary income level?
The deceased who leaves a $999,999 estate to his heirs gets treated differently than the deceased who leaves $1,000,001. OK, the deceased themselves don’t get treated differently, but their money does. Equal protection under the law should protect against such capricious differences – what is so magical about $1 million? And why shouldn’t it be $2 mil, or $5 mil, or $400k? I understand that both the deceased died under the same set of rules, so the equal protection argument has holes in it, but you get the point – unequal treatment.
I recall thinking the same thing every time candidate Obama talked about not raising your taxes “one dime” if you earned less than $250,000 (I can hear Vivian saying “why should you care, Brad, you make WAY less than $250k?). What the heck is so critical about $250,000? Obviously we all know that there’s a big enough voting block under $250k who can be convinced to soak all the shlubs who make over $250k. But why is that acceptable? It is not, because then (assuming Obama had even tried to keep his promise), what’s keeping that number from shifting to $200k? $100k? Is government telling us when we earn “enough”?? As long as the voting block is solid, nobody is safe.
This erosion of our Constitutional rights and equality has been going on for years, from taxation and deductibles (why should I pay less income tax if I’m sending mortgage interest to a bank?) to the McCain-Feingold attack on our free speech. Most of the citizens don’t even realize how regularly our liberties are being stolen from us, or they do and they’re just confident that they’re never going to have a target on their back. Or on their income.
Without commenting on your assertion that a progressive income tax is not fair, using your same philosophy, how can you justify treating capital gains at a lower rate than income earned by the sweat of your brow?
Mike,
How about a tax where every citizen pays the same percentage of their income, regardless of how much they make, that is truly fair taxation. Better yet, why not eliminate the income tax system altogether and replace it with a tax based on the amount of money a citizen spends, that way the rich will still pay more. Our current tax system is sincerely messed up, and is riddled with complexities that often see the middle class getting the bill, especially off of things such as the value added tax. Lets lessen the burden on our citizenry rather than increasing it.
Mike –
First, Merry Christmas. We’re blessed to live in the USA and to be able to have this discussion.
I haven’t ever tried to justify taxing capital gains at a lower rate than “earned” income, because that illustrates just another one of the indefensible vagaries of the income tax code. Why indeed should one type of income be taxed differently than another? I think this is along the exact same line of reasoning I put forth above, why should the 1,000,001st dollar be taxed differently than the 999,999th?
By the way, I hate the references earlier in this thread to the idea that capital gains aren’t “earned”. I may not earn capital gains by the sweat of my brow, but I definitely made decisions and commitments to earn that money. Whether I invested in a company’s stock and put my money at risk, or lent the bank my money (bought a CD), or any other investment choice I’ve made, I put my money at risk or I dedicate my money to some use and I should be rewarded (profit) or punished (loss) for that decision. That’s no more or less honorable a way to make a dollar than other “work”. It’s similar to saying I didn’t really “earn” my salary because I work at a computer instead of out on a construction site.
Steven – Welcome to the FairTax movement. We only need about 5 million more folks like you to eradicate the income tax system forever.
I usually like to use Paris Hilton as an example, but Paris Hilton will not serve as well in this case. Paris Hilton is at least doing something to earn her keep, she is providing entertainment.
What about Paris Hilton’s sister? She was born with a silver spoon in her mouth. Even if she does nothing for the rest of her life, every conceivable need or desire she has in life will be met. I am not saying she does not have the right to be rich, I am just questioning that this right to be rich should only be because she was born to the right family.
I think America should be a meritocracy based society instead of one based on royalty. It should matter more what you personally do in life then what blood lines you came from. Born into wealth should not automatically mean perpetual wealth.
LittleDavid, it’s not your money!
Who’s to stop someone for deciding your car is too nice or your home is too big.
Although you may be jealous of Paris Hilton’s sister, we did not enact government to confiscate money from some to give it to others. You might as well quote Karl if that’s where you want to go.
LD, Nicky Hilton is all of 26 years old. Give the girl a break for not measuring up to you.
According to Wiki, she has done a few things. Her current occupation is as a fashion designer. She opened up her own line of clothing. She was once a model and had a couple of failed business ventures.
The reason we know her as “Paris’s sister” is because Nicky doesn’t get involved in social antics the way that her older sister does.
Sure, coming from money made all those possibilities easier for her, but the “other” Hilton does at least work. Not all 26 yr olds would bother getting out of their chairs to find any kind of employment if they had that kind of trust fund.
