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 legislation—providing tax relief without adhering to the principle of “pay-as-you-go†(PAYGO)—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 increases—our children and grandchildren—don’t vote. ...
The Administration’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?












it's only disingenuous if you don't believe that abortion is the same as killing a person. It's likely that there are democrats who don't believe that.
jez: Do you mean it's not disingenuous if you don't believe that abortion is the same as killing a person?
Anyway, I don't agree. Why does a "potential person" or a "fetus" or whatever deserve to have its potential future tax preferences taken into consideration? Why shouldn't we also take into account the fetus's future preference to have been born?
Your framing of the abortion situation with Democrats is misleading, MW.
I'd say it's almost a given that "many of these same Democrats have absolutely no problem murdering ... children ... in the womb" is total BS.
Many Democrats in Congress *do* have a problem with abortion, but they don't see laws enforced by government as the best way to keep those abortions from happening.
MW: Yes, that's right, sorry for the typo.
It's not a question of desert, perhaps there's some empathy (if that) but mostly it seems like simplistic economics / book keeping. Most people respond well to the idea of not spending more than you earn.
None of us had our preferences about being born taken into account. I think that would be taking the consumer culture too far.