This page was last updated on December 13, 2010.
Deal or no deal; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 12, 2010.
You have to love the Times language. Not allowing current tax rates to go up is a “tax cut.”
The editorial said, “However, as the nation’s chief executive, Obama didn’t and doesn’t have the luxury of constantly dabbling in partisanship. At some point, he has to put aside party politics and work out the best deal possible to do what is best for the country. Good politics doesn’t equate to good governance.” You’ll remember the Times didn’t have any qualms about “partisanship” when it came to Obamacare and other lefty policies/programs enacted without a single Republican vote.
The editorial said, “Because those cuts would come to an end, billions of dollars (in the form of increased taxes) would be taken out of the pockets of American workers. That’s not exactly what you want to happen in an economy that is struggling to get back on its feet.” If higher tax rates are bad “in an economy that is struggling to get back on its feet,” why would they ever be a good thing? If higher tax rates would drag down a bad economy, are we to believe they wouldn’t serve as a drag on a good economy? In fact, there is never a good time to raise tax rates beyond those required to support limited government.
The editorial said, “If Obama didn’t cut this deal, … workers would have seen smaller paychecks.” How can this be? Haven’t we been told for at least the last seven years the Bush-era tax RATE cuts were tax cuts for “the rich,” millionaires, billionaires, et cetera? Now, however, President Obama concedes not extending the rates would result in an average tax increase of $3,000 per family.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.