Extending Bush Tax Cuts Could Be GOP Ticket to Victory

July 23, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

Allow me to chime in where my bloleagues Robert Schlesinger and Peter Roff left off. They were responding to a new Gallup Poll which shows that registered U.S. voters now--by a narrow margin--prefer to have the Democrats in charge in Congress after the next election.

This is fantastic news for Democrats, who are expecting to lose lots of seats in the U.S. House and Senate. Large losses are typical for the party in power in an off-year (non-presidential year) election. The GOP is hoping of course that Democrats lose enough seats that they will regain control of both chambers. Some Democrats (including White House spokesman Robert Gibbs) have allowed the possibility to escape their lips that, yes, their party could lose one or both chambers. Any Democrat who has said that publicly has been chastised and recanted.

[See a slide show of 5 key issues in the 2010 elections.]

I think predictions even at this stage, while fun to discuss and banter about, are largely unreliable. If the Dow Jones Industrial Average, for example, returns to the 11,000 mark and there are one or two months of decent job growth between now and November, the outlook for Democrats will be quite different than it is today. 

Labor Day is the marker for me. Once the kids go back to school, Congress is in recess and members are home campaigning, then we can get serious about who is going to lose how much at the polls in the fall.

Meanwhile, my bloleague Peter Roff advises Republicans to start standing "for" something instead of just opposing most Democratic programs.

I think they already have an issue: tax hikes. Unless Congress acts this year, all the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2003 expire by the end of the year. That means every family living on $75,000 per year or more will see taxes rise if Congress does nothing. According to the Springfield News-Sun:

Republicans are pressing to extend all the tax cuts for everyone. They insist it is folly to raise anyone’s taxes as the economy struggles to recover from last year’s crippling recession. They contend that taking money from anybody will hinder private investment, which will slow economic growth. 

I agree with my bloleague that Republicans need to do more. But in a weak economy, tax hikes on the middle class (and any family living $75,000 per year in or near a big city knows one good salary or two average salaries does not make the family rich), if played properly, could help the GOP win more seats.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Robert Gibbs,
2010 Congressional elections,
George W. Bush,
Congress,
taxes,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Did you prove they did not ?

Besides, you did not answer the question:

Steve of IL does not know his JFK. Says:

“The reason the tax cuts were passed at that time was that it was generally thought that 91% top margin was excessive and no longer needed. So JFK proposed a reduction to 70%“.

Absolutely WRONG Let JFK tell his story. Not Steve‘s version of convience:

“According to President John F. Kennedy“:

“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

Always change subject when wrong.

Bill Hedges of MO 11:35PM July 26, 2010

The tax cuts were politics. But you also don't get that 70% is still higher than 35% when growth rates were lower than in the 1960s. I'd like you to address this issue. You haven't so far.

steve of IL 9:54PM July 26, 2010

Steve of IL does not know his JFK. Says:

“The reason the tax cuts were passed at that time was that it was generally thought that 91% top margin was excessive and no longer needed. So JFK proposed a reduction to 70%“.

Absolutely WRONG Let JFK tell his story. Not Steve‘s version of convience:

“According to President John F. Kennedy“:

“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

Always change subject when wrong.

Bill Hedges of MO 9:39PM July 26, 2010

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and hosts PBS's weekly news analysis program, To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe. She also writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column for Scripps Howard News Service.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

advertisement