Those poor tax reformers

Political troubles looming in the next election cycle:

So in next spring’s primary, for example, we can expect that anti-tax, tea-party Republicans who vote for any tax-reform measure will get hit with a charge that they supported a tax increase. After the bills are debated, and maybe approved, we will have to look at the broad picture, not just small pieces, to determine if an incumbent represented us well. And as we do that, we should have a little sympathy for these veterans of the no-win battle of tax reform.

You know where sympathy falls in the dictionary, right? Those who would shift the tax burdens from the wealthy to the poor will not get a single whit of sympathy from me. When you choose to aid a small minority of the population who need no aid at the expense of a much larger portion who already do, you've surrendered your right to be treated with patience and respect, much less sympathy. Let them spin until their heads fall off.

Comments

Fantasy land

From the WSJS op-ed:

Tax reform also puts legislators in the tricky situation of balancing constituencies against one another. For example, cutting the corporate income tax might help a legislator with XYZ Corporation management but cost him the vote of the local barber who now has to collect a sales tax on haircuts.

Let's see. The legislator is really going to give a rat's ass about the local barber, when XYZ Corporation donates thousands of dollars to AFP or ALEC or Civitas? Besides, Jim Davis or Ralph Hise or Skip Stam or Phil Berger are getting coiffed in some private salon in Cary, I'm sure.

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

You've nailed it

Since Citizens United and the outpouring of dark money into elections, the local barber's vote doesn't really matter anymore.

With Prop 8 in California, it took people who were like bulldogs, digging into campaign finances, and some selective leaks to show the influence of the Mormon church in that election - funding and direct support of the campaign that should have really called into question the non-profit status of the organization and raised issues about the nature of the law itself and who was pushing for it.

The same thing happened in NC with Amendment One. We didn't know who was funding that effort and what, exactly, they were paying for.

How much came from out of state? From what organizations? What, exactly, did in-state churches contribute to the campaign? Were the protestors at the legislature that were bused in volunteers or were they paid for their work?

With state legislative elections, if you don't know who's paying for the robocalls and postcards smearing candidates, how can you make a decision about who will really benefit from the vote you cast?

If Anonymous decided to do something more significant that taking down some websites of big entertainment companies and engaged in civil disobedience with a point, hacking into the records of AFP, Pope's organizations, or the groups behind NC's Amendment One, that would be a game-changer.

Business interests and hate groups are hiding behind curtains erected by the Supreme Court. That curtain needs to be taken down and burned.