Filibuster Cartoons
 |
|
 |
You may remember that one of the first things President Bush did in office was pass a flurry of sweeping tax cuts, many of which specifically targeted the wealthiest subset of the America population. The cuts contained a sunset clause, and were renewed once, in Bush’s second term, but now have expired once again. Should they be renewed a second time?
A lot of Democrats say no, including President Obama. He would like to see some elements of the cuts preserved, but only those that affect middle class Americans. For the wealthy, hike away, he says. Republicans, of course, are opposed to any hikes for anyone, so doctrinal is their support for tax cuts in any and all contexts.
We’re a long way away from the first term of the Bush administration, however, and the glory days of surplus revenue. The US is now in severe, and ever-growing debt, a crisis which nearly everyone — especially the voters — agrees should be one of Washington’s top priorities to adress. Debt is, of course, caused by deficit spending, while deficit spending is caused by a lack of usable cash in the government budget. A tax raise for the wealthy seems, in many ways, the easiest and most immediate way to address the problem; more taxes equals more revenue right away, billions and billions, in fact.
The Republican counter-proposal is more long-term and speculative. If taxes are cut for all Americans, including the wealthy, people will be more willing to spend spend spend, and that will stimulate economic growth for the nation as a whole — as well as bring in increased revenue through sales taxes and other after-purchase deductions. We cannot jack up taxes on the rich, they say, because that would compromise the much-beloved GOP “trickle down” theory, which postulates that the spending habits of the top 10% eventually results in a downward flow of jobs and sales for the merchants and laborers in the lower classes.
Democrats think this is nuts, and say America can’t afford to take chances at a time like this. And indeed, if pressed, Republicans will usually concede that tax cuts are only part of the solution, and that massive spending cuts will need to be implemented as well, if we want to make a serious dent in the national debt. Problem is, spending cuts — especially massive ones — are much easier said than done. So why not just take the path of least resistance?
October 5th, 2011 at 10:10 am
It is in point of fact a nice and useful piece of info. I'm glad that you simply shared this useful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.