On Friday, I argued that the “U.S. House of Representatives has, on most survival issues, been the unrecognized strongpoint for conservatives.”

Yesterday National Review on Line commentator Mark Levin struck and amplified the same chord. Levin writes:

“The fact is that the House is more conservative than either the Senate or, in many cases, the executive branch. The House pushed for energy exploration in places like ANWR, only to be thwarted in the Senate. The House pushed for a border-security- first agenda, against the “comprehensive” amnesty bill first demanded by the Senate and the president. And while the House can be blamed legitimately for spending too much, the Senate spends more and the president refuses to use his veto. Moreover, some of those who condemn House spending are unwittingly condemning the House for getting behind the president’s big-government initiatives, including Medicare prescription drugs, expanded farm subsidies, and federalizing education.

We conservatives need to be honest with ourselves. If the House, the most conservative of the elected bodies, is not conservative enough, then the Republican Senate and the Bush presidency are worse. Yet I don’t hear much clamoring for sweeping the Senate clean or much criticism of the president from our corner. And the most effective politician at obstructing many conservative polices initiated by the House and the president is John McCain. But McCain is said to be among the top candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. Somehow he escapes the wrath of those who are frustrated with Republicans. As I write, he is busy traveling the country raising money, securing endorsements, and campaigning for, well, Republicans.”

After watching the Republican pundits “pile on” and patronize House majority whip Roy Blunt during the January leadership contest, I began to suspect many center-right bloggers of sharing some of the same class outlooks as their left-wing contemporaries.

Read the rest of this entry »

Democrats smell the control of Congress in a few weeks, and in anticipation, Nancy Pelosi is proposing a tax hike for those who earn high income (h/t Richardson at TKL):

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above “a certain level.” She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era…

“We believe in the marketplace,” Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. “They have only rewarded wealth, not work.”

Pure, utter demagoguery! Low income taxes do not reward wealth. On the contrary, they reward those who work to build wealth. Let me reproduce what I wrote earlier in response to a similar Kerry-Edwards proposed tax hike:

Read Richard Rahn’s analysis of why, under the Kerry-Edwards tax plan, billionaires like Kerry and Teresa Heinz will pay a measly 15% or so of income tax while young doctors or professionals with no assets and high debts will pay over twice the “Kerry rate” in income tax — all in the name of taxing the rich.

According to Rahn, Kerry’s plan to increase taxes on those whose wage income exceeds $200,000 a year is NOT a taxation on the wealthy — it is taxation on those trying to become wealthy. In other words, under Kerry’s plan, those who are already wealthy like Kerry and Teresa Heinz will continue to be able to shield much of their income from income taxes. However, young professionals with no assets and high debts (I know a young doctor who has over $100,000 in debt from college, medical school and residency) will be taxed at the highest rate even though they just started making over $200,000 a year.

So despite the claim of egalitarianism, the Kerry-Edwards tax plan actually diminishes the upward mobility of our economic system by making it more difficult for those who attempt to cross over to the upper class from the lower/middle class by working hard, going to good schools and earning high income.

That’s the Kerry-Edwards tax plan for you, shielding the truly rich while bleeding the middle class and all the while claiming to be “for the middle class and the poor.”

I note that Pelosi herself is one of the “already rich” (her family is worth over $25 million). It wouldn’t bother her one bit that young professionals and small business owners, with little pre-existing net worth, will be prevented from building wealth, all because of her mechanism of high income taxes. She is already super wealthy, and her wealth won’t be subject much to taxes on wages. In fact, it is her proposed tax hike that will reward wealth and punish work.

One view of the Allen-Webb contest has it that perceived racial or sexual insensitivities won’t matter, but Bush’s standing in Virginia and the Allen-Webb fundraising gap will (h/t RCP):

Far more telling in the end, I’d wager, will be two other factors: President Bush’s popularity on Election Day and whether or not Allen maintains his current, enormous fundraising advantage over challenger Jim Webb. That’s where the numbers come in.

If Bush’s popularity and that of the war in Iraq are tanking on Nov. 7, then the combination offers Webb, a former Navy secretary and highly decorated Marine, his best - perhaps only - hope of an upset victory. [Snip]

Webb’s prospects shrink dramatically if Allen maintains anything close to his summer fundraising advantage. At the last accounting a couple of months back, Allen had $6 million in the bank, compared to Webb’s $424,000.

While I agree that these two factors matter a great deal, I disagree that these are the two most important factors in the contest.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Women can’t fight” vs. “Macaca,” courtesy of RCP Blog.

Or is it cowboy boots vs. combat boots? This much the NY Times is right about:

Some Republicans worry that the growth of Northern Virginia, with its increasingly urban voters and what some pollsters say is discontent with the status quo in Washington, poses a real challenge to their party. Mr. Webb’s allies, for their part, worry he will not have enough money to hold his own against Mr. Allen on television. 

 

The anxieties on both sides point to a central truth: Virginia, at the moment, is a very competitive race.