This page was last updated on September 22, 2010.
Irreconcilable; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 22, 2010.
I don’t know if this editorial represents ignorance or an attempt at deception. For example, though we’re really talking about tax rate increases (The lower Bush tax rates are existing law.), the editorial insists on referring to “tax cuts.”
The editorial asks, “How can a rational person reconcile support for renewing the Bush era tax cuts and oppose adding to the nation debt?” Is this a serious question? I’m sure the Times would like us to believe “the Bush era tax [RATE] cuts” are responsible for our deficits, but that’s not true. Before the 2008-2009 recession began to kick in, tax revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007, an increase of $577 billion (29%) since 2001. Tax revenue didn’t cause the deficits, excessive spending did. All else being equal, reduced rates result in greater economic output subject to taxation and ultimately result in more tax revenue, as we saw from 2001-2007. For example, 40% of a 10” pie is 25% more pie than 50% of an 8” pie. The editorial also fails to note the Clinton era budget surpluses (fiscal years 1998-2001) didn’t occur until after the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, passed by a Republican-majority Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
The editorial says, “Extending the Bush tax cuts, as Republicans want to do, would add $4 trillion to the national debt. If cuts for those making under $250,000 are preserved, as President Barack Obama has proposed, the national debt would go up by $3 trillion.” I’m confused; since 2001, Democrats and their mainstream media allies constantly told us “the Bush tax [RATE] cuts” were only for the rich. It’s funny how the Democrats just discovered the rate cuts benefited “the rich” less than everyone else. Heck, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) even began referring to extension of “the Bush era tax cuts” as “the extension of the Obama middle-income tax cuts!” At least the Times didn’t repeat this idiotic comment. As a reminder, Mr. Obama wasn’t even in the Senate when the rate cuts were passed and signed into law and he opposed them up until he figured out he would be held responsible for a tax rate increase when the current rates expire.
The above editorial paragraph is a bit misleading. Both Democrats (including Mr. Obama) and Republicans want to extend “the Bush tax cuts.” The difference is Mr. Obama and some Democrats want to increase tax rates for those making more than $250,000/year.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.