You don’t add to the deficit by cutting taxes. You don’t add to the deficit by cutting tax rates. What’s happening here is that Governor Romney is announcing an across-the-board tax cut, which is good, and his top rate ends up being 28%. But then falls into a trap, I’m sure it’s a consultant that’s come up with this, says, “Look, but you’ve got to make sure –” I know what they’re doing. What they’re doing is assuming that most members of their audience, i.e., voters, the American people, however you want to describe them, think that a tax cut equals less money to Washington.

So rather than teach and explain how that isn’t the case, you go ahead and accept what they think and — I don’t want to use the word “pander,” but why not take the occasion to teach? You’re in the middle of a primary fight, you’re trying to secure the nomination with a conservative base, and here’s a great opportunity to do it. “How would you do it, Mr. Limbaugh? You say you know everything.” Fine. Okay, in this context, cut taxes across the board, and the top rate’s gonna get cut and it’s gonna be get cut to 28%. I would rather this be a flat tax, we’re gonna get there someday, but this is the best we can do right now, and any of you who think that the rich are getting a tax cut here, they’re gonna end up paying more revenue. More revenue is gonna be collected by the government and I go back and I cite the statistics from the eighties when Reagan lowered the top rate from 70 to 28 and revenue doubled.

Take the opportunity to teach it. But I’m sure the advice was, don’t get caught in defending the rich, because there’s no way to win that. That’s what a consultant would believe. No way to defend it, no way to win that, so just go out and make sure that the voters know that the rich are not getting a cut, gonna pay their fair share, the top 1% aren’t getting a break here. Well, what does that result in? The result of this is what I’m talking about. Sure, it’s accepting the premise. That’s what bugs me. It’s accepting the 99 versus 1% premise that Obama’s setting up to run class warfare. But there are hundreds of thousands of small businesses who are not going to get tax relief because of this, because a lot of these subchapter S small businesses file a personal tax return, Form 1040. And some of them, because of the overall size of the business, in terms of gross receipts, are gonna be lumped into the 1% so they’re not going to get the benefit of the tax cut here. They’re gonna get the rate reduction down to 28%, but their ability to write off and deduct, which everybody else is going to maintain, will not exist. So you’re gonna have some small businesses that won’t get tax relief, and who, compared to others, will suffer.

Now, yesterday Kudlow told us that Romney was gonna announce pro-growth, supply-side proposal. But he didn’t say that it was gonna contain this 99 versus 1% stuff. Folks, you have to understand, I like Mitt Romney. He’s come by here over the course of many years. I’ve sat with him and chatted many times since the 2008 campaign. Snerdley is yelling at me, “It’s aimed at the moderates!” The tax plan really isn’t aimed at moderates. The way he’s describing it is aimed at moderates. And I guess that’s a good way of describing why I think it could be so much more. Let’s just put it that way. This tax plan that he announced today has the potential to be really, really great, something that his campaign needs. And it may work for what he wants to accomplish here. This 99, 1%, exists for a reason, class warfare works for certain voters. But we don’t do it.

Continue reading on www.rushlimbaugh.com

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

Uncategorized
Previous post

Romney previews economic speech, vows to pursue 'simpler' tax system

Next post

Who Won Last Debate Before Super Tuesday?