Liberals just don’t get it. If you tax the super rich, people making over 250,000 a year, you take away the money they would have used to invest in new growth which means new jobs and increased productivity. That in turn means increased revenue for the government.
The entire purpose of economic activity, so far as Lee is concerned, is to meet “obligations” to old folks, kids and poor people.
(Questions: How is it that, merely by siring offspring, I have created “obligations” for my fellow citizens? Aren’t we parents responsible for the care and maintenance of our own children? How did it happen that, in the mind of Barbara Lee, this responsibility was transferred to that amorphous “we” by which she means the federal government? Why should people in Iowa or Texas be taxed for the support of children in California or Florida? Shouldn’t taxpayers at least get visitation rights to the children they’re supporting?)
Missing altogether from Lee’s discourse is any sense of the “super rich” as investors and entrepreneurs, whose capital — whether provided by the purchase of stocks or through loans — is the sine qua non of economic growth. Whatever our “obligations” may be, we cannot improve our economy by siphoning wealth from the investor class and transferring it, via government welfare programs, to people not engaged in productive economic activity.