It just goes to show that such judgement that LD calls for might not be fair at all. Again, this faux meritocracy arguement only comes up to justify over-taxing(theft). Otherwise, the Left judges your “merit” based on where you stand on their scale of “political correctness”. This whole thing of scape goating a convenient target or minority of the population is simply reprehensible.
Britt Howard,
Good. The estate tax is working, Nicky Hilton is motivated to do something more then just sit on the couch and eat caviar.
I describe the tax system that my Daddy’s generation put into place (he was a WWII vet – the generation some describe as the greatest generation) as being the American Way.
Brian,
It is my opinion that inclusion of the estate tax as well as a progressive income tax was part of the explanation for why America was successful in avoiding the flames of communism that were sweeping through other nations.
David, if you think high taxes defeated communism, you’re too far beyond anything but professional help.
Brian,
To me the tax issue is complicated. I am not in favor of high taxes, that is until we get to those who have more then enough. We have to keep the masses happy after all. If we are going to grind more citizens down into poverty, those citizens are going to vote. I would rather see Bill Gates and Paris Hilton pay the taxes to keep them happy then have my own taxes raised.
David, the top 1% pays 40% of all taxes. The top 5% pays 60% of all taxes. The top 10% pays over 70% of all taxes.
What more do you want?
Brian,
I wish to clarify that the figures you cite refer only to income taxes not all taxes.
I think the high percentages of income taxes paid by the wealthy is at least partially explained by how much of our nation’s wealth is crowded amongst the privileged few. If that is where all the money is, then that is where the taxes are going to come from.
Sometimes I fear that the middle class in America is disappearing.
That is not an irrational fear as it has been in progress for decades. Brian’s hero President Reagan was a very strong proponent of the trickle down, supply side, vodoo economics that provided the rationale for government policy that helped to cause the degradation of the middle class and which created an increasing disparity in income between the rich and the rest of us. Problem is, trickle down economics does not work, and a tax structure that encourages global investment and low taxes on capital gains encourages us to invest elsewhere and ignore the infrastructure needs in the United States. When we Virginians are helping to build super highways in Iraq and Afghanistan yet we are cutting our own road construction budget to zero, something is very wrong that needs to be addressed.
David, who are you to decide what motivated Nicky Hilton? More “judgement” on your part?
First you speak of meritocracy then you even say things like:
“It is my opinion that inclusion of the estate tax as well as a progressive income tax was part of the explanation for why America was successful in avoiding the flames of communism ”
But then you follow that by actually advocating communism:
“I am not in favor of high taxes, that is until we get to those who have more then enough. We have to keep the masses happy after all. If we are going to grind more citizens down into poverty, those citizens are going to vote. I would rather see Bill Gates and Paris Hilton pay the taxes to keep them happy then have my own taxes raised.”
Sounds a lot like “From those according to their means to those according to their needs”. How Marxist of you. Are you the one that should decide who has enough? Who is the one to decide which person doesn’t deserve their wealth? Like…..Nicky Hilton? You judged without even doing your research on her. At least google your next scape goat.
This is why we have a constitutional republic instead of a true democracy governed by the tyranny of the majority, or the “masses” as you put it. The unpopular appreciate that when you can’t just lynch them because they’re the politically incorrect villan du’jour.
You are right about one thing. If we continue to grind people into poverty, they will start to vote. They will vote against those that continue to raise taxes, borrow us into oblivion, and spend us into a black hole of debt that we can’t possibly escape. Regardless of party affiliation.
Mike, if we didn’t have to spend 18 years building a highway through our own regulatory self-strangulation, maybe someone would build a darn road in this country.
But keep thinking the answer is higher taxes and bigger government. You and Obama are lockstep.
David, the number I cite is income taxes, so if you lump in the estate tax, the wealthiest people fund an even higher percentage of our government functions.
Amazing that you want to talk about the middle class. Let’s go back a generation, where the middle class means one income earner, a radio, maybe a television with rabbit-ear antenna, maybe a car, an apartment or a townhome and sharing a room with your brothers.
Today’s middle class – multiple cars, single homes, 500 channels on an HD tv. Everyone has a phone on their hip that doubles as a computer and a camera/video recorder. The middle class can do more work and has more access to information than professional journalists did in the heyday of newspapers and network news.
Yesterday’s middle class meant maybe you went to a movie once in a while. Today’s middle class? You OWN the DVD or blueray and have a library of movies that rivals MGM.
Is it hot out today? The middle class has something most middle classes never had – home air conditioning.
