You'll recall a couple weeks ago that conservative commentators expressed deep agitation over the revelation that nearly half of U.S. households paid no federal income tax because they didn't earn enough money and/or they qualified for earned income tax credits. It seemed odd but it was true: Anti-government, and anti-tax, activists and their media leaders were ticked off that more people weren't paying (more) taxes.
It “boggled” Glenn Beck's mind. And not in a good way.
And here was Sean Hannity on Tax Day this year, lamenting all the supposed free loaders:
Here's what I don't understand, 50 percent of people aren't paying taxes, households, 50 percent of households are. Where does this end? 50 percent of people say that tax rates are about fair, 50 percent say it's not fair. So the people that are paying say it's not fair, the people that are not paying say it's fair.
Now, let's enter the Way Back Machine (August, 28, 2000, to be exact) and recall what Hannity was saying during the 2000 campaign. Let's remember that, touting candidate George Bush, Hannity stressed it would be a good thing if fewer Americans paid taxes [emphasis added]:
I want to get this -- you know, by the way, a couple of tidbits I found in examining both plans, and I spent a lot of time reading it. Number one, National Taxpayers Union points out $2.3 trillion in new spending proposals by Gore. If you itemize under the Gore plan, you don't qualify for the marriage tax penalty deduction. Bush will take six million people off the rolls that are presently on it. And you'll pay less for a family of four under the Bush plan.
Oh my.
Back in 2000, Hannity and conservative talkers insisted it was a good thing to take people off the tax rolls. Hannity cheered that candiate Bush would make sure fewer Americans had to pay taxes. But today, when that exact situation has come to pass under a Democrat (when Americans are paying less in taxes than any time since the 1950's), suddenly the fli-flops begin and that's a reason to attack Obama.
(h/t Bob Somerby)