I have to say, I never thought I’d read a blogger on NRO endorse the notion that all of the money you earn belongs to the state. I certainly never thought that read it twice in a year. But here we are, again . . . and I feel compelled to engage in an excruciating debate with Robert VerBruggen of Phi Beta Con.

Question: Is there any substantive difference between the government cutting you a check and cutting your taxes?

VerBruggen agrees with the Progressives on the Supreme Court I wrote about recently: Nope, all your money is the government’s!

But his odd insistence that government checks and tax cuts are the same began months ago, when he expounded more extensively if not coherently on this same subject.

I attempted to illustrate where he had gone wrong in his thinking by taking his positions to an extreme. To my surprise, VerBruggen agreed with my modest proposal to eliminate all charitable tax deductions and credits and capitulate comprehensively to the welfare state

More specifically: “The feds should eliminate the charitable tax deduction and send out the average (tax-forgiven) amount donated per adult to every citizen in the country to donate as they wish!”

VerBruggen supports a “charity entitlement” over charitable tax deductions. He favors a “social security” model for “kind of a ‘forced charity’” over tax deductions.

I’m not sure if he’s thought his rather radical and odd argument through to the end point.

(more…)

In a little remarked upon move earlier this month, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) put forward a legislative proposal to raise taxes on energy companies by stripping them of the ability to claim a key tax deduction.

Known as Section 199 relief, the deduction in question has been available to companies engaged in energy production, as well as manufacturing, for several years as an incentive to encourage operations and employment.

However, under an amendment introduced by Baucus, which could be voted on in the Senate next month, that deduction would be eliminated for certain players in the energy industry.

According to a memo obtained by Capitol Confidential and written by Senate Finance Committee staffers Scott Mulhauser and Erin Shields, the Baucus amendment is intended as a substitute to another introduced by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.).  The Johanns amendment is itself intended to modify the Small Business Jobs Act.

The memo states that “the Democratic alternative… would repeal Section 199 of the tax code, which currently allows these corporations to deduct six percent of their income from oil and gas production from their tax liability, effective December 31, 2010.”

(more…)

Just because you have a gun, you do not necessarily need to shoot it.  Just because you have a vote in Congress does not mean you need to grab power.

While both Parties have their internal battles, Republicans who are wondering why their numbers are waning need look no farther than the current health care debate for clues.  When Democrats roll out a Federal takeover of private health insurance, the Republican response should not be less of a government takeover, it should be a total federal government withdrawl from regulating private health insurance.  The point is simple, although lost on many.

When we think about insurance in our lives, from life, home, auto, professional liability and health, which one is the biggest source on consternation?  Guess what?  Health insurance is the only one in which the federal government has significantly intruded.  Even that is currently regulated at the State level.  However, the many Federal government restrictions that complicate the health insurance marketplace are the primary reason competition cannot thrive.

(more…)