Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was a guest on On The Record last night to discuss why his vote will not be easy to win on any fiscal cliff deal. But he kind of went overboard (if you’ll pardon the pun) when he likened allowing the expiration of Bush tax cuts to “a policy of drowning.”
Paul told Greta Van Susteren:
One of my favorite analogies is it’s like 100 people drowning and you’re going to save 98 of them by, you know, only protecting them from a tax increase. 98%? And my question is, well, they’re all drowning, right? Which means that raising taxes is a bad thing for everyone. So why would we only do it on two? We can save 98% from a tax increase? But why would drowning be our policy? What would be in favor of a policy of drowning? You know, raising taxes.
It’s ridiculous to make such a comparison. There’s nothing life-threatening about raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans in the first place. Seconldy, it’s not really a tax increase but an expiration of the supposedly temporary Bush tax cuts. I don’t recall any wealthy people dropping dead from high taxes during the Clinton years, do you?
But, predictably, Van Susteren let the outrageous comment go by without challenge.
oh, and drowning? seriously? what a dumb ass analogy!
I can’t decide whether to keep my albuteral nebulizer, to help my breathing, or ask for a Tax Cut instead to help my breathing????
Hey Dr. Paul, do Dentists still use novacane(sp?) to numb there patients before an extraction or do they apply a liberal dose of Tax Cuts around the tooth to numb the area?
Goodness, Rand — that must mean that during the Eisenhower Administration, when the top tax rate was 91%, we were in a deluge . . .