At first I didn’t get it either.
For one thing, it was well past my bedtime when I got the email from my friend alerting me to the proposed bill that would give up to $3500 in tax credit to people for veterinarian expenses. My friend was disgusted. “Around here we would put an animal to sleep before we spent that kind of money on it,” she fumed. Her email contained the forwarded comment of someone else outraged that for human beings, medical costs can only be deducted after they exceed 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income and here they were going to give a flat out tax credit for the critter care. “Can we afford,” the writer queried, “to be paying our tax dollars so that people can take care of their pets? What about taking care of people living in poverty? What about taking care of the unborn, the elderly, those who cannot speak for themselves?”
At first it just seemed unbelievable and so with curiosity temporarily overcoming my sleepiness, I started looking it up. Sure enough the bill — the “Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years” or “HAPPY” Act — is real .
I began shaking my head along with my friend. Then suddenly, something clicked and I wrote to her, “We should support this.”
Here’s the deal, people. We have all been brain-washed. The reaction of the person who wrote to my friend was a prime example of this. She asked, “Can we afford to be paying our tax dollars” for this. But wait a minute. This is a tax credit .
We are so conditioned by our tax code and rhetoric of the political class that we fall right into their language trap and look at a tax credit and ask how we can afford it. Let me just channel Alan Keyes here for a minute. I’m paraphrasing from him but this is how he explains it:
In Washington, if they reduce taxes, they consider that they have spent something on you . In fact, in Washington, if they increase the budget for a particular federal program less than they previously increased it , they will call it a “cut.” That is how Democrats in congress could accuse the Republicans of cutting programs for the poor even while the actual dollar amounts designated in the budget were still going up every year!
Get this: Let’s say that I claimed the right to take some portion of your money away from you. And I also claimed the right to determine for myself how much of your money I would take. It might be 0% or it might be 90% or any other amount of money that I decide. Given that condition: In principle , how much of your money do I control? Answer: All of it.
All of it, folks. To the people in Washington — not every one, but a good number of them — what is yours is theirs. You need to understand that this is how they think. To them a tax credit is an expenditure. When you keep more of your money , they consider themselves to be spending some of their money on you, because they really think that all of the money in America belongs to them. They believe that they are wiser and more capable of making decisions about how that money should be spent than are the people who earned it.
Now the original correspondent of my friend had asked how we can care for the unborn and the elderly if we allowed a tax credit for the care of pets. The answer is that $3,500 tax credit for the veterinary care of pets is hardly enough of a reduction in the tax burden when the average worker in the United States had to work until well into April just to pay his taxes for this year. For one thing, yearly veterinary bills of the vast majority of Americans are nowhere near that high. Still every dollar of that tax credit is one more dollar that stays in the hands of the people and increases their ability to care for their families — including their unborn and their elderly.
We get stuck when we allow the nanny state to treat us like children who are going shopping with an adult and have to ask for whatever they want. The children can be told, “No, sorry; we can’t afford that.” The children have no decision–making power because they are dependent and don’t have their own money. Adults who earn their own money can decide for themselves what they can afford.
Folks, if we don’t get back in this country the understanding of the link between taxes and liberty, we are done for. Some demons, the Lord said, can only be gotten out by prayer and fasting, but a tax-greedy state takes prayer, fasting, and starvation: It has to be starved of money. It is not a question of what the government “can’t afford.” We can’t afford this bloated tic that endlessly sucks from the arse of the body politic.
Until we can get our liberty back by reforming the tax code, we should never oppose any tax credit that reduces the tax burden of ordinary working people, like this one does. But this one has the additional virtue of being like flypaper for “progressives.” Once I caught onto this, I had to see who had proposed this bill.
It is Michigan Republican Representative Thad McCotter , a Catholic. Intrigued, I figured I would do a bit of looking into his record. Turns out he gets a grade of 0% from Naral, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU and a grade of 100% from Eagle Forum, National Right to Life, and Gun Owners of America. So, I’m liking this guy.
This bill represents the kind of creative thinking needed to hoist the “progressives” with their own petard. It’s for the animals! How can they resist? They can’t. This dog lover is totally sold.
What we need from Republicans are proposals of even more of these family-friendly “tax credits” that the constituents on the other side will gobble up hook, line, and sinker. Put the Democrats in the position of having to vote against some great green idea OR vote for a tax reduction. Let as many of them as possible dangle on the horns of that happy dilemma.