So.
Hillary and her fellow Democrats say they want to raise taxes on
the rich. Really? Well then, there’s no time like the present.
First, a hat tip to TAS colleague James Taranto, who
writes the Best of the Web column over at the Wall Street
Journal. Pondering billionaire Warren Buffett’s musings about
the need to tax the rich, Taranto was reminded by reader/blogger
Mark Perry that Buffett does not need to wait for any changes in
the tax laws to raise his own taxes. Perry directed us to the
webpage of the U.S. Treasury. There you will find the following
information:
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the
U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called
“Gifts to the United States.” This account was established in 1843
to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to
express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into
this account is for general use by the federal government and can
be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered
an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be
made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury
and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D17
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Well, well, well. Let’s forget Mr. Buffett for the moment. After
all, while Buffett is a player of note in American life, he is not
a candidate for president. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack
Obama are, however. There are also any number of liberals running
for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House vowing to “raise taxes on
the rich” if voters will just give them the chance to do so. But
why wait for the voters? The next election is an entire year away,
and as so many of these candidates love to point out we’re in a
crisis right now.
The question that should be asked of Clinton, Edwards, Obama and
company is a simple one. It is a version of the question that
Taranto posed to Buffett. Why wait? While the Treasury Department
classifies this type of self-tax as a “gift” to the United States,
actually there’s a better name for it. Let’s call it “the
Credibility Tax.” If you, Senator Clinton, believe so passionately
in raising taxes on the rich — and keep telling us how well off
you and your writing/speechifying husband have become — you can
tax yourself right this minute, giving voters an instant image of
serious credibility on this issue. Ditto with your presidential
candidate colleagues and fellow true believers. Each of you can
write a very large sized personal check to the Treasury Department
and pay your fair share of the Credibility Tax in less time than it
takes to decide your positions on giving driver’s licenses to
illegal immigrants.
Democrats are saying something else these days that complements
perfectly the opportunity given them by the chance to pay the
Credibility Tax. They have made much over the last several years
with a charge that President Bush has not called the American
people to sacrifice during a time of war. Not long ago several top
Democrats in the House proposed that in the spirit of sacrifice
high-income taxpayers should have a 12%-15% “war surtax” added to
their tax bill if they favored the war on Iraq. There is no reason
to limit this idea to paying for the war, and the beauty of the
Credibility Tax is that one doesn’t have to wait for that
irritating legislative procedure to make something like this a law.
Democrats, who love the idea of adding programs to the federal
government, could just start sacrificing right now — today — by
ponying up an additional 12%-15% of their income for the
Credibility Tax. Even better, the Treasury Department specifically
says that paying these funds is a demonstration of “patriotism.”
With that kind of applause coming straight from the government
itself these candidates would be instantly vaccinated against any
future “swiftboating” episodes that might churlishly challenge
their love of country.
Where would the money go once donated by these rich patriots?
Why, to the plethora of federal programs liberals love. Let’s take
Hillary Clinton’s list as displayed on her website. Receipts from
the Credibility Tax could be used to help provide affordable health
care for all Americans, reduce the cost of energy and make us
energy independent, expand access to affordable, high-quality child
health care, make college more affordable, protect families from
predatory lenders and help them avoid foreclosures, balance the
federal budget “so we don’t pass today’s massive debts to the next
generation” and much, much more. This being the same Hillary
Clinton who exuberantly says she has “a million ideas” for the
government to spend money, you’ll understand if I list only a few.
But you get the idea.
Think of the political opportunity here for these folks. John
Edwards could call a press conference in the massive new gym he’s
built on his multi-million dollar North Carolina property and have
a check signing ceremony before hopping his next flight to New
Orleans to collect his investment from all those residents losing
their homes to his favorite investment company. Hillary and Bill
could have their check signing in Rep. Charlie Rangel’s Harlem,
with the tax-happy chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee
by their side as they signed individual Credibility Tax checks. As
a matter of fact, Rangel himself could write his own Credibility
Tax check, setting a superb example for his fellow tax-paying
Americans. Having just proposed a half-trillion dollar tax increase
over the next ten years, Rangel and his friend could get an early
start on filling those Treasury coffers. With all these prominent
liberals raising their own taxes 15% for this year (and why not
retroactively for last year?) the fever of self-sacrifice among our
liberal friends could sweep the country. After all, you can set
your own tax rate when you pay the Credibility Tax. Why cut your
payment as low as 15%? Why not, as most liberals favor with the
capital gains tax, raise it to 30%? Or 50%? The higher the better,
right?
Think of it. Moving back to Buffett and our higher-income fellow
citizens, the possibilities are endless. Just imagine those
Credibility Tax checks cascading into the Treasury from New
York Times columnist Paul Krugman and his publisher, Pinch
Sulzberger. The whole upper class gang at the Times could
get in on the act, Dowdifying the Treasury. Say, isn’t Frank Rich?
We could move on to Hollywood with Arianna Huffington writing her
check alongside Bill Maher right there on HBO. The musical Ms.
Streisand wouldn’t have to sing a note — just sign one. Instead of
restricting his money to a Minnesota Senate campaign Al Franken
could sit next to the ruins of the recently collapsed bridge in
Minneapolis and start off a “rebuild the bridge with the
Credibility Tax” campaign, a seriously good civic venture if ever
there was one. Keith Olbermann could sign his on live television,
boosting MSNBC ratings. Hollywood billionaire David Geffen could
sign his check alongside his favorite candidate, Barack Obama,
inside Obama’s Chicago church. Obama, of course, is on record
attacking the Christian Right for supporting tax cuts. “I don’t
know what version [of the Bible] they are reading, but it doesn’t
jibe with my version,” Obama has said, something he could repeat as
he signs his contribution. It’s a beautiful thought, isn’t it?
Obama and Geffen voluntarily sending in 50% of their income to jibe
with Obama’s version of the Holy Scripture.
What a grand vision. A real Kumbaya moment. Self-sacrifice and
lots of tax dollars all rolled into one. But if you’re thinking I’m
crazy, I have to confess you’re probably right. There will be
sacrifice if any of these people gain the White House, of that you
can be sure. But the Credibility Tax? Why should any of these rich
liberals raise their own taxes unilaterally when, if they just wait
until the next election, they can get even more access to the
checkbook of the ultimate tax check writer in all of world
history?
You.
