Big surprise, another NY Times Op-Ed praising tax hikes. Only this time, they want to bring those tax hikes to your city, citing New York City as a wonderful example of the harbinger of things to come.

Bob Herbert, of the Times notes that costs for cities continue to rise, while revenues remain flat. Of course, he can't help but include socialized fascist medicine as a 'basic expenditure'.

And other inescapable expenditures - on health care, for example - continue to rise

Of course, we can't lower health care costs by limiting frivolous law suits, because that would ruin our political base with the trial lawyers. So, what is the solution? Raise taxes of course, but only on the wealthy, because that is 'equitable'.

The cities' problems can only be solved in the context of national policies. And it is essential that those policies include a more equitable approach to taxation

Ok, so he doesn't exactly say 'raise taxes on the wealthy'. Until you read a little bit further.

A national economic policy that consists almost solely of tax cuts for the very rich will lead only to further disaster

Now, anyone that paid taxes got a tax cut. Remember those rebate checks? And that was just in the first round. So, according to the NY Times, if you got a tax cut, you must be among the 'very rich'.

Herbert is not alone in his sentiment. He is parroted by the Mayor of Boston, (from the state of Taxachussets).

"We don't run government with voodoo economics. We run it with real cash to fund real programs that help people." -- Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors

What he really meant was that the government confiscates real money with the use of real force. This money is then used to woo a popular majority to win their support for re-election the next time around.

It never ceases to amaze me how the lefties continue their onslaught on capitalism. They raise taxes on the rich, give money to the poor, all in the name of the 'providing basic human services' mantra. Hell, the federal government already spends over 25% of the GDP, what is a few more bucks?

Of course, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the Robin Hood-esque seizure of wealth from one person to give to another. Tax proponents point to the 'General Welfare' clause, but as the great Walter Williams points out, James Madison, the 'father' of our Constitution once stood on the House floor and declared, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

But what did he know?