Heritage Foundation on liberals’ hatred of “those they call ‘the rich'”

It’s getting hard to tell who really favors and opposes the Obama-Republican tax compromise. The righty Heritage Foundation originally came out in favor but says in a new statement this a.m. that it opposes the deal, which, upon careful reading and further reflection, turns out to be larded up with “goodies progressives in the Congress are now busily adding.”

One can’t help suspecting that Heritage is fine with the deal, as originally negotiated by Obama and the Repub leadership, but if liberals are going to balk and ask for sweeteners, it’s best to threaten to bring down the whole deal and, as this Heritage piece does. It warns that both:

The public will blame the Dems if the deal falls through and everyone’s  taxes go up on Jan. 1 and

The new incoming Repub majority will soon enact a much better version of the deal, from the righty perspective. (You would think that the Repubs had just won complete of the federal government, rather than just control of one house of the Congress.

I commend the whole Heritage essay to your attention, as a great example of certain rhetorical devices of the right. For those who don’t click through, a couple of my faves:

Heritage: “Liberals in Congress are walking away even from that deal, and are holding the country hostage to their hatred of those they call ‘the rich.’ “ Presumably, through Heritage’s eyes, the top two percent of the country’s taxpayers are not rich. I would also note that those liberals who are “walking away” from the deal have always opposed it and have been saying for some years that they would not vote to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket. It’s Heritage that is reversing itself on the deal.

Heritage: “It’s baffling that, two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the left has held fast to its belief that penalizing success will somehow incentivize hard work and produce wealth.” Wow. The Communist card. It may be possible to discern small differences between life behind the Iron Curtain in Stalin days and the hellish life that would ensue in middle America if the marginal rate on the top two percent returned to where it was in sad, grey 1990s America, but we get the point.

Heritage: “Of course, the pain of an Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike would be somewhat lessened by the fact that they would hopefully be temporary. As Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said on Fox News Sunday yesterday, the first order of business next month for the incoming Tea Party House of Representatives will be to undo the tax hikes the Lame Duck Congress may be about to pass this week. (We would have preferred to have seen that first order of business to be the repeal of Obamacare, but given the circumstances, throttling that unbearable act must move to the second spot.)” It’s official. The Tea Party House Representatives. I actually had the impression that Tea Partiers were somewhat torn between their attraction to tax cuts and their attraction to deficit reduction.

Anyway, there’s a lot more good stuff in there.




You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/13/2010 - 01:41 pm.

    It’s nice to know that somethings don’t change.
    I suppose that’s conservative.

  2. Submitted by David Greene on 12/13/2010 - 02:19 pm.

    You missed the two biggest lies, in one phrase nonetheless:

    “tax hikes the Lame Duck Congress may be about to pass this week”

    Lie #1: It’s not a tax hike. It’s an expiration of a tax cut. Voting for the deal would be a tax cut.

    Lie #2: It’s an expiration of a temporary tax cut. Rates would go up without passing anything. But of course we care too much about those poor rich to let that happen.

    We’re well on our way to banana republic status. I predict the middle class will be essentially gone by 2040 if things keep going as they are.

  3. Submitted by Brian Simon on 12/13/2010 - 03:39 pm.

    nice projection in implying the motive for raising taxes on the wealthy is ‘hate’.

  4. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 12/13/2010 - 04:44 pm.

    Writings from the Heritage Foundation often emit a strong fecal odor. This one is no exception. “Failure to worship on bended knee” isn’t quite the same thing as “hate,” but moderation is not a Heritage Foundation trait. I feel obligated, then, to provide a bit of counterpoint from that noted Socialist, long reviled by free market conservatives everywhere – Adam Smith.

    “…It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

    — Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

  5. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/13/2010 - 07:32 pm.

    I’m reading The Wealth of Nations right now — I dare say few conservatives have.

  6. Submitted by Hénock Gugsa on 12/13/2010 - 10:41 pm.

    “…holding the country hostage …”

    Nobody can match let alone beat the GOP at a game called ‘deflect and reflect,’ or projecting your bad points on an opponent. They can wound you and turn around and play the victim the next second.
    “…the left has held fast to its belief that penalizing success will somehow incentivize hard work and produce wealth.”

    Wow! So what is Heritage saying about that company, State Street Corp., that eliminates 1400 jobs after reporting profits of nearly half a billion dollars. The company’s CEO claims that this layoff measure was needed to bring about “a stronger sense of urgency about getting things done.” (source: Joan Vennochi: “The Rich Rewards of cutting jobs.” – Boston Globe OpEd 12/09/2010.)

  7. Submitted by Don Medal on 12/16/2010 - 03:46 pm.

    Not so much “hate” as perhaps “envy”.

    As a group, that top 2% seems to be getting along ok. They have gotten substantially richer of late without any demonstrable extra job creation or improvement in earnings for the middle class as a result. They are the only segment which substantially improved their economic status over the last decade.

    Americans have loved wealthy people, but only with the understanding that they themselves could become wealthy someday.

    A real democracy can not function if the majority of the voters are economically disenfranchised. As we enter an era where the middle class (what’s left of it anyway) are further and further behind that top 2% and as projections show home ownership is acheivable for a smaller and smaller percentage of the middle class, the real threat to that top 2% is not taxes, it is the potential for the collapse of the present system.

Leave a Reply