I just had two random thoughts that have been going through my head that I figured I’d share.
The 111st Congress has passed all sorts of legislation in their lame duck session and it’s being hailed by the left and the media has a great accomplishment. My question is, what if this was a lame duck Republican congress that was pushing through much of their agenda after being voted out of office just a little over a month and a half before? Those same people would be up in arms screaming that they were voted out of office, that the people didn’t like what they were doing. They would demand that they cease and desist and wait for the next congress which has the backing of the people. Yet know that they’ve been voted out of office, they’re trying to cram as much through as humanly possible. Many of them have already lost their jobs and have nothing to lose; therefore, they’ll do what they want rather than what the people want. I’m not for knee jerk reactions but I don’t think any of our Founders would have approved of lame duck congresses doing this and I feel we need to ensure sure that any congress, especially this congress which has been overwhelmingly been repudiated by the people, does not meet for a lame duck session. Did the Republican congress that was thrown out of office in 2006 push through loads of legislation after they lost? No, they did not. And they did the right thing by not doing so.
Another thought popped into my head the other day. Liberals, especially those currently in office, decry tax cuts and “handouts” to the rich and have actively fought against them. If that’s so, why did they push “Cash for Clunkers”? I mean, considering that we were still on the downhill slide in the summer of 2009, when middle class family were struggling, how could they afford to go out and buy a new car? If they were barely able to pay their mortgages, how were they supposed to be able to take on the new debt of a car, even if there was a huge tax credit granted to them? This program only helped out those who weren’t really affected by the economic downturn or those who still has plenty of money left after being hit by it. In short, it only helped those who already had the means to buy a new car, the so-called “rich.” And to say that it stimulated anything is an utter lie. It just shifted consumption up because people who were already considering buying a new car decided to buy it that summer when they could get the tax credit instead of in the fall when it would be gone.
Liberals love to abuse the Constitution. We all know that. They love to claim that any one is allowed to do virtually anything under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. They also love making things “fair.” If they’re all about being “fair” why the hell do they support a progressive income tax? Yes, I heard it all before, they can afford to pay more so it’s only “fair” to make them do so. This, I believe, flies right in the face of their fairness campaign. If you want to truly be fair, the tax rates for everyone should be the same. It’s only fair, right?