Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 17, 2007
Robert Novak :: Townhall.com Columnist
Rangel Making History
by Robert Novak
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

WASHINGTON -- Meeting reporters at breakfast last week, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson set as his tax priority a "patch" to slow the runaway Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The former investment banker acted as though he were oblivious to plans by Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, to turn the need for such a temporary tax fix into the most radical left-wing tax revision in half a century.

When one questioner asked whether Paulson contemplated recommending a presidential veto of AMT legislation, he indicated astonishment at the very idea. His only stated concern was that Congress this year had not patched the AMT, originally intended to catch tax-evading millionaires, to prevent it from wreaking havoc on middle-income Americans. Paulson uttered not a word about what Rangel is up to.

Finally achieving his coveted chairman's role after years of waiting, Rangel wants to make history. His staff is hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system. Even if this package gets through the House, it likely would be filibustered to death in the Senate, with a veto by President George W. Bush as the last resort. But Rangel may really be aiming at 2009, envisioning then a Democratic president and a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate.

Unlike the Republican Ways and Means chairmen who preceded him over the previous 12 years, Rangel has a comprehensive tax strategy and a tactical game plan. His wedge is the AMT, the latest and most egregious lunacy imposed on the American taxpayer. Its present form would raise $1.4 trillion in revenue over the next decade, through taxation of 23 million additional families this year alone. Congress regularly prevents this calamity by enacting a patch that limits AMT coverage to 4 million upper-bracket families.

But Rangel has refused to pass a patch, and he has not hidden what he has in mind. When Congress returned from its summer break, Ways and Means summoned the usual lineup of tax redistributionists for a Sept. 6 hearing on "fair and equitable tax policy for America's working families." Jason Furman, director of the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, deplored "the increase in inequality" caused by the Bush tax cuts, which he said "have exacerbated after-tax income disparities."

On the day after the hearings, Rangel called in reporters to tell them an AMT "one-year patch is not on the radar screen." Advocating total repeal of AMT, he promised to pay for $800 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years with "the mother of all reforms."

Rangel talked about closing "loopholes," but the real money would come from drastically increasing the number of Americans paying the top 36 percent income tax rate and applying that rate to present capital gains taxpayers. Rangel also is considering the old millionaires' tax, but applying it to much more than millionaires: a surtax on household incomes over $200,000. All this would reverse the tide of across-the-board tax reduction begun by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson and renewed by Ronald Reagan.

While Rangel appears to be preparing for big-time tax increases in 2009, he is giving it a try for 2007. Something surely will be done to blunt AMT this year, and Rangel is holding it hostage with ransom to be paid by left-wing tax revision. Even if it will not enable passage of the "mother of all reforms," it could force passage of more limited redistribution this autumn.

In his meeting with reporters last week, Paulson claimed to be puzzled that Congress had not yet passed an AMT patch this year. But he is not nearly so clueless. He understands Rangel's game and takes it seriously. Paulson views a tax increase as the worst medicine for today's economy.

Indeed, Paulson is alarmed that the U.S. advantage in tax policy is gone, with corporate taxes here now higher than those of foreign competitors. However, cutting corporate taxes, no matter how desirable for the sake of American prosperity, is no part of Charlie Rangel's desire to make history.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Robert Novak (1931-2009) was a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
fergus
"To Leftists, someone earning $50,000 per year should, after taxes, end up with exactly the same amount of income as someone earning $5,000,000 per year. The balance should go to the government in taxes.

That's what Leftists really mean when they say "fair"."

You ain't kidding! The Leftists also usually define "rich" as "anyone not on welfare."

Baseballdoc
"I guess you don't believe in a representative government?"

That would be an assumption, not a guess, and it would be wrong. I am neither opposed to representative government nor stupid. You said that the people voted for it. I pointed out that they didn't. Were it necessary for a vote of three-fourths of the people to vote to approve an Amendment we probably wouldn't have very many amendments.

As to how the people felt about it, one would have to look at what happened afterwards, assuming such a vote ever took place in 36 of the then 48 states. If the bums were thrown out of office, one could conclude that their constituencies did not approve. If they were not, one could at least assume their constituencies were not upset enough to remember it come election time, or that they in fact did approve.

The question, or claim, that the amendment was never in fact ratified is an odd one. It should be relatively simple to determine the truth of that by reviewing the legislative records of the 48 states in question, or as many as it takes to prove that at least 13 of them did not vote to ratify the amendment (which would mean that if even all of the others did ratify it, it still failed to meet the required 75% approval). As such, I have my doubts about the claim, because any decent lawyer would be able to argue it before the Supreme Court, assuming one could get a hearing. And I don't buy the claim that the court won't hear such a case, as even a minimal amount of publicity purporting to show that the government has been perpetrating an almost 100 year long fraud/constitutional violation would generate enough pressure to force the issue. But it does bear looking into further as it is a very interesting question.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.