If you’re a Democrat in Pennsylvania, how do you get elected to federal office?  If you’re a Bob Casey running against Rick Santorum, you tie the “Bush” tin-can around your opponent’s tail.  You talk ceaselessly about the “tax cuts upon tax cuts, all for the wealthiest Americans.”  If you’re Jason Altmire running for Congress, you vilify your opponent for backing “all the Bush tax cuts.”  Taking a populist approach, you imply darkly that “working class Pennsylvania families” are paying higher and higher taxes, while the “rich,” whoever exactly they are, are sending less and less to the IRS.  You rub raw the sores of discontent always present in union members and others in the lower middle class.  You never back up your charges with statistics, mainly because they don’t exist.  You use class envy as a major source of electoral leverage – and it works!

What is it that Bob Casey and Jason Altmire will never tell you?  They’ll never reveal that the hated “Bush tax cuts” have led to a situation where 41 American households – poor people and those of modest incomes – pay NO federal income taxes. 

Admittedly, it’s hard to cut income taxes for people who don’t pay any.  Those people who are essentially "tax-free" are a major constituency for Democrats.

Also, they’ll never tell you that the bottom 50% of households pay less than 4% of federal taxes.  They’ll never tell you that the top 1% of households pay nearly 36% of federal revenues, a number that’s GONE UP during the Bush Administration. 

They’ll never tell you that the Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM), designed years ago to force a few rich people to pay taxes, has backfired.   In fact, the AMT will affect a huge number of households by 2008 – roughly 27 million.  Most of those affected live in “Blue” states, those that usually vote Democratic, such as California and New York.  That’s why the Democrats in Congress are scurrying to do away with the ATM.

If Jason Altmire started talking about these matters, he’d have to tell you why he and his fellow Democrats are going to hit you with the largest tax increase in history.  They’re doing so by preparing to “sunset,” the Bush tax cuts in 2010. 

That would kill the tax credit for child care and it would restore the marriage penalty.  Also, it would bring back the dreaded death tax which, when you pass on, takes away much of your life savings. 

Why does Jason Altmire like taxes so much?  Partly it’s because, although he favors lots of new spending (on college expenses, on expansion of Medicare, and the like), he also supports a more-or-less balanced budget. 

Altmire isn’t talking about reducing the wealth of extremely rich people, including many of his colleagues in the House, such as Nancy Pelosi (net worth as much as $60 million) and Jane Harman (net worth as much as $200 million).   Instead, he’s talking about people with very high incomes which, to be fair, now includes Jason Altmire.

Of course, high income people – the top 1% of taxpayers – are already paying a huge amount in taxes.  Also, these “rich” people are major engines of economic growth, including job creation.  They also help drive up stock and bond earnings, which benefit every American with a 401-K.

Economic historian Niall Ferguson has pointed out that, as Baby Boomers retire and go on Medicare, the costs will be astronomical.   Ferguson estimates the “unfunded liabilities” at $45 trillion. 

How can the country pay for this?  One way is to lower taxes to accelerate economic growth.  For example, if the economy grows at a rate of 2%, it will take 36 years to double our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – and the huge unfunded liability would hit us right in the face.

However, what if we could grow annually at 4%?  Then, doubling GDP would take only 18 years and the liability would be much less, mainly because tax revenues would also double (and more).  Many of those revenues would come from the much-despised “rich people,” many of whom turn out to be your sons, daughters, and grandchildren.

Ferguson points out there are other ways – one seemingly favored by people like Altmire and Casey – to handle the liability.  For example, the country could raise income taxes – starting today – by 68%.  Or the U.S. could sharply cut payments for Social Security and Medicare.

Don’t expect Altmire ever to propose raising income taxes by more than two-thirds or to propose slashing Social Security and Medicare outlays.   However, expect him to continue blaming everything on President Bush, which worked well in the past.

Under the Bush tax cuts, our economy – and our capacity to create jobs – has grown at a pace far greater than in any other developed countries.  When you allow people to keep the money they make, you drive the engine of growth.

For a politician, telling the plain truth – and avoiding demagoguery – can be a sobering experience.  All our mothers, including presumably Altmire’s, told us long ago that “honesty is the best policy.”  In this, as in so many things, our mothers are right.

Stephen R. Maloney is a political activist living in Ambridge, PA.  In the past, he’s written for Fortune, Newsweek, The National Review, and other publications.  He blogs at www.camp2008victory.townhall.com.