In an editorial today titled, "Recession, Taxes, and Mr. Obama", the New York Times does its liberal best to perpetuate the old tax and spend stereotype.   

The piece essentially suggests why it would be a mistake for Obama to delay a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for those in the highest bracket.  Following are some of the gems that cause fiscal conservatives to bang their heads against a wall.

"Yet as the recession deepens, one small group could actually catch a break: the richest Americans, who are likely to see a proposed tax increase postponed."

Funny, it doesn't feel like a break.  Who knew that this small group was so fortunate to hand over to the government more than 50% to 60% of its income when federal, state, local, FICA, property, and sales taxes are all considered.  Do the heavily burdened small business owners who comprise 65% of all those making over $250,000 feel lucky?  Is it a lucky break that many of those who provide the lion's share of capital to fuel our job and wealth creation engine are being squeezed to an inch of their economic lives because of inadequate access to credit and already onerous taxes?

"The objective (of Obama's pledge to raise taxes) was to restore fairness and raise revenue by undoing Bush-era tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the rich while worsening the budget deficit."

Restore fairness?  The portion of total taxes paid by the wealthiest 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, and 50% has done nothing but increase over the past 10+ years.  The bottom 40% pay no federal income tax at all, and the bottom 50% now account for less than 3% of total tax receipts, as opposed to 4% in 1999.  Tax cuts (whether by Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, or others) have been proven time and time again to be revenue enhancers.  The "worsening budget deficit" is due to a combination of out-of-control spending (by both parties) and mistakenly non-budgeted expenditures to fund the war effort, various natural disasters, and misguided stimulus packages.

"The wealthy are unlikely to slow their consumption much if their income tax rates return—as Mr. Obama has proposed—to their pre-Bush levels."

To quote John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!!!"  With this type of reading of the economic tea leaves, it's no wonder the New York Times Company is on life support.  Apparently they have somehow missed the dramatic pullback in spending and investment from all income brackets.  I guess they are oblivious to the mammoth reduction in sales of high-end homes, expensive cars, private jets, jewelery, boats/yachts, precious works of art, premium wines, and many, many other artifacts of those in the top bracket.  They must also be unaware of the psychological impact of difficult economic circumstances and tax increases.  An ability to spend often does not translate into a willingness to spend.

"Mr. Obama must press for increases in coming years.  The fight for tax fairness—and for the practice of paying for government services rather than borrowing or printing money—must be a goal in itself, rather than becoming a perennial bargaining chip."

In the New York Times government-centric view of the world, that's the only choice—raise taxes or borrow/print money.  It's the liberal Faustian bargain—sell our soul to the government in return for government's supposed superior ability to know what's best.  They will solve our problems.  It is anathema to believe in the capacity of individuals and the private sector to be/become self-sufficient; thereby reducing the need for, or size of government bureaucracies.

As I've explained and detailed in numerous previous posts, there are very legitimate and necessary roles for government.  The Times, though, highlights an important philosophical divide.  They, and many on the Left, see government in the lead.  They believe government is, or can be, the solution.  I believe individuals and the private sector should be at the forefront with government in an underpinning role.  Only then can we create a culture of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency that is so important to limiting the size of government , protecting liberties, and ensuring our long-term viability.  I'll say it again.  All great empires have been felled by government excess and/or an inability to defend themselves.  If we don't respect the need for limited government...