How Democrats Play the Class Warfare Game
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Neal Boortz
Thursday, May 2, 2002Click here for the Social Democratic Party's SECRET PLAN for America after the elections!
There's been a bit of a firestorm on Capitol Hill over student loans. There's a shortage of money in the pool for Pell Grants.
Pell Grants are not loans … they are outright transfers of wealth from taxpayers to certain undergraduate students. They are only available to students from middle- and lower-income families.
As the tax burden gets shifted more and more to the high-income earners, we approach a point where most of the money will come from families who are ineligible for the grants. If you earn more than the limit, you are only permitted to pay money INTO the Pell Grant system, through your taxes, but you can't take any out. That fits anyone's definition of income confiscation and redistribution.
Now, here comes the Bush administration with a suggestion on how to put more money into the Pell Grant program. It's a simple idea, really. Change the interest rates on student loans to graduate students from fixed interest to variable interest. The money that is saved would be used to boost the Pell Grants.
The Democrats aren't going for it. Here they see an opportunity for some class warfare. It's a chance to exploit class envy. Daschle and Gephardt are bellowing that the money would be there in the budget to fully fund the Pell Grants if it hadn't been for Bush's tax cut.
Predictably, Class Warlord Ted Kennedy starts screaming about middle-class families having to foot the bill through higher interest rates so that rich people could have tax cuts. Same old stuff (so to speak).
You see the pattern here, don't you?
The socialist Democrats scour the budget … page by page, line by line … looking for any program that benefits the Democratic constituency that could use more funding. They then hold a news conference to decry the lack of "adequate" funding for that program.
A Democratic socialist big-government icon like Teddy Kennedy will then get in front of the network news cameras to announce that the people who would benefit from this particular government spending program are hurting because of "tax cuts for the rich."
Now – the fact is that tax cuts for higher achievers have been proven time and time again to actually increase rather than decrease federal tax revenues.
The reason is simple. When tax rates are reduced, the reward for economic activity is increased. When you increase a person's reward for a particular behavior, the tendency is for that behavior to increase.
Tax reductions for high achievers cause these people to increase their economic activities. They then earn more money and pay more taxes – though at a lower effective rate.
Democrats realize this – they understand the true dynamics of a tax decrease – but they also realize that their core constituents, those in the middle- and lower-income groups, aren't really bright enough to grasp the concept. The Democrats know they can sell their constituents a "static" view of the economy, that being when you lower tax rates you get less in tax revenue.
For the economically great unwashed it's easier to understand the simple-minded math of a static view than it is the accurate, though more complex, dynamic view.
For your further edification ... here's an article from Bruce Bartlett about dynamic scoring of our economy. Read, learn and amaze your friends! http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20020502.shtml
Typical Emory Students?
Now … a bit more on this Pell Grant and student loan situation.
CNN's Judy Woodruff was on the Emory University campus here in Atlanta yesterday. She was talking to students about rising college tuition and the struggle of getting the student loans they need and the difficulty in paying those student loans back.
It became clear that the purpose of this little segment was to promote the concept that the taxpayers of this country are somehow responsible for the cost of educating these kids at this liberal university.
Woodruff talked to a student named Jeaneen. OK, maybe she spells it a different way ... it's not about her spelling, it's about her attitude. Jeaneen is about to get a degree in political science. Judy asked Jeaneen to what extent the taxpayers should help subsidize her education.
I think it's beneficial to us as a community, as a nation, because they're helping to produce the leaders of the future. And I think that it's important, I think that for us to be a nation, at least everyone has the opportunity to go to school. I don't think that it's an imposition on the federal government to subsidize loans.
So, there you go. Jeaneen thinks that she has some right to use the police power of government to reach into the pockets of hard-working Americans, grab some of their money, and then use that money to pay for her education because SHE is going to be one of the leaders of the future.
What is she saying? "I'm going to do great things for you someday, so pay me now!" Maybe Jeaneen doesn't even know where the money is really coming from?
OF COURSE it's not an imposition on the federal government to subsidize loans, Jeaneen! It's an imposition on the TAXPAYERS! All the government has to do is take the money from them and give it to you! How hard can that be when you are allowed to use force?
Woodruff then talked to Andrew. Andrew is graduating from Emory Law School. Andrew looked resplendent with his jeans and his shirt hanging out. He was the very picture of a future lawyer. Andrew owes $66,000 in student loans. Woodruff asked him to what extent it is the responsibility of the American taxpayers to subsidize his education.
I think it's a large part their responsibility, because without their taxpayer money students like myself and other people aren't going to be able to take the jobs that they want because they're just not going to have the money. It's going to impede their ability to go and if they want to become a teacher or they want to become a lawyer or anything they're going to need this money in order to fund their way through education. And most people just don't have the money these days because it's such high prices for the education that they need.
Ahhh. Another fan of legalized plunder heard from. Andrew wants to be a lawyer and he needs the money for school so it is the "responsibility" of the taxpayers to fork over the money that he needs because, after all, Emory Law School is expensive.
When Andrew leaves school he'll start out earning a minimum of $80,000 a year. If he works at it he'll soon be earning in the hundreds of thousands. Will Andrew then look to reimburse the taxpayers for the money they spent on his legal education? Suuuuuure he will.
Are these two Emory students typical? Probably more than you think. They both think that they have a superior claim to the money earned by other Americans.
Superior to what? Superior to the taxpayer's need to spend that money on their own retirements, health care, vacations, children, food, clothing, shelter, transportation or other needs.
They have not one pang of guilt, not one second of remorse for their use of the government as an instrument of plunder. It just comes naturally.
Neal Boortz is the hugely popular nationally syndicated radio host.