So President Bush signed a bill into law today that extends the 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. Outside of the provisions that raise the cap on the "alternative minimum tax" (which, because it is not indexed to inflation, has begun to affect middle class), I think they are a bad idea.
1. We have recently raised the ceiling on our national debt to 9 trillion dollars (it was at 5.95 trillion when Bush took office); it's not the time to be cutting taxes. The cuts lull people into a "something for nothing" mindset and are fiscally irresponsible. We are at war (the cost of Iraq is approaching $400 billion) and are dealing with record-breaking budgetary deficits. By failing to address this ballooning deficit and instead continuing to add to our mounting debt, we are mortgaging our children's futures (they will be the ones stuck paying this off). We're also taking considerable risks that include further devaluing the U.S. Dollar abroad and incurring significant and harmful levels inflation at home. (Note that as the President signs this bill, the House of Representatives is pushing to raise the debt ceiling AGAIN, this time by 653 billion to a grand total of 9.62 trillion).
2. Our economy is supposedly strong (the fact that median incomes for middle and lower class Americans have fallen when adjusted for inflation is another issue), so the "pro-growth" rationale here falls flat. If the rationale for the cuts three years ago was to spur growth in a slow economy and the rationale today is to spur growth in a strong economy, just when is the proper time to take accountability and seek a balanced budget? Contrary to what ideologues on the far right would have us think, tax cuts are not the cure all for everything.
3. The cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich at the expense of the middle and lower class Americans. Under the guise of reducing the deficit, Congress early this year cut student loan subsidies and funding for programs aiding the poor (see e.g., the so-called Deficit Reduction Act). It has also steadfastly avoided raising the minimum wage or implementing tax cuts primarily targeting the middle class. All this in the name of fiscal responsibility. It seems nonsensical to more than offset those "deficit reducing" measures with cuts that will significantly INCREASE the deficit even more.
In fairness to the Bush administration, both some tax cuts and increases in government spending were justified after 9/11 as the country struggled to prevent those attacks and the subsequent waves of chaos in they caused in financial markets from undercutting a slowing economy while we simultaneously began waging a war on terrorism. The problem lies with how that spending and those tax cuts were dispensed then and how Congress and the administration are continuing to handle them now. By implementing policies that cater almost primarily to the wealthiest of Americans, the administration has increased the disparity between the rich and poor in this country. While the administration should be commended for rightly focusing on job creation, it has failed to ensure that the quality of those jobs meets or exceeds the jobs that were lost. As a result the real median household income has fallen since 2001 and the poverty rate has increased to 12.7%. Meanwhile there has been a record increase in the number of millionaires in the country. In considering our economic policy, we shouldn't be preoccupied solely with the country's aggregate economic growth, but should be very mindful of what kind of growth we are encouraging.
Overall, I think we need a more balanced fiscal policy. One that doesn't ideologically embrace tax cuts as a cure all to everything, even when our economy is strong, our national debt is outpacing our GDP, and we're involved in an expensive war that is not likely to end soon. We also shouldn't extend tax cuts that almost exclusively benefit the richest Americans, especially at a time when we're cutting vital governmental programs (e.g., Student Loan subsidies) in the name of "fiscal responsibility."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
"The cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich at the expense of the middle and lower class Americans."
I just skimmed the written article till i came to this... I support the tax thingy you are complaining about.
Garg... you have to be rich before this will benefit you. You're either going to have to start winning some races or come up with a great idea like the pet rock if you don't want to be a middle or lower class American. Otherwise your options seem limited. You're not related to anyone rich so you can't really inherit your wealth. You could marry a trust-fund baby, but that would require commitment and marriage. Looks like you're in between a rock and a hard place. Better start racing harder.
I am pretty sure i know some millionaires that may or may not be related to me. Wether they choose to share their wealth with me is another matter. A pretty face, superior charm, and beeming personality have gotten me this far. It is a good idea to find a trust fund baby though. I might give marriage a go if i met the right girl. I will race as hard as i can, but if it doesnt work out, sitting on a beach in the sun will work out fine as well.
ps. What are taxes? I mean i am familiar with them from the story robin hood, but i thought they were purely fictional.
, m ...l.km, zΩÅ CV CV CV CV CV C
Ruby posted that. She is learning the greek alphabet I guess.
I think maybe the whole subsidized student loan program should be reworked. Appears to be benefitting the upper and middle classes much more than the lower class. What do you think?
You have Ruby learning the Greek alphabet early. Pretty soon you'll have her working on HTML.
I don't see how federal student loans benefit the upper class. You have to financially qualify to receive Stafford loans. The trust-fund babies I know at GWU certainly haven't taken out any federal loans.
BTW, where is exactly the dividing line between upper and middle class. I just want to know so that when I pass it I can try to screw the others.
It could be argued that if subsidized loans are helping the middle class to achieve the upper class, then that is still a problem. I hope nothing is changed though, I want my subsidies!
This reminds me of some wise words once blasted over the radiowaves now reduced to playing on repeat on my ipod...
Little child wipe your crying eyes, how can I explain the fear you feel inside. You were born, into this evil world, where man is killing man, and no one knows just why.
When the children cry, let them know we tried, 'cause when the children sing, then the new world begins.
White Lion! love it!
Or is it tiger? I'm not positive, but I do think that song applies here.
Yesterday I passed a group promoting a book called “The Children of Satan”. The book had Dick Cheney on the cover. They were singing about the book in opera voices - making it difficult to understand - something about heaven and hell and burning and god knows what else. On my way back from lunch I passed the group again, but the opera singers had retired. A group of lovely granola looking ladies were in their place. One of them turned to me and asked, “will you use your ovaries to get rid of Cheney?” I can’t even imagine how I would go about doing such a thing.
And I got my hopes up that you'd be blogging more often now that you're on break, and this is what I get for it. 10 days sans post?! And no comments on mine? WTF? Where are you?
Yeah Marc! Blogging is the only thing i have.
Woo - (1) I think the line between the middle and upper classes is a little blurry (2) I don't agree with that characterization of subsidized loans. I think education raises the standard of living for everyone. It is an essential government investment.
BA - Wise words indeed... "Little child, you must show the way, to a better day for all the young. ´Cause you were born for the world to see that we all can live in light and peace."
Tara - It's While Lion.
Alice - We have those cooks out this way too. They're Lyndon B. LaRouche supporters. They've actually gone so far as to sneak into our Con Law classes to disrupt in protest of Bush. I've never heard to ovaries bit though... I'm still not quite sure what it means exactly. Does she want you to donate an ovary? Or does she want you to have a kid that will vote against Cheney (or his successors)?
Sue Ellen - Sorry :( I went on vacation a couple of weeks ago and then started work this past week. I hope to make amends. Please accept my profuse apologies.
Garg - No Tyson. You also have your rugged good looks to help you get by.
While Lion?
Hmm. Who knew?
I looked at that site and I've decided that Lyndon LaRouche seems kinda nuts. That mans not going anywhere near my ovaries and THATS FINAL!
Post a Comment