I love how this is just so extreme in the sense that he just throws the rich in there, when he's really talking about another issue all together.

People might hold some respect for politics if it wasn't so ridiculous like this. It's a logical fallacy to start talking about the issue of federal funding for local law enforcement and public safety services*, and randomly throw in "shielding the rich at their expense". If he can't make a connection between the two (which there really isn't one - the tax structure is separate from how the money is spent), he should be debating the issues separately.



* (which I am against, but I would argue about the merits of lower federal taxes/involvement and more localized control, rather than throwing out something like the tax code. We might hate it, for different reasons, but it's simply not relevant to what he was talking about.)

In that last part, I meant mentioning the tax code, not throwing it out.

Throwing it out would be a great start.