"... It's idiotic." |
In 2001 and again in 2003 George Bush directed Congress to create legislation that would reduce taxes to all tax brackets, including a $300 tax refund for individuals, $600 for families. His reasoning? The budget surplus he inherited from his predecessor was due to government charging you, Joe Taxpayer, too much money. The problem was that even the Republican controlled Congress could see this was a bad idea. The immediate impact was to go from a $200 million surplus (swelling to $800B by 2009) into a $1.2 TRILLION deficit. Facing a Democratic filibuster on both occasions Dubya urged Congress to use Budget Reconciliation to pass the tax cuts. Budget Reconciliation is a set of rules by which legislation can defeat filibuster by a simple majority. Congress was able to pass the tax cuts, handshakes all around. HOWEVER, one of the rules for using Budget Reconciliation is that if the legislation increases the deficit it cannot do so interminably, but for a maximum of ten years. The thought was that so many jobs would be created and so much growth would occur that any future administration would have no choice but to make the cuts permanent.OR the thought was that by the end of ten years, should the Democrats be in charge (as they are) the tax cuts would be a great political chip for the Republican party. Either way history proved Bush and the Republicans wrong.
The fact remains that from the outset there was a horizon on the Bush tax cuts. The horizon was there because the tax cuts were BAD NEWS for the budget. Extending them will not magically make them good news. In fact, we stand to go another $2.3 trillion in the hole in the next ten years alone. If we are truly concerned about the deficit, then in no way should we support extending the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, upon expiration, George Bush will have raised taxes two years after leaving office.
No comments:
Post a Comment