This page was last updated on April 26, 2010.
How GOP, Tea Party can lower taxes; William A. Alexander; Beaver County Times; April 25, 2010.
Mr. Alexander has written at least 30 letters (See the archives for more examples.) since December 2004, and all but three (one fawning over Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA], one critical of local funding for JROTC, and another upset about the Air Force awarding a contract to Airbus instead of Boeing) bashed Republicans for something. The title of his last letter was “Blame Republicans for today’s messes.” Despite this record, Mr. Alexander is a Democrat/leftist who wants us to believe he’s really a disenchanted Republican. In “Can’t wait for Hart to lose,” Mr. Alexander told us he was a “registered Republican.”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“I suggest the following solution to lower taxes the GOP, Tea Party supporters and senior citizens seem to have overlooked.”
[RWC] Don’t lefties always treat “senior citizens” as a victim group? I thought criticism of victim groups was “hate speech.”
“The Tea Party groups are much stronger in red states and with senior citizens.
“Nine of the top 10 states that feed at the federal trough are red states, receiving from $1.53 to more than $2 for every $1 they pay in federal taxes.
“The only blue state on the list is New Mexico, which is really a purple state anyway.
“All 10 of the states that receive the least back for their federal taxes paid are blue states, receiving from a low of 62 cents to 81 cents back for every $1 they pay in.
“Red states should agree to reduce their acceptance of federal money until it is equal the amount they pay in.”
[RWC] It’s not about federal spending in a state or community being greater than, less than, or equal to federal taxes paid in that area. It’s about extra-constitutional spending and wasteful constitutional spending and that happens regardless of how little or how much federal spending occurs in a state. Federal spending could be minimal in a state yet still be the wrong kind of spending.
“This will permit the taxes on the states that receive less to lower their taxes.”
[RWC] This sentence is messed up, but I think I know what Mr. Alexander meant to write. I think Mr. Alexander wants us to believe the feds would reduce taxes on taxpayers in those states that cut their acceptance of federal tax revenue. I was born at night, but not last night. If Mr. Alexander’s proposition were true, why aren’t federal taxes collected from a state already dependent on how much federal spending takes place there? The answer is it’s not about tax revenue or spending; it’s about exerting federal government power over states, local governments, and individuals.
Mr. Alexander doesn’t seem to get lower taxes for everyone - including blue states - would happen if we implemented government policies supported by most tea partiers and there would be no income redistribution among the states.
“Seniors who agree with the Tea Party should agree to the above. And if they want the government to get out of their lives, they should decline to participate in Medicare and Social Security, or at least agree to means test them.”
[RWC] Mr. Alexander wants people who had Medicare and Socialist Security taxes confiscated for their entire working lives to “decline to participate in Medicare and Social Security …” Actually, Mr. Alexander doesn’t mean “decline to participate” since these folks have been forced to participate for their entire working lives. What Mr. Alexander means is “decline to accept benefits.” If Mr. Alexander really meant “decline to participate,” he would need to provide a mechanism for those folks to be fairly compensated (meaning a reasonable return) for all the Medicare and SS taxes they paid (up to 15.3% of wages) all those years.
As I’ve written elsewhere, it would not be right to pull the rug out from under people we made dependent on Medicare and SS. To be fair to the most people (both taxpayers and beneficiaries) it would likely take a few decades to phase out these programs. It’s not a coincidence it’s this hard to eliminate programs like these. FDR addressed this in response to payroll tax critic Luther Gulick in 1941. FDR said, “I guess you’re right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.” The quote was cited by Arthur M. Schlesinger in “The Age of Roosevelt: The Coming of the New Deal,” Houghton Mifflin, 1988 American Heritage Library edition. Pgs. 308-309.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.