Our middle class lives a more comfortable lifestyle than any middle class I’ve ever read about or known.
Britt,
Did I irk you by using the word masses? Seems to me I was speaking of a Democracy where it is still one person, one vote. Perhaps I should not have used that word and used voters instead.
Brian,
That’s a pretty strong point, however many of them are enjoying much of the wealth by financing it with credit. Also in many families the lifestyle is supported only because both Mom and Dad are working; that is if they can both find a job in the current economy.
David, all true but does not detract a bit from my point.
Brian, your attempt to blame our road depreciation on the need for planning is as absurd as it is incorrect. Fact is, thanks to those who subscribe to your philosophy of no new taxes, the majority in the House has for the last decade dismantled a system that used to work quite well. Now, we have so much decay and deterioration that we will need to spend billions just to maintain and repair, much less start new projects. So Brian, how much more deterioration is enough for you?
Hey, Mike, don’t blame me for your ineffectiveness in convincing voters you’re right.
Thanks Brian, another quip. Why can’t we get columnist with some depth and insight? Too boring? Just like governing. You are best with your one liners during elections. Leave governance, that is, the tough stuff, to others. So Brian, how low do taxes need to be to gain your approval? Never mind, I know the answer.
Mike, dodging the key issue? Why is it that voters repeatedly disagree with you on this single issue?
Of course, you miss my point. I know you are most comfortable advising candidates to run pledging not to raise taxes, and you have had some success doing so. Along with that pledge is the position that cutting “all waste, abuse, and low priority programs” will be sufficient to fund essential government services. Of course, as Gilmore found out, and as citizens did as well, that is often baloney, and leaves a trial of accusation, unfilled commitments, and anger among the voters. Sure McDonnell has said he can do it; we’ll soon see. MJB sends!
Mike, I usually advise candidates to pay attention to polling. If your proposals for taxes have repeatedly polled poorly, don’t blame me for noticing. Blame yourself for poorly convincing people you’re right.
Yes of course, the safe answer. I’m sure Gilmore said the same thing when he perverted the car tax issue and make it “No Car Tax”, an issue that I am sure polled well but which eventually bankrupted the Commonwealth and led the republicans into the wilderness for awhile. Regretfully, voters often don’t look beyond the siren song of no taxes, but they learn quickly when it hurts them personally.
Mike, I visit Pennsylvania frequently, with one of the highest gas taxes in the nation. guess what they have? Traffic congestion. TONS of it.
Or how about chugging out to good ole California, with the highest gas tax in the country. Or New York, with so much traffic congestion that people would rather walk instead of pay their 63 cents a gallon tax.
If raising gas taxes solved congestion, it’s not easy to find an example of where it actually has.
You want change, Mike. The onus is on you to convince people you’re right. You’re still failing.
Ah yes, raise the spectre of the big bad wolf. But the only reason we would ever need such high gas taxes is if we fail to keep up with maintenance and repair and then face a disaster. You forget, Brian, that just fifteen years ago, we had a system that functioned quite well; it was the failure to keep up that caused this extreme situation.
Actually, Mike, 7 years ago, we were in a transportation crisis, according to you.
I realize that the Democrat Machine and allied media have successfully revised history in regard to Gov. Jim Gilmore. True enough, the RINO filled RPV had little to no interest in defending the public assault on Gilmore’s record. A lot of those RINOs have since stepped down or were defeated. Many of them endorsed Creigh Deeds over McDonnell after no longer being in office.
Once again, I have to take issue with Mike’s assertion that Gilmore “Bankrupted” the Commonwealth. Like now, Virginia’s economy was then hugely affected by a NATIONAL economy. Will political opportunist be blaming future ills on Tim Kaine because he made too many cuts and prevented Virginia from being “stimulated” to recovery?
Like Blaming Gilmore’s Car Tax relief for what was a national issue affected by 9/11, the war, and perhaps natural economic cycles, it would be just as unfair as blaming Kaine for the current mess. I give the Republicans credit. Sure they attack Kaine, but so far they’re not coming up with some line of B.S. that trashes Kaine’s name, drags him through the public media as a scape goat while ignoring that there was just a credit crunch and real estate bubble.
Was the car tax thing just replaced by taxes and fees elsewhere? Of course it was. State reimbursements had to be made up elsewhere. The creative accounting switches timed badly with events that affected all of America and not just Virginia. Did that timing negatively affect our state economy? Probably. ALL states had their economies negatively impacted by outside events then and now. NOT JUST VIRGINA! The idea that Gilmore was the cause of Virginia’s economic woes is both wrong and ridiculous. Virginia was never “Bankrupt” either.
