Big Tax Cuts Will Lead to More Big Deficits

November 9, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

Human nature being what it is, the best chance for a significant compromise between President Obama and congressional Republicans this year is over tax cuts: When asked to choose between higher taxes or fewer services and lower taxes/same services, the latter is going to win every time.

Republicans such as Sen. Jon Kyl believe, with quasireligious certitude, that tax cuts are always and everywhere the right policy. They don’t need to be “paid for”; money collected by the government belongs to the people, and any time it’s refunded, a moral good has occurred.

[See where Kyl gets his campaign money.]

Other, saner Republicans, like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, simply think it’s a bad idea to raise taxes before the economy has fully recovered.

I think Christie’s reasoning is sound. I’d favor an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts for two years—and then, deficit hawk that I am, I’d like to see them all disappear.

[Read the U.S. News op-ed debate: Should All the Bush-Era Tax Cuts Be Extended?]  

Make no mistake about what this means: Extending the Bush tax cuts will increase the deficit in the short term. To do so would mean that Republicans are committed, indirectly, to—gasp!—deficit spending.

Yes, darling. We are all—still—Keynesians.

Tags:
Congress,
Jon Kyl,
George W. Bush,
Republican Party,
deficit and national debt,
economy,
taxes,
unemployment,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

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

I find it very interesting how the "average" american and comment writer expounds on the wisdom of this and of that. They call the other side all sorts of names and the ball bounces back and forth forever. The basic reality of our condition is viewable all around us:

Most of us spend more than we earn (insane credit debt), so why would our elected "leaders" do any different?

We allow our emotions to get in the way of intelligent and thoughtful discussion of the issues at hand and seeking compromise on the major ones, so why would our elected "leaders" do any different?

Most of us get our information from blogs on the internet or Wikipedia type sites - a really reliable source of truth (note sarcasm) instead of actually researching the facts.

Barely half of elegible voters even bother to exercise this right. If they do vote, again, it is based on emotional processes, not common sense or intelligence.

Any discussion of slowing or stopping the growth of government is wonderful unless it affects you even the slightest, then it is a no-no. So selfishness, greed, stupidity, arrogance, and apathy rule in the 21st centurty America and we wonder why we're going downhill fast. How terribly sad for our children and grandchildren.

DrJoel1 of OH 3:39PM November 11, 2010

Think again. I'm married and have three children and I, as patriarch of my home. As such, one of my main responsibilities is to ensure that my families financial needs are met. As such, I provide the income, I pay the bills, I squirrel away savings, I stay away from discretionary debt. Having said all that, I have a wonderful supportive wife who is equally committed to our and our family goals and does of myriad of things to help us achieve those goals.

On the other hand, I have several friends whose wives think they are made of money and spend like there is no tomorrow. One friend in particular had to cut up her debit and credit cards because she had no self control or discipline.

They live in a subdivision and she, on a whim, purchased a horse, of all things. She gave no thought to how she would take care of the horse she bought. She never once considered boarding fees, vet bills, feed bills, truck/trailer, tack, time spent in care and maintenance, etc.

Her $500 purchase cost him and the family $250 each month in boarding fees. Sound familiar?! Sounds like Obama'scare plan.

What's more enlightening is she is always complaining about his job. She denegrates him for lacking ambition. She loathes that he doesn't make more money, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Truth be told, he has a good job. He earns $75,000 a year as a purchasing manager. The median wage in Idaho is less than $50,000 a year.

So, financially speaking, she's driving the family into a ditch. He and the family essentially live a poverty lifestyle despite earning an above poverty wage thanks to his wife.

Now, least you think I'm a misogynist, I will concede that this scenario could easily be the reverse.

The point is this Democrats and some Republicans, are oblivious to the meaning of good governance and what it means to serve the Republic visa via democracy.

Good governance is not spending the country into debt, bloating government, establishing unfunded entitlements, creating a welfare state, providing earmarked pork for pet projects, or social engineering.

Good governance is the exact opposite. Good governance is about fostering an environment where people, unfettered, can pursue their disparate goals and flourish. The role of government is "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

It does not state the role of government "guarantees" these provisions.

The fact is, progressive liberals (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al) have so prostituted the intention of government as to turn the constitutionality and framework of the nation on its head in the name of "Social Justice" and redistribution of wealth.

david of ID 3:54PM November 10, 2010

I see you are still single because you sure don't know much about housewives.

Obama has nothing on Reagan, Bush I or Bush II when it comes to spending.

Tree Hugger of CO 2:41PM November 10, 2010

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

Latest Videos

advertisement