Dems want to hike taxes...but can't call it what it is

Democrats--both Obama and top congressional Democrats-- want to raise taxes so they can keep spending far too much money. Labor union president Richard Trumka agrees, as do public employees and their unions.

But to advocate "raising taxes" risks alienating middle-class voters, so none of these groups wants to actually say that this is what they want.

Solution? Go to the Newspeak playbook and...simply call it something else. Example:

“President Obama does not yet have the balance right between spending cuts and new revenue,” said [union] President Richard Trumka, calling for “significant new revenues.”

Didja catch that? What could be the harm in "calling for significant new revenues"? Hey, who could possibly be against that? Sounds so...prosperous.

Except if you're even barely proficient with math (which lets out 52 percent of Americans right there) you realize that there are only two ways to obtain "new revenue": Have more economic activity--you know, the "B-word" that liberals and progressives hate so much--or raise tax rates.

And as Obama and his devoted servant Paul Krugman (nominal economist) have apparently, belatedly discovered, you just can't utter a magic phrase and cause the economy to expand.

Sooo.....that leaves raising tax rates.

Of course the Democrats are soothing middle-class voters by talking about taxing "the rich." And ya know what? I wouldn't waste a single breath opposing that. In fact, if I were the GOP leadership I'd find a freshman GOP senator and ask him to tell Reid and House Dems that the GOP would be willing to accept a big tax increase on the rich in return for more of the illusory spending "cuts" so widely touted Monday night.

Then when the bill came up for a vote, have all the Repubs vote "present." So bill would pass entirely by Dem votes. Which would move thousands of wealthy American liberals into the GOP camp.

But only a few thousand--most rich leftists would be delighted to pay more of their income to the government, because they agree with Dems that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" of taxes.

Which of course is why so many rich leftists write voluntary checks to the gubmint each year to help reduce the deficit.

What? You mean they....they...they don't do that?

But...but...but don't they always say "the rich" are undertaxed?? So I just assumed they'd be, y'know...intellectually consistent.

Yeah, I know: What was I thinking?