My BS-ometer goes off whenever Democrats claim to base their policy preferences on "the children" or the welfare of "future generations". From the House Committee on Ways and Means we get this complaint over the President's tactics that forced the Democrats to patch the Alternative Minimum Tax without increasing taxes elsewhere (though nothing prevents the Democrats from cutting spending and thereby staying true to "pay-as-you-go").
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives took an important step to prevent 23 million Americans from receiving an average $2,000 tax increase per family because of the Alternative Minimum Tax.
While the precise nature of the legislationâ€”providing tax relief without adhering to the principle of â€œpay-as-you-goâ€ (PAYGO)â€”was not the preferred option of House Democrats, allowing the AMT to eat away at incomes of middle-class families was something that the Democrats could not let happen.
The Democrats objection to waiving PAYGO is simple: Our children and grandchildren should not have to pay for tax cuts we give ourselves. The Republican solution of waiving PAYGO seems easy only because the people who ultimately incur tax increasesâ€”our children and grandchildrenâ€”donâ€™t vote. ...
The Administrationâ€™s very clever and deceptive trick has left House Democrats in the difficult position of choosing between American taxpayers and future generations.
Considering that these same Democrats have absolutely no problem with murdering more than 1,000,000 of "our children and grandchildren" annually in the womb, I find their complaints here to be disingenuous at best. If members of "future generations" don't deserve enough consideration to have their very lives protected, why should we worry about how our tax laws will affect them?