When politics are topsy-turvy
What? Liberals advocating fiscal responsibility? Are we in Oz?
It's a familiar rallying call of Republicans: Without fail, the phrase "spend and tax liberals" rallies the troops and campaign dollars follow. The phrase is still widely used. The only problem is...
It no longer holds water.
No one can argue that the great spenders of today are the George W. Bush White House and the Republican Congress. This has been well established. The only problem is...
(1) They deny it, and (2) they don't want to pay for it.
So instead of being honest about balancing the budget, they trumpet some economic theory that says the less tax you charge, the more taxes you collect.
Huh?
This all stems from the fact — a fact that has been commonly agreed on — that during the Kennedy administration some 45 years ago, tax cuts spurred the economy resulting in greater tax collections. Supporters also cite tax cuts as fueling the economic engine during the Reagan years. Yet this argument is empty, as the excess inflation at that time only gave a semblance of economic recovery. True recovery didn't come till later.
The Bush administration and its Republican chorus repeat long and loudly that their tax cuts are fueling today's economic recovery. At best, this is wishful thinking. The recovery is more a function of (1) cyclical turnaround, (2) low interest rates, and (3) massive borrowing against the future.
Our economic engine would have been far better fueled by government spending on capital projects. With infrastructure investments, the poor and middle class would have benefited along with the wealthy, who are the only real winners from the Bush/Republican tax cuts.
Now the White House and its Republican yes-men want to make their tax cuts "permanent". They still croak the refrain that the cuts fuel the economy, but they look the other way as the debt mounts up and up and up.
Making deficits go up and up and up — isn't that what Democrats were once accused of?
It is time to hold Bush and his sycophant Republicans responsibile for this fiscal irresponsibility. In the April 13 issue of the Washington Post, David Broder, an unabashed liberal, does just that:
For the rest of David Broder's article, go here.
LP
It's a familiar rallying call of Republicans: Without fail, the phrase "spend and tax liberals" rallies the troops and campaign dollars follow. The phrase is still widely used. The only problem is...
It no longer holds water.
No one can argue that the great spenders of today are the George W. Bush White House and the Republican Congress. This has been well established. The only problem is...
(1) They deny it, and (2) they don't want to pay for it.
So instead of being honest about balancing the budget, they trumpet some economic theory that says the less tax you charge, the more taxes you collect.
Huh?
This all stems from the fact — a fact that has been commonly agreed on — that during the Kennedy administration some 45 years ago, tax cuts spurred the economy resulting in greater tax collections. Supporters also cite tax cuts as fueling the economic engine during the Reagan years. Yet this argument is empty, as the excess inflation at that time only gave a semblance of economic recovery. True recovery didn't come till later.
The Bush administration and its Republican chorus repeat long and loudly that their tax cuts are fueling today's economic recovery. At best, this is wishful thinking. The recovery is more a function of (1) cyclical turnaround, (2) low interest rates, and (3) massive borrowing against the future.
Our economic engine would have been far better fueled by government spending on capital projects. With infrastructure investments, the poor and middle class would have benefited along with the wealthy, who are the only real winners from the Bush/Republican tax cuts.
Now the White House and its Republican yes-men want to make their tax cuts "permanent". They still croak the refrain that the cuts fuel the economy, but they look the other way as the debt mounts up and up and up.
Making deficits go up and up and up — isn't that what Democrats were once accused of?
It is time to hold Bush and his sycophant Republicans responsibile for this fiscal irresponsibility. In the April 13 issue of the Washington Post, David Broder, an unabashed liberal, does just that:
Red Ink Run Amok
By David S. Broder
The Washington Post
Thursday, April 13, 2006; Page A21
The interview with Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee was scheduled for April 7, the final day that Congress would be in session before taking another vacation, this one a two-week break. It was expected to be a busy day in the House, with final floor debate on the budget resolution to set the nation's fiscal policy for the coming year.
But House Republican leaders pulled the bill, having failed to negotiate agreement on their side of the aisle between conservatives pressing for spending cuts and moderates trying to protect health and education programs.
So Cooper, a conservative Democrat, had plenty of time to talk about one of the most secretive documents in Washington -- the official Financial Report of the United States Government.
For the rest of David Broder's article, go here.
LP
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home