Could This Be the Worst Take on the Republican Tax Cuts?

When you want to help the poor, do you write a check to a charity or to the IRS?

In the moments immediately after Republican passage of their large tax cut, the hot takes on social media were outstanding. Left-wing political blog The Palmer Report hilariously concluded,

Millions of Americans died tonight. So did the careers of every one of these psychotic drooling animals in the Republican Party who voted for it. This was mass murder. They all belong in prison. We’ll settle for destroying their careers and their traitorous party. #TaxScamBill

Not to be outdone, socialist religious activist Jim Wallis rendered this judgment,

The passage of the Republican tax bill is a sin against the poor and, therefore, a sin against God.

It’s always entertaining to see those wearing the name of Christ who believe that the Word of God is crystal clear on marginal tax rates but is ambivalent on sexuality and child killing.

But honestly, with as comical as those two reactions were, it was Matthew Dowd, the chief political analyst for ABC News, that offered up maybe the worst take:

Any tax savings that I might get from this unfair and mean-spirited GOP tax bill I will donate to charities to help the poor and vulnerable. Who is with me?

Should someone tell him? Seriously? As impossible as it seems, the chief political analyst for ABC News doesn’t apparently realize that he just expressed the precise philosophy that conservatives have always maintained about tax policy: that people should be given more of their money back so that they can do exactly what Dowd is “threatening” to do – give generously to the poor.

After all, ask yourself this simple question: if you’re wanting to do good or to help people, do you write a check to a private charity or do you write a check to the IRS? Shouldn’t that tell us all something about who does a better job caring for the needy? Perhaps someone should ask Dowd why he is going to take his savings and give it to a charity instead of the government.

He is saying he will do that because he implicitly acknowledges that those who want to help people give freely to charity. So why then would a law that gives more people their money back in order to give freely to charity be considered “mean-spirited” or “unfair?”

Citizens’ money in the hands of those citizens will do more to lift people from their poverty and helplessness than citizens’ money in the hands of government. Dowd’s own statement betrays the fact that he knows that to be the case, but he’s still virulently opposed to it. Why? It’s either politics or heartlessness, and neither reflects very well on him.

false