BCT Editorial – 12/5/10

This page was last updated on December 7, 2010.

Put up or shut up; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 5, 2010. Though the editorial appeared on the Times website December 5th, it didn’t appear in the print edition until December 7th.

As you read the editorial, keep in mind lefties told us for years the Bush-era tax RATE cuts were only for the wealthy. Now, we read lefty outlets like the Times just discovered the Bush-era “middle-class tax [RATE] cuts.” Lefties lied about the tax rate cuts for all that time but can’t do so any longer with a huge tax rate increase for everyone staring us in the face.

Beyond obviously knowing the truth about the Bush-era tax rate cuts, I wish I knew what Times editorial authors know. That way I could tell if this editorial represents lying, writing out of ignorance, or a combination of both.

The editorial asks, “Why not renew Bush-era tax cuts for a year or two?” At best this would help short term business decisions, but the knowledge/uncertainty of future tax rates would hinder longer term decisions (like hiring “permanent” employees; making long-term, big-dollar capital investments; etc.) as is happening now.

Writing about “tax cuts” is an attempt at deception. No one is talking about anyone getting a tax cut. Unless Congress and the President act, current tax rates that have been the law of the land since 2001 and 2003 will go up on January 1, 2011.

I got a kick out of the “Senate Republicans have gone nuclear” comment. Democrats passing Obamacare without a single Republican vote wasn’t going “nuclear,” but Republican refusing to conduct any other business until the issues of short-term government funding and the January 1st tax rate increase are addressed is going “nuclear.”

On the effect of higher tax rates, you’ll get whiplash from the editorial’s contradictions. In one spot we read, “Raising taxes could slow the economy,” yet immediately after we read current tax rates “could disappear - permanently - and we would start paying our bills.” If “Raising taxes could slow the economy” (They do; it’s not up for debate.), then how could we “start paying our bills” by increasing tax rates that always cut economic activity?

I’m sure the Times would like us to believe “the Bush 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 concludes with, “If Americans really mean what they say about deficit spending and the national debt, it's time to put up or shut up.” Let’s look at the Times credibility on the topic of debt and deficits. The Times has published a series of editorials that alternated between lobbying for more spending and complaining about spending. You’ll recall this paper cries crocodile tears about deficit spending and debt one day and the next day pitches a fit if anyone proposes spending cuts or adhering to “pay-go” rules. For at least the last four years preceding the 2008 election, and likely from the first day of the Bush administration, Times editorials constantly and correctly complained about federal deficit spending, the country’s growing debt, and the burden that debt puts on us and future generations. Referring to these complaints as crocodile tears, I questioned the motives in my critiques because Times editorials concurrently lobbied for more spending on just about every proposal that came down the pike. As I’ve noted previously, since we elected President Obama, Times editorials now support deficit spending. Seven previous examples are “Last resort,” “Limited options,” “Budget crunch,” “Making the grade,” “Failing grade,” “Move it along,” and “Double-dip recession.”