Another Baron Lie: Baron Hill & Lower Taxes for Hoosier Families

For the first six years that he was in Congress, the Republican majority effectively allowed Baron Hill to hide his liberal policy views from Hoosiers.

For the fourteen years they controlled Congress, the Republicans never once raised taxes, so the only votes Baron Hill had to cast were in opposition to tax cuts.

And, make no mistake, Baron Hill voted plenty of times in opposition to keeping taxes low or to lowering them further.

In 2001, he voted twice (here and here) against the tax cuts passed in 2001 (and also against making them permanent).

As early as 1999, Baron Hill voted twice against (here and here) the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, which included (PDF warning) a 10% across-the-board cut in income tax rates, the abolition of the Alternative Minimum Tax, lower the marriage penalty in the tax code, cut capital gains taxes, abolish the Death Tax, and a 100% tax deduction for personal (non-employer-provided) health insurance costs. The bill also expanded Medical Savings Accounts, included deductions for long-term care insurance, and a deduction for anyone having to take care of an elderly family member.

Remember all of those health care tax deductions the next time that you hear Baron Hill talking about how he wants to help Hoosiers pay for the rising costs of health care. Nine years ago, when costs were much less, he could have voted to help keep them low. He didn’t.

(Read more after the leap)

More recently, in 2007 Baron voted against a permanent repeal of the Death Tax.

It’s a lot easier to vote against cutting taxes than it is to vote to raise them. As you can see, Baron has a lengthy record of voting against lowering your taxes.

Since returning to office, however, Baron has a growing record of voting to raise taxes.

You see, the Democrat majority does not have a problem with bringing legislation to the floor to raise your taxes. Baron, for his part, doesn’t have a problem with voting against that legislation (except when he’s voting against the blueprints, but following those plans anyway)

The most odious of these tax increases have been directed at things that harm working Hoosiers the most, like the time that Baron voted to raise taxes on domestic energy production at a time when Hoosiers are paying record prices at the gas pump.

Democrats, of course, will say that they are taking it to “big oil” with these tax increases. But the simple fact is that the oil companies are just going to pass those very tax increases on to average Americans every time that they buy a gallon of gasoline. Econ 101: when taxes on a business are increased, those costs are always passed on to customers.

Many of these tax hikes have come under the guise of Baron’s much-touted PAYGO rules (like this vote in early 2007 to raise tonnage taxes on merchant ships docking in American ports, in order to pay for a bill that would fund pork barrel spending on sewers).

As I have said many times before, PAYGO means that you pay and Baron goes and spends your money. For Baron, it’s just an empty gimmick. Baron’s PAYGO rules have also had the side effect, as I noted here, of causing Democrats on the House Veterans Affairs Committee (on a straight party-line vote) to reduce funding for disabled veterans by up to $2,200 per person.

The simple truth is that Baron might care about balanced budgets, but he doesn’t care about the level of taxation required to balance them. He sure doesn’t care about any spending discipline that might be necessary. He also doesn’t care about cutting government spending or trimming back government waste. Baron has never found an earmark, in his district or outside of it, that he is against. Baron’s support for PAYGO also has unfortunate consequences for veterans, as the above example of shameful benefit cuts by Democrats on the VA Committee demonstrates.

For Baron Hill, PAYGO means raising taxes to balance the budget and pay for more spending. It doesn’t mean reducing spending to balance the budget and cut taxes for working Hoosiers.

And for Baron’s constituents, PAYGO doesn’t mean balanced budgets. It just means higher taxes and more government spending. And when the Democrats in Congress do see fit to make cuts, they make them in places (like benefits for disabled veterans) where such cuts should simply be out of the question.