stephanie
10-29-2007, 08:44 PM
:clap:
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 29, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Spending: The first primary is still months off, but Democratic candidates have already spent the country into the poorhouse. Witness John Edwards' latest package of costly new promises.
Speaking to the editors of the Concord (N.H.) Monitor, Edwards unveiled a batch of spending programs meant to "do something about economic inequality."
His ideas, funded with other people's money, include a million new housing vouchers for the poor, federally matched savings accounts for low-income Americans and College for Everyone.
We'd like to ask the former senator from North Carolina how much his ideas will cost. But that, it seems, is an issue that he doesn't want to bother with. Like the other Democrats running for president, he's more interested in "asking" Americans to make sacrifices.
Give Sen. Hillary Clinton some credit, though. While she says that she has "a million ideas," the former first lady promptly admits "the country can't afford them all."
That, however, doesn't diminish her willingness to try to force taxpayers to fund far more than they should have to. Remember, it was Clinton who proposed giving every baby born in the U.S. a $5,000 bond to be used for college tuition or buying a first home. She gave up on the notion only after Republicans pointed out how foolish it was.
But that leaves 999,999 ideas, none of which is likely to actually expand the economy, an event that would better serve everyone, particularly the poor, the very class that Democrats pretend to protect. Instead, you can expect every one of Clinton's ideas to inflict painfully high costs.
While the other Democratic candidates might not have as many ideas as Clinton, they do rival her in pressing ideas that the country can't afford.
Take Edwards' and Sen. Barack Obama's solutions for standing athwart the coming entitlement train wreck. Both have suggested raising the earnings cap on the payroll tax that funds Social Security benefits.
The payroll tax is now levied only on the first $97,500 of income. But Edwards has said he'd assess the tax on incomes beyond $200,000 a year as well, leaving a nontaxable gap of income between $97,500 and $200,000. Obama would simply raise the cap from its current level.
Either solution would add to the tax burden on those who fuel the economy; the costs would be enormous. And both would turn Social Security into a system of redistribution as those with high incomes would pay more into the system than they would ever take back in benefits.
In case anyone still cares, Social Security was not designed as a welfare program. It was designed to be a pension plan that would keep older Americans from being mired in poverty in their retirements.
Democrats not running for president are also busy trying to strip Americans of more money. Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has proposed the largest income tax hike in history.
SNIP:
At some point, politicians who feed off taxpayers' money have to be told no. Americans should not be expected to be an endless font of dollars to be used by those who didn't earn them.
read the whole article..
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278550674389710
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 29, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Spending: The first primary is still months off, but Democratic candidates have already spent the country into the poorhouse. Witness John Edwards' latest package of costly new promises.
Speaking to the editors of the Concord (N.H.) Monitor, Edwards unveiled a batch of spending programs meant to "do something about economic inequality."
His ideas, funded with other people's money, include a million new housing vouchers for the poor, federally matched savings accounts for low-income Americans and College for Everyone.
We'd like to ask the former senator from North Carolina how much his ideas will cost. But that, it seems, is an issue that he doesn't want to bother with. Like the other Democrats running for president, he's more interested in "asking" Americans to make sacrifices.
Give Sen. Hillary Clinton some credit, though. While she says that she has "a million ideas," the former first lady promptly admits "the country can't afford them all."
That, however, doesn't diminish her willingness to try to force taxpayers to fund far more than they should have to. Remember, it was Clinton who proposed giving every baby born in the U.S. a $5,000 bond to be used for college tuition or buying a first home. She gave up on the notion only after Republicans pointed out how foolish it was.
But that leaves 999,999 ideas, none of which is likely to actually expand the economy, an event that would better serve everyone, particularly the poor, the very class that Democrats pretend to protect. Instead, you can expect every one of Clinton's ideas to inflict painfully high costs.
While the other Democratic candidates might not have as many ideas as Clinton, they do rival her in pressing ideas that the country can't afford.
Take Edwards' and Sen. Barack Obama's solutions for standing athwart the coming entitlement train wreck. Both have suggested raising the earnings cap on the payroll tax that funds Social Security benefits.
The payroll tax is now levied only on the first $97,500 of income. But Edwards has said he'd assess the tax on incomes beyond $200,000 a year as well, leaving a nontaxable gap of income between $97,500 and $200,000. Obama would simply raise the cap from its current level.
Either solution would add to the tax burden on those who fuel the economy; the costs would be enormous. And both would turn Social Security into a system of redistribution as those with high incomes would pay more into the system than they would ever take back in benefits.
In case anyone still cares, Social Security was not designed as a welfare program. It was designed to be a pension plan that would keep older Americans from being mired in poverty in their retirements.
Democrats not running for president are also busy trying to strip Americans of more money. Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has proposed the largest income tax hike in history.
SNIP:
At some point, politicians who feed off taxpayers' money have to be told no. Americans should not be expected to be an endless font of dollars to be used by those who didn't earn them.
read the whole article..
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278550674389710