Late Tuesday night, the House signed off on the Senate’s bill to deal with the so-called “fiscal cliff.” Despite Republicans voting almost 2 to 1 against it (151-85), the bill passed with a healthy margin. And now the right wing freak out begins. Here’s Fox News’ resident “judge,” Andrew Napolitano complaining that all this taxation is just what the Founding Fathers started the American Revolution over:
Napolitano’s contention that Republicans are elected to “shrink the government, to reduce spending, to stop the borrowing and to lower taxes” is absolutely hilarious in light of the last 30-plus years of Republican governing. Reagan, Bush and Dubya only managed to cut taxes while bloating the deficit and exploding the size of government. Republicans didn’t seem to mind at the time and I doubt I’d find much in the way of protestation from Napolitano himself. Another bit of humor from Napolitano: his statement that the Republicans “won” the House. Actually, they barely held on to it despite receiving over half a million less votes than the Democrats did. Thank goodness for extreme Gerrymandering, right GOP? In an election where the GOP had everything going in its favor at the outset, the fact that President Obama won in a crushing landslide, the Democrats actually gained seats in the Senate and the GOP had to rig the election to keep the House can only be overlooked by the most partisan of hacks. Sorry, judge, your evidence that the people wanted the GOP agenda is lacking. You would be laughed out of court for your presentation.
Finally, Napolitano delivers his punch line by comparing a marginal tax increase to the taxes the British Crown levied against the colonies:
“We fought a revolution against the King and the Parliament of Britain when taxes were at three percent!”
Yeah, this historical scholar forgot one tiny detail: we were being taxed without representation. There’s even a catchy little slogan every schoolkid learns about it and everything. Taxation without representation is certainly something to revolt about. To suggest that the rich paying more is the equivalent situation is laughable. If we were to tax the rich according to the amount of representation they have, they would be paying 90% or more! Particularly after Citizens United gave the rich the ability to spend as much as they want to threaten politicians with negative advertising.