Tax cut Irrationale #7

God bless the E.V. Tribune. Even when people make cogent arguments on the short-sightedness of conservative tax cut plans, they can't force themselves to have either an honest discussion on the topic (highly unlikely) or tone down the rhetoric (less likely). It's like they have tourettes and just can't stop themselves.

Today's lesson comes in a real stretch of a commentary from good 'old John Semmens. Not sure what his background is, but it's clear his thinking isn't mainstream. Why do I say this? Because in today's opinion section, John juxtaposes violence with taxes and argues that the percentage of people being killed in violent attacks is, get this, declining. Why? Because there are more people, which means the body counts are lower, which means a less violent society.

Huh?

My sentiments exactly.

Mr. Semmens quotes an author named James Payne, (no relation to Congressional District Candidate Herb Pain, thankfully) who originally argues those points in a book titled "A History of Force." Payne's self-published book, which you can order from Amazon and get it in "4-6 weeks," really does make this obscene argument.

Now, "Professor Payne" really isn't a professor anymore. According to his publishing web site, he hasn't been formally "professor" since 1985. Let's see, that's twenty one years. I guess that's about as good a title as someone who gets an honorary degree and then calls himself "Doctor." The good Professor Paine has also written children's books that tell kids that government's role is, and I am NOT making this up, "to do harm."

Got it where Mr. Semmens political ideology is coming from? Somewhere between extremist libertarianism and the teachings of the John Birch Society (more on them in a future post).

So back his silly premise that more people on the planet means the per-capita exercising of violence is in decline, since as a percentage, fewer people are being harmed. As a result, people should stop saying the world is less safe because it's actually more safe. Hey, do the math!

Okay, so we now know that government intends only to do harm and therefore since government, Semmens equates government's collection of taxes as a violent act. And since violence is on the decline, that means tax collections need to be on the decline because "tax cuts are very popular." And since everyone is getting more and more income, they will be pushed into higher tax brackets, which means "they will be targeted by tax collectors."

Clearly Mr. Semmens has ignored the recent GAO report that shows the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer. I guess he's missed the Dept. of Commerce report that shows income levels adjusted for inflation are lower today than when President Bush took office. Mr. Semmens, if anyone, should understand that controlling for time and inflation, numbers tell a different story. After all, he started it.

So, to tie this insane argument together, Semmens says the legislature should pass House Bill 2489, which is the Goldwater Institute's factually unfounded 10 percent tax cut. As I stated in an earlier post, this bill means a whopping $117 dollar tax cut for people making $70,000 and tens of thousands for people making over $1 million.

Guess how much those making less than $40,000 get in a tax cut? Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Semmens is simply on another planet. That the East Valley Tribune gives this guy a continued voice is more evidence that there are people in charge here and in the legislature who are way off the proverbial reservation.