The liberals' motivations, if impure, make perfect sense. If liberals are in charge of the public sector programs that people become dependent on for day to day living - then liberals can always campaign on the issues of "not taking food out of school children's tummies." Thinking people understand that while offering a hot lunch for a child at school is a wonderful thing for those children who need it. How much more wonderful would it be if that family grew their own economic ability to not be dependent upon the government issued lunches. A family that has the ability to send its own children to school with lunch boxes packed full of Mom's special goodies doesn't need liberals to force feed them the high-carb, mediocre nutrition that one can only get from government processed lasagna.
But Mom and Dad seeing Sally and Johnny off everyday fully independent of state aid - is bad political business for liberals. If liberals can't be the family's provider, then they won't be as likely to need such politicians in place and government might actually begin to address what is best for said family.
If you haven't noticed - this didn't used to be such a partisan issue. It was a Democrat who in fact first demonstrated the soundness of the fiscal propriety of reducing taxes and increasing revenues - John F. Kennedy. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush followed in his steps and the results have always been the same. Each of them lowered, and in Reagan's case - greatly reduced, the top marginal rates - and the following year revenues poured into Washington in record numbers.
I know... some of you educated in public schools are scratching your head wondering, "How’d they do that?"
Follow the simplicity. Top marginal rates are reduced on the people earning the most - many of whom own businesses. Many of them take the savings and reinvest it - in business, in the market, in expansion, in additional services, franchises, or product lines. Every time they do they are giving work/employment to advisors, consultants, contractors, assembly line workers, systems analysts, and the list goes on. Many of those people have employees, or have to hire additional employees to complete the work that they are hired for. And every employee that they hire, earns a little more than they would have - had that company, small business, etc - not been able to grow.
And one other thing... all those employees pay taxes. (At least those who are here legally.)
Liberals see the economic pie as something that is static, does not grow, and must always be redistributed. Of course they fancy the idea that they know best how to redistribute it all - and in doing so they buy into the Marxian idea: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." An utterly immoral viewpoint!
Conservatives see the economic pie as something that is somewhat unlimited and can be grown and that when it is grown - people will actually pay MORE in taxes - but will do so off of greater earnings.
And the lesson of Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush confirm that it is true.
If liberals truly cared about helping people - especially the poor - they wouldn't try to thieve more tax dollars from the only sector of the tax base that can help grow the pie. Instead they would abolish the AMT all together, and give increased tax reduction incentives for those who would use their reductions to further expand their business ventures. They should also give the greatest incentives to those who could demonstrate that they had grown their employment base by more than 4% - since that is roughly the record low rate of unemployment we are now experiencing thanks to the "grow the pie" economy now in place.
But they won't.
As long as liberals will live they will attempt to take more of what does not belong to them, even if it means growing the rate of unemployment, seeing the number of Americans who live below the poverty line increase, and reduces the amount of dollars Washington can use to help those who truly do fall through the cracks.
Just remember - raising taxes lays people off, cause poverty to increase, and reduces the resources that are available for government to help those who are in desperate need. Reducing taxes increases jobs, moves people from poverty to ownership, and fills the federal coffers with help for those in need.
Can it be said any more plainly?