Dan Crenshaw ripped into Rashida Tlaib’s new plan to try to fix a real problem we have in this country- wealth inequality.
Look, it is a real problem – we have allowed concentrations of power and wealth not seen in our country since the gilded age.
But the solutions we must come up with must incentivize the free market and capitalism or we risk killing the golden goose.
From The Daily Caller: Texas Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw said Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s “deeply immoral” plan to give taxpayer money to middle- and low-income Americans is a basic “misunderstanding of economics.”
Tlaib’s proposed bill would directly offer an annual payment of $3,000 to individuals and $6,000 to families as a way to raise wages and alleviate poverty in the U.S., according to a report from The Washington Post published last week.
After a brief discussion of California’s plan to give illegal immigrants taxpayer-subsidized health coverage — a move Crenshaw called “immoral” and “not fair to the taxpayers living there” — MacCallum turned the topic to Tlaib’s proposal.
“It’s a misunderstanding of basic economics and also human nature,” Crenshaw explained. “It’s a misunderstanding of economics because, one, we always have to ask the question, ‘How will we pay for it? Are we going to put our children into even more debt? Are we going to raise taxes on somebody else?’”
The Texas congressman noted that the U.S. already has “one of the most progressive tax systems in the entire world,” but such proposals entice “people not to work.”
“If you are making more than $49,000 a year then you’re gonna have an incentive not to take that extra job or extra promotion because you’re gonna lose your benefits,” he said. “It’s not a smart or efficient way to do welfare policy.”
The “better way,” according to Crenshaw, is “earned income tax credits or work requirements for able-bodied people to receive welfare.”
“That encourages them to get a job and to keep working and to promote themselves, to actually be self-reliant. That would be the moral thing to do,” he said before explaining why it also gets human nature wrong:
It also misunderstands human nature, because it’s basically making people dependent on government. We have to ask ourselves the question, ‘Why wouldn’t she just propose a tax cut?’ She’s not proposing a tax cut because she wants you to be dependent on government. This is deeply immoral. It’s just not the right thing to do. We don’t want another bureaucracy handing out money. We just want people to keep more money, so why doesn’t she work with us on tax cuts?