DanMargarita.com

Democrats say that the plan mainly involves tax cuts designed to benefit the rich. Republicans say that it is only fair since the wealthy pay more in taxes. In response, Democrats say that the wealthy should pay more in taxes because they have more money to be taxed. I say we start a fund-raiser for the wealthy called "Rich Aid."

According to the President, the tax cuts will provide an economic stimulus because if more people get money back, they'll spend it, thus keeping more people employed and revving up the nation's economic engine.

Even if they are being taxed at a greater rate than the rest of us, the rich still have a lot more money left afterwards. If they didn't they wouldn't be rich, they'd be poor or at least middle class, since by definition, "rich" means having a lot of money. So, since they still have a lot of money and apparently aren't spending it, I can only conclude that the rich aren't rich enough. The President contends that the tax cuts are needed so that people can spend the money to stimulate the economy, and because the rich will be getting most of the money, the President must also conclude that the rich don't have enough money.

Many politicians like to make a "no new taxes" pledge when running for office, and then don't seem to be too keen on fulfilling that pledge once elected.

The current President Bush's father made the famous quote during the 1988 campaign, "read my lips, no new taxes."

President Bush the elder, then went and raised taxes. Guess who didn't get reelected. The electorate didn't bother to respond verbally to Mr. Bush, instead flipping him the bird and electing Bill Clinton.

In fairness, we may have misunderstood him. Since we only got the quote verbally, it?s quite possible that what he really meant was "know new taxes" in which case he wouldn't have been lying, just warning us.

Newly elected Governor Mitt Romney waited for the lettering paint to dry on his office door before deciding that new taxes might be a necessary step, despite adamantly campaigning on a "no new taxes" pledge. Of course he doesn't call them taxes, he calls them "fees." That distinction is like saying "Officer, I didn't steal the money from the bank, I 'borrowed' it."

Semantics are important in politics. When the Democrats tried to halt or slow down the tax cut, fearing that it would blow up the deficit, President Bush tried to paint it as a tax increase. You've got to admire the guy. How many people can claim with a straight face that NOT having a tax cut is in fact a tax increase?

I've decided to adopt this type of reasoning. To the outside world it may appear that I'm not currently dating anyone, but using the Bush logic, I can say that I am in reality "getting it" constantly.

So, I guess that in politics it often comes down to what side of the semantic coin your position is. Well, I guess that also depends on what your definition of "is" is.