One of the problems I have with this kind of continued propaganda is that being false, it calls into question everything else you have to offer in the same conversation. Therefore, some legitimate points brought forward may simply be dismissed as more of the same.
Well Britt, you have taken an indefensible position. Republican leaders advised Gilmore that to create a tax break without funding it was extreme, yet he proceeded anyway. Then, as growth slowed, and it became evident that he had created a billion dollar unfunded mandate for the Legislature that would soon grow to $2 B, they had to cap the amount paid to the localities. Lesson is, an initiative without a offset is a liar and a thief. If Warner and the Legislator had not acted, the Commonwealth would have lost its coveted triple A bond rating and the cost of that over the decades would have been a burden for us and our children.
Totally defensible and I’ll stick to it. Tenaciously so. Yes, he got a lot of advice, much from RINOs that thought they were protecting their special interests.
Keep in mind, that at that point, we had a huge surplus. Many argued that some tax dollars should be returned to the taxpayer in some fashion. Gilmore took the Car Tax relief as his particular path.
There was a huge amount of screaming from localities and from state interests when reimbursements became an issue. So, yea…..you had a lot of tax hungry Republicans and Democrats howling against it. So much for your Republican advice smoke screen.
Is a tax relief initiative without an offset a drain on state funds? Of course!! Part of the whole idea since Gilmore had us flush with a large surplus of funds. Who anticipated 9/11? Or a war or the effect it all had on the economy. Blaming Gilmore for not foretelling those events is just silliness. Additionally, that drain on funds was negligible when compared to the damage caused by world events on not just Virginia, but all states of the union. Those other states not even having car tax relief but still struggling just as Virginia was.
As for your claim that Warner was some kind of savior, that is also just as wrong. I give him credit for budget restraint in a time of need…..and a mandate to balance the budget. However, if you’re talking about his historic tax increase on Virginians, Virginia’s economy recovered before its passage and we again had large budget surpluses (that Summer)before his taxes even went into effect(that Fall).
What is indefensible is you stating:
“I’m sure Gilmore said the same thing when he perverted the car tax issue and make it “No Car Tax”, an issue that I am sure polled well but which eventually bankrupted the Commonwealth…..” – Mike Barrett (emphasis is mine)
At no point was Virginia “bankrupt” and as you state later, we still had a darn good bond rating. That is just patently false thus indefensible.
You have some good things to share, Mike, but I plan to call people out on this unfair scape goating and rewriting of history every chance I get. A timeline of when Warners taxes went into effect and how we had surpluses before those taxes even went into effect can be found in the Virginia Pilot’s archives. I’d be happy to share some of those links should any Republican be interested in actually defending their own guy. Until, then, me, a Libertarian will just have to do their work for them.
I am just going to note that California does not have the highest fuel taxes in the nation as Brian claimed. I believe that honor goes to Illinois… which also has a substantial number of toll roads to boot. California falls into the higher end of the mid range. I am also going to note that Pennsylvania might achieve top honors if toll road networks are included. Pennsylvania has both a very high fuel tax and a very large toll road network with extremely high tolls. From a trucking perspective only, Oregon is far away the leader. For what Oregon charges truckers, there should be valet parking in all the rest areas and all the truck stops provided by the tax revenues.
For an example of where higher fuel taxes, efficiently employed, provides a better transportation system I am going to site Ohio. Their fuel taxes are about the same as California’s but they have a marvelous road network. The only stain on Ohio’s record is the Ohio Turnpike where travelers are forced to pay both the fuel tax and the toll.
Ohio serves as an example where increased fuel taxes can solve transportation problems when the revenue is effectively managed. Please be aware that I am a truck driver and I have been saying this for years. Unlike other truck drivers, I did not hold it against Ohio for having a split speed limit for trucks that limited trucks to 55 MPH. However this hated split speed limit has been removed, at least on the interstates, and I think you will now start to see truckers’ opinion polls on where we get most bang for the buck showing Ohio rising to near the top.
I am going to add that traditional trucker polls include the opinions of all truckers. Company drivers who do not pay their own fuel taxes only judge on the conditions of the roads and not the amount of fuel taxes they paid to get the conditions.
Britt, never mind. I guess you can explain away just about anything if you are not restricted by what actually occured. MJB sends!
Leave your response