Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?
By ALAN S. BLINDER
NYT
CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.
Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?
Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.
I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
(Continued here.)
NYT
CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.
Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?
Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.
I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
The second sentence in this piece is the very essence of what is wrong with political debate in this county. Blinder makes it sound as if 'tax cuts' are a government welfare program to be handed out like a candy at a parade 'here you go, here is a government tax cut for you, and for you, but not for you'.
And the left has wonderfully pulled the wool over the eyes of voters by framing the tax cut debate as a 'benefit' to be paid by the government.
Nothing could be further from the truth and it is sad that we even publish political commentary that is so abjectly false, it's laughable - unless you were duped by your public education growing up. I went to public school and I never fell prey to the indoctrination that 'tax cuts' are a version of a government program.
The truth is - and I am always glad to speak the truth on these pages because I am the only one with the superior cognitive abilities to cut through the bull - that 'tax cuts for the poor' is a non-sequitir. See, a tax cut is not a government program that pays benefits. A tax cut is like a discount at the store. If the price of apples are discounted 10%, does the grocer pay you an extra 10% above the price of the apples? No, the price you pay for the apples is reduced. Your burden for paying for them is 'cut'. The same goes for tax cuts - it is a reduction in the amount of money you owe to the government. The government goes not pay you any money by cutting your taxes.
Those who hate anything that limits the government tell us that tax cuts 'benefit the wealthy'. FALSE! A person has a tax rate of 20% and makes $100,000 in 2008 and again in 2009, but the government is going to cut taxes to 15% from 2008 to 2009 (tax rate is reduced by 5% - or $5000). The person pays $20,000 in taxes in 2008, but pays $15,000 in 2009. To those who hate tax cuts, they say this person 'received $5000 in benefits' when, in fact, no benefit was given. They simply paid less in 2009 than they did in 2008. There was no benefit because the person earned the money for themselves - THE $5000 THEY GET TO KEEP DID NOT COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT! The government merely told the person 'you get to keep $5000 more of your own money in 2009 than you did in 2008'.
But, the left has so poisoned the tax debate in this country that we can't get a truthful account of what tax cuts really are - a reduction in the amount of money one OWES to the government. If you are someone who does not pay income taxes, you can't realize yoru discount, because you don't pay taxes in the first place.
Return to the gracer example above. If, for whatever reason, the grocer tells you that you don't have to pay for your apples, you also would not qualify for the discount because you didn't pay for them in the first place. The same is true for taxes, if you don't pay income taxes, you cannot qualify to have them cut.
Unless, of course, you re-brand the debate that tax cuts are a form of government payments to individuals. Which the left has done so without challenge...until now.
Post a Comment
<< Home