Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Laslo Boyd’s Weak Tea

If you want and explication of the word hackneyed, just look up a Laslo Boyd column. In particular, his latest bowl of pablum about tea partiers. You see when it comes to the American right Boyd has already shown he doesn’t know his head from his ass..

Let’s take some of Boyd’s ahem “argument” point by point.

What the tea party is good at is expressing rage and getting press coverage. Yet, a New York Times poll last month showed that 82 percent of Americans do not associate themselves with the tea party…Let’s face it: the tea party is a fringe movement. Loud, but a fringe movement.

Fringe? Really Laslo? Then explain why more Americans say the average tea partier is closer to their views than President Obama, and why Gallup found that in “age, educational background, employment status, and race — Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.”

Did any of them notice that 95 percent of Americans had their taxes reduced as part of the stimulus package?… You hear a lot of claims that taxes are goingto go up, but that’s nothing more than political rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty—the 95% claim has been roundly debunked. It’s impossible for 95% of Americans to get a tax cut if 47% pay no federal income tax. Much of the stimulus tax cuts are refundable meaning that the people who pay no income taxes get a check from Uncle Sam—paid for by the folks who actually do pay federal income taxes. That isn’t a “tax cut” it’s redistribution. True most of these people do pay other taxes like the payroll tax. However, when you combine the totality of ALL of Obama’s “tax cuts” the refundable amount transferred to low income workers exceed what they pay in other taxes. Again, this is a wealth transfer, not a tax cut. Furthermore, the “making work pay” tax cut phases out as income rises. So low income Americans who work hard and earn more are hit with a big marginal tax rate increase as their income rises.

So tell me Laslo is it really just “political rhetoric” and “intellectual dishonesty” to claim taxes are going go up? Or to claim they are not in the face of the overwhelming evidence?

The teapot really started boiling during the health care reform discussions… but most of the public complaints from the tea party set have been about things that aren’t in the health care bill. There never was a provision for death panels. This is not a government takeover of health care delivery. Doctors, hospitals and insurance companies will continue to be part of the private sector.

Sorry Laslo, while not a complete government takeover, Obamacare in fact, expands government into nearly every aspect of American health care, increases taxes, and exacerbates the cost problem it purports to solve.

Even before the ink was dry on the legislation Verizon and Caterpillar announced Obamacare would lead to increased insurance costs for their employees, and Medtronic warned that the measure’s taxes on it’s products would lead to thousands of employee layoffs.

Yes doctors, hospitals and insurance companies will marginally be part of the private sector, but tea partiers understood that Obamacare is a quintessentially corporatist bargain. Government allows—even guarantees—industry profits in return for conforming to the ruling party’s political agenda. Hence the reasons why the pharmaceutical and insurance industries cut back room deals with the White House.

Legitimate concerns, yet, in Boyd’s blinkered view these objections were never part of the tea party’s argument.

Sorry Laslo, despite all your gimpy straw man arguments, the tea party isn’t a fringe movement. And, for the most part their objections to expanded government, exploding deficits, and unsustainable spending are grounded in reality.

If only, Laslo, you had the eyes to see it.






Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend