The Temptations

Back 40 years ago, the Temptations gave us the solution to all of our ills.  They sang, "More taxes will solve everything...."  Of course, they were being facetious, critical of the "tax, tax, tax" mentality.  But, apparently, not everyone recognizes that.

Donna Brazile, a Democratic Party "strategist" or, more accurately, "a senior Democratic strategist," wrote a column today about the need to wake up and recognize that only raising taxes, well, "will solve everything."  She cites the growing trend among Republicans, esp Republican governors, to raise taxes to try to balance state budgets.  (Just as an aside, Gee, I wonder what she brings home in pay for being "a senior Democratic strategist.")  Any gains made in any states is due, not to cuts in state taxes, but to the efforts of the Obama administration in raising taxes to restore the economy.  That this is the slowest economic recovery from a recession in 70 years--thanks to raising taxes--escapes her thinking.  And, of course, I risk being called a "bigot" in even questioning her views.

But here's one I question.  She claims, "Michigan automotive industry survived (thanks to Obama)."  Hmmm......  I guess one must say the auto industry seems to be on the right path again.  It certainly is looking much, much better than it did five years ago.  But, again at the risk of being labeled a "bigot," here are some questions I'd like to see addressed before I'm willing to concede "thanks to Obama."  Who, initially, began giving money to the auto companies, namely GM and Chrysler?  People claimed that GM and Chrysler were "too big to fail."  Yet, they seemed to be doing a pretty good job of just that, failing.  Why weren't they allowed to fail?  There are many here in Detroit who think they should have been, that they were producing a lousy product inefficiently.  There can be no definitive answer, but who says that GM and Chrysler couldn't have survived without federal bailouts?  I know their situations were different (producing a lousy product inefficiently), but Fords seemed to come out of all of this smelly quite good!  Iacocca's Chrysler made a miraculous comeback a few decades ago, not with  bailouts, but federal guarantees.  At what cost was the "survival?"  US taxpayers will be out tens of billions of dollars in the end, likely never to be repaid.  What cost was there to bond- and stockholders, retirees both blue- and white-collar, suppliers and distributors, not to mention dealerships and the many they employed?  What precedent was set for future "bailouts" in instances of "too big to fail?"  Who determines "too big?"  What message was sent to Americans, millions of them, who lost their homes and businesses?  Hey, the GM and Chrysler execs and their unions ran their companies into the ground--the federal government will jump to help them.  Oh, but many of you lost your homes and businesses--we're sorry about that.  Couple that sincere expression of empathy with the fact that those companies that foreclosed on many of those homes and businesses were given big fat checks by the feds, too.

Of course, the main message of Brazile and the Democrats finally comes through in the final paragraphs of her column.  "Money to repair roads and provide services must come from somwhere....  raise taxes on the wealthy."  Yep, it's the same old refrain.  Before I'll countenance any of this claptrap from Brazile, Obama, the Levins, Stabenow, or any of the Democrats I want to see them donate, yes donate, enough of their hefty incomes until they live on what I earn. After all, "raise taxes on the wealthy."  I think I'm pretty comfortable and these folks make a bundle more than I do.  That must make them "the wealthy."  And, besides, why wouldn't they want to give their money to the federal government?  After all, the federal government knows what's best and can fix anything if it's just given enough money......  Hypocrites!