I happened to catch part of NPR's Friday All Things Considered political commentary segment, this week putting Michelle Bernard up with E. J. Dionne.
Ms. Bernard got to her programmed talking point right away: If a rich guy suddenly has to pay more taxes if the Bush Tax Cuts for the Fabulously Wealthy (TM) expire, some poor slob at the low end of the totem pole will get axed. She made that point twice, just in case some old fashioned static distracted you from the fear bait.
That is her basic argument: Keep the tax cuts in place or some poor slob will lose his job.
Of course E. J. was too busy with his own talking points to actually counter this bunk.
I have my own counter argument, in case you are interested...
So, lets say you are a big bidnessman, getting a really big taxable personal income for all of your 'work', and the tax cuts DO expire. Are you going to:
(1) Keep the same personal income, but let Obama take a lot more of it to pay for his evil socialist plan?
Your gross income has not changed, so the company you 'work' for has not been affected.
(2) Raise your income (or profit taking) (gross it up), so you have the same take home pay, because Obama is taking so much more for his evil socialist plan. Your company willingly does this (it has to, you own it), but now has less money to pay the 'little guy', so he has to go. This might hurt the company just a little bit, but since he does so much less 'work' than you do (confirmed by your whopping income), he will hardly be missed. Possible side benefit: He joins a Tea Party because he is so pissed off about losing a job just because Obama needs more money for his evil socialist plan.
(3) Lower your take home income, making sure that Obama does not get any more money for his evil socialist plan than he does now, since there will be a higher tax rate on proportionally less money. (Sorry Sarah P, I just used a mathematical equation with TWO variables. I know how much that hurts the ol' noggin'.) This is known as 'starving the beast'. Now your company has more money to spend on little guys, so you actually hire another one (or ten), make more product, make more profits, make more money in the long run. Wow! That sounds really SOCIALIST!
I have to sort of wonder whether Ms. Bernard, if she took the time to think about it, would think that option (1) is most probable. But that one does not cause the company to change employment, so it is not SCARY enough to frighten people into voting Republican.
Ms. Bernard works for the "Independent Women's Forum". (Independent of what? Reality?).
This cute little "forum" has "scholar directors" like Lynne (my husband really is human) Cheney, Lawrence (Mr. Supply Side) Kudlow (he is a Distinguished Scholar, ya know), and Wendy Lee Gramm (Ronald Reagan called her his favorite economist). I'm guessing there might be some kind of agenda going on here.
OK, I am not scared that taxing really rich people is going to cost poor peeps their jobs. You?