Do Republicans appreciate living in civilized society? - Letter by Mary Vant Hull

My commentary is interspersed in bold. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

-------------
You’ve probably heard, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” (Oliver Wendell Holmes). (The truth of what he says is certainly debatable, but there is no causal relationship between the AMOUNT of taxation and the AMOUNT of civilization.)

Did you hear, Adam Smith’s, “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities?” (The Wealth of Nations) (Does anyone really  think that Ms. Hull has read anything from Adam Smith, apart from some cherry-picked quotes? Unfortunately for her, Adam Smith is not advocating progressive taxation. Taxation in proportion to ability [i.e., income or wealth] is proportional taxation. That is, a flat tax. In actual fact, Adam Smith is refuting the very leftists who are misappropriating his writing.) 

Or French minister Anne-Robert Jacque Turgot, “...and the more a man enjoys the advantages of society, the more he ought to hold himself honored to contribute to those expenses.” (Who the hell cares what the French minister believes or says?)

Or Samuel Johnson, “...the right to tax ... “had been considered by all mankind, as comprising the primary and essential condition of all political society...” (This may be the first time I have sat with my fingers poised to type, but was unable to do so because of the sheer magnitude of ignorance on display. You know, anyone can look up these things to discover the context and meaning of what the author intended. We find that Samuel Johnson is an Englishman who is discussing the right of ENGLAND TO TAX THE COLONIES. Here's the real quote: "Of this kind is the position, that "the supreme power of every community has the right of requiring, from all its subjects, such contributions as are necessary to the publick safety or publick prosperity," which was considered, by all mankind, as comprising the primary and essential condition of all political society, till it became disputed by those zealots of anarchy, who have denied, to the parliament of Britain the right of taxing the American colonies."

  
Or Schuyler Colfax, Congressional Republican from Indiana, during the debate on land taxes to fund the Civil War in the 1860s, “I cannot go home and tell my constituents that I voted for a bill that would allow a man, a millionaire who has put his entire property in stocks, to be exempt from taxation, while a farmer who lives by his side, must pay a tax.” (Here we have a fairly obscure political figure presented as though he was some sort of highly respected authority on taxes, as far as what republicans believe. This, of course, is not the case. Nevertheless, I had no luck tracing the entirety of Mr. Colfax's remarks. But on face value, what do we find he was advocating in this short statement? He opposed TAX EXEMPTION. This is totally non-controversial. No one anywhere is advocating the tax exemption of the rich.)

And that in 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed a law establishing an Internal Bureau of Revenue? And that the Confederacy may have lost the Civil War in part because they were reluctant to pass a tax? (Ms. Hull provides no documentation for these assertions, although I sincerely doubt at this point that had she done so, the documentation would accurately represent the situation. 

Regardless, we should note that the Bureau was created in July 1863, not 1862. An income tax was created to fund the war, and allowed to expire in 1872. Note the rise in government expenditures during the Civil War in this chart:

If it isn't obvious, the amount of spending associated with that tax increase for the the war is a pittance compared to modern spending levels. However, none of this has anything to say about proper kinds and amounts of taxation. Ms. Hull is simply engaging in a kind of name-dropping Appeal to Authority to establish, what? That Lincoln engaged in taxation?) 

Or that when President Reagan cut the highest income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, the national debt more than doubled, from $930 billion to $2.6 trillion? (Here's another fiction that is popular among the Left. Reagan is alternately embraced and reviled by the Left depending on the day and the misrepresentation promulgated. 

Okay, let's get some concepts. First, it is the House of Representatives that has the constitutional authority to appropriate and spend money, not the president. Second, the increase in the national debt [which never seems to be a problem unless it happens to be politically expedient and a Republican can be blamed] is the difference between spending and revenue. Revenue in 1981 was $599.3 billion, and in 1989 it was $991.1 billion. 

So revenue increased 65% over Reagan's term. Conclusion: Revenue increased despite the reduction in the top marginal rate, but spending increased substantially more. The problem is always spending.)

Yet all but 13 Republicans in Congress signed Grover Norquist’s no tax pledge. Don’t Republicans still appreciate living in a civilized country? (The obvious conclusion from this statement is that the higher taxes are, the more civilized we are. And by opposing tax increases, Republicans are destroying civilization. The vacuousness of this is self-evident. No further comment is needed.)

These facts are not original research; they are cited in the Nov. 26, 2012 The New Yorker, in “Tax Time, Why We Pay,” by Jill LePore.

Mary Vant Hull 

------------

This is what passes for an argument in leftist circles. A series of disconnected quotes is not an argument and does not justify the conclusion presented. Indeed, what we find is that all these random quotes actually argue profoundly against Ms. Hull's case. 

Ms. Hull did no actual research. Typical of leftists, she simply parroted a leftist writer at The New Yorker Magazine. I doubt she bothered to check a single thing.