I understand why trusted and trustworthy representatives such as Ron Paul would vote for the tax-cut deal that has passed the Senate today (Wednesday).
Ron Paul: Pro, in an interview with Andrew Napolitano.
I certainly want to support the tax extension… they may put enough stuff in there to make me reconsider, but right now I would not want to participate in raising taxes on people.
As POLITICO put it: “House Republicans trying to tamp down discontent in their ranks from fiscal conservatives are issuing a simple message: This isn’t the bill we would’ve written, but it’s good enough.”
At work is the dreaded “compromise,” a word that sounds good, but is not: “the only time you want your representative to reach across the aisle is to grab a Democrat or an errant Republican by the throat.”
Since the above are my fighting words—political compromise is always a blow to principles—I’m with Peter Schiff, with some reservations. I disagree that “the compromise extension of the Bush era tax cuts” amounts to a “$900 billion package.” Tax cuts are never a cost. Since taxation is theft, a thief that has failed to secure the loot for himself has no right to write-off his losses. besides, money that is not taken by the state is money liberated, saved from waste. (The extension of unemployment benefits in the Bill did not amount to $900 Bil.)
“In truth however, there are no real tax cuts in this proposal. The true burden of government is not measured by how much it taxes but how much it spends. Since this deal ensures that government will be more expensive next year than it was this year, American citizens will have to shoulder the added cost. Just because Congress has decided to deliver the bill with debt rather than current taxes does not mean that the spending will not be paid for. The only thing the plan accomplishes is to alter the means by which government spending is financed.”