The self-described socialist Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, recently introduced legislation that would increase spending by $100 billion not over 5 years, but in 1 year. His bill, the National Priorities Act of 2007, has no chance of being enacted, but it does provide a good “teaching moment” for tax policy. It would repeal the tax cuts for roughly the top 1 percent of income earners that were enacted between 2001 and 2004 and would reduce the defense budget by $60 billion in 2008, supposedly through the elimination of waste, fraud, abuse, and weapons systems that are not priorities. Proceeds from the legislation would fund a whole litany of new health, education, and other social programs, all while supposedly reducing the federal deficit.

Effecting incentives is the key to tax policy.

Bernie Sanders' entire conception of economic policy is hopelessly dated, grounded in a Great Society perspective that most Americans have long ago rejected. The dream of government monopolization of the U.S. economy dies hard among some of those who enjoy the comforts of Congress at taxpayers' expense.

Sanders' delusions would lead to the nightmare of equalized misery, but fantasies can be fun and will likely win the votes of more than a few fellow dreamers in Vermont. "The Senate must pass a budget that will expand the shrinking middle class, reduce the enormous gap between the rich and the poor, keep our promises to our nation's veterans, reduce our record-breaking national debt, and lower the poverty rate," said Sanders.

But how would he pay for it? Do the sugar maples up in Vermont also produce fifties and hundreds? His solution is even less believable. "The best way to accomplish these goals is to repeal the President's tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent, eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon and use this revenue for the many unmet needs of this country," Sanders continued. His bill requires a $60 billion reduction in funding to the Pentagon with the vague stipulation that this should be accomplished by eliminating "non-priorities." The cuts seem to be guaranteed; the targets are indeterminate. That's not budgeting. That's a shell game.

So too the repeal of tax cuts. That's a swindle aimed at piggybanks and pocketbooks, all dressed up in the language of caring, responsibility, and priorities. Caring with other people's money is always so easy, but is it so kind?

There is such a thing as charity and it doesn't come from government; it comes from people. As it turns out, when people get to keep more of their money, they give more to those in need.

The 1980s, deceitfully dubbed the "Decade of Greed," saw an explosion of charitable giving. As recounted by Richard McKenzie in National Review: "Between 1980 and 1989, total giving in real dollars expanded by 56 percent to $121 billion, or by a compound growth rate of 5.1 percent. The annual rate of growth in total giving in the 1980s was nearly 55 percent higher than in the previous 25 years." Imagine that –freedom leads to kinder outcomes than can be produced by lawmakers. Of course, that is an unacceptable concept to big-government types, as it explodes the myth of their possessing greater compassion than other Americans.

The more immediate question about Bernie Sanders' bill is whether or not it will produce the promised revenue to underwrite his domestic spending spree. One can almost hear Sanders and his followers citing Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase as incontrovertible proof that higher taxes lead to balanced budgets and economic bliss.

True, federal budget surpluses did result in the latter part of the decade. The tax hikers attribute the windfalls to the 1993 tax increases, but only because they can't or won't distinguish between correlation and causation. No, federal budgets made it back into the black because of the confluence of three factors, namely: divided government, federal spending slowdowns, and the rapid stock market advance following the 1997 capital gains tax cut.

Those pesky tax cuts. Actual total revenues between 1997 and 2000 were more than 11 percent greater than CBO's 1997 estimate ($7.155 trillion vs. $6.413 trillion). The increased rate of return on investments spurred entrepreneurs to be more productive and investors to realize more capital gains. The rate reduction had improved their incentives to innovate and to transact. In fact, even after a rough ride for the economy and the Bush tax cuts enacted to rescue it, the top 1 percent of income earners are paying roughly the same share of total federal income taxes now as they were in the last year of Bill Clinton's Presidency.

Effecting incentives is the key to tax policy. Bernie Sanders hasn't grasped this. He mistakenly assumes that people will work just as hard even though they will keep less of what they earn. Socialism in combination with power is truly dangerous.

Bernie Sanders will be gone from Congress one day, but his decrepit ideology will probably always be with us. The best hope for taxpayers is that Vermonters who revere Sanders will devote less energy to politics and stick with what they do best. Hold the socialism, send the syrup.

John Santoliquido is a Policy Associate for the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union (www.ntu.org), a non-partisan citizen group