Here is the supposed "liberal" Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus in today's edition:
I'm all for a more progressive tax code. But consider: The Tax Policy Center examined what it would take to avoid raising taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year while reducing the deficit to 3 percent of the economy by decade's end. The top two rates would have to rise to 72.4 and 76.8 percent, more than double the current level. You don't have to be anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist to think this would be insane.
Why is this insane? In the 1950's, a time of prosperity, the top rate was 90%. Were Eisenhower and Nixon insane? No Ms. Marcus, you do have to be a Grover Norquist to find 70+ rates insane. There is nothing insane about it at all. The government needs money. Rich people have plenty of it. Why rob banks? Because that's where the money is. This isn't insanity. In fact, it's sanity.
You see, in Ruth Marcus' world, tax rates never begins with "how much do we need to meet our obligations and who can afford to pay it?" It begins with "how can we shirk our responsibilities so I don't have to pay?" That is why she is all for cutting social security benefits and other catfood commission measures. You see, in her world, just because a guy can make a billion dollars in a year is no reason to leave him with a paltry $250 million. It doesn't matter how much revenue is needed. It's what Ruth thinks she ought to pay and not a penny more. Can you imagine how tough it's going to be for a Washington pundit to get by on $250,000 of a million dollar salary? Oh, the humanity! And all for poor schmucks on social security? No way, man!
Just another day at the "Bipartisan" Bastion of BS, the Washington Post.