First John Lennon, now Bill Clinton?

Bill Clinton said what?

When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year]. It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So, we SHOULD cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive

What the hell? Is Clinton turning conservative? Cut those corporate tax rates! Make American business more competitive! We don’t bring in the revenues when the rates are high anyway!

Maybe. Sort of. He went on to say:

…and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a FAIR amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay.

Ah, so he’s not calling for lower taxes: he’s offering a trade-off. Lower rates for fewer deductions. Not quite Milton Friedman, maybe. Or maybe it is. What’s a flat tax, after all, if not a lower across-the-board rate in exchange for no deductions (other than family members) at all?

Let’s argue about this:

  • Yes, Clinton’s turning more conservative: otherwise he’d be calling for fewer deductions without lowering the rates.
  • No, Clinton’s as lefty as ever: he knows the unbridled ability to borrow money is more important to an activist, nannyist federal government than those higher rates.
  • Yes, because he’s acknowledging that tax rates change people’s behavior. People aren’t just static puppets. Liberals never recognize that.
  • No, he’s just spouting a different potential “solution” than everybody else so he can look like he’s still super-smart and engaged and dangit if only he was still President!
  • Feh. It’s meaningless. He was just talking to hear himself talk.
  • Exactly! He was talking unscripted, which means it’s more likely he really meant it, or something close to it!

Via Memeorandum. Cross-posted at The TrogloPundit.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend