Jon Kyl: Extend Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy Even If They Add To Deficit

First Posted: 07-12-10 11:34 AM   |   Updated: 07-12-10 01:18 PM

What's Your Reaction?
Immigration Enforcement

Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns.

"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," said the Arizona Senator during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

White House aides immediately seized on the comments. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote on Twitter, "Kyl says wealthy need big Bush tax cuts while middle class families are on their own to fend for themselves as a result of Bush economy."

In private, administration officials say that the framing of the argument couldn't be more advantageous: "It's cutting taxes for the wealthy and letting the unemployed to fend for themselves," said one White House ally.

"If all of this has a familiar ring to it, it's because unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again," added Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee.


Asked to expand on his tweets, Gibbs declined comment, save to clarify that "the question [host Chris] Wallace specifically asked Kyl was [about] the upper end of the Bush tax cuts (above $250,000)."

But the politics already are fairly obvious. For the past few months, congressional Republicans have demanded that any additional spending be offset by budget cuts or revenue increases elsewhere. Also on Sunday, White House senior adviser David Axelrod blamed deficit concerns for the difficulty in finding a 60th vote in the Senate for unemployment benefits even though, as of Friday, 2.1 million people have not received checks that they were expecting in June.

Story continues below
Advertisement

And yet, Kyl is now suggesting that the same budget rules shouldn't apply with respect to tax cuts for the wealthy, which are set to expire unless Congress acts to renew them. As Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly notes:

It's quite a message to Americans: Republicans believe $30 billion for unemployment benefits don't even deserve a vote because the money would be added to the deficit, but Republicans also believe that adding the cost of $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy to the deficit is just fine.

Kyl is one of the most prominent members of Congress to advance the argument that jobless benefits make people not want to look for work, a position disputed by economists across the political spectrum. Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said last March on the Senate floor.

The chart below shows the deficit impact of the Bush tax cuts over the next decade.

Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Subscribe to the new HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Re...
Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Re...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
13,618
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (247 total)
  1 of 33  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
BeVeryAfraid   05:11 PM on 7/12/2010
1982 - Reagan signed into law not one but two major tax increases.
(1) The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year -
--- This raised taxes by almost 1% of the GDP, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

(2) Highway Revenue Act of 1982  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa Kerr   09:09 AM on 7/18/2010
I do not wish to be trickled on by obscenely rich and greedy people. Thanks anyway, but no thanks.
Hakumen   05:02 PM on 7/17/2010
Typical coming from the right. Even in the face of facts, they will hold on to their beloved tax cuts for the rich like their lives depend on it. These tax cuts are a large part of the growing deficit and they will only increase the gap if extended. You can't be a deficit hawk if you support moves that increase the deficit. Especially when they are proven to not stimulate the economy.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Welib   01:09 PM on 7/17/2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17768

Check this link out guys. It shows exactly how much the rich get in tax cuts WHILE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IS JOBLESS, HOMELESS AND PENNILESS.

THANKS REPUBLICANS!
photo
cirrus7   10:34 AM on 7/17/2010
Isn't Kyl just quoting form the 'Book of Reagan' conservative bible? Resulting in national debt of $935 B in Jan 1981 to 12,000 Billion today?
hcurtisla   12:24 AM on 7/17/2010
For those individuals who are not rich, why are you a Republican?? It is clear as day that the ideology of this group is to simply do for yourself and screw the masses at any cost. Only now, they are becoming awfully transparent about their distain for the common everyday person. The Democrats are not perfect by any means but at least I feel like they are generally out for the greater good. We should take this opportunity to reduce the size of goverment in November. Let's start with Kyl and Boehner (Bo-ner).
HopeWFaith   11:56 PM on 7/16/2010
Kyl is such a true and fine example of the corporate greed running the nation, in particular running the Republican machine for the past 40 years. Sickening. Just sickening. For men such as these to retire on the American tax payers tax dollars is a disgusting idea. Kick him out now.
photo
texfly   09:19 PM on 7/15/2010
Kyls is a poor analyst. We all know that a tax cut to the very wealthty will stimulates investment in derivatives and houses of cards (the risky investments that lead to our problems)

Now if you double tax on the top 1% you oculd increase the averagte income of the bottom 50% ... YES 50% of households -- by 38%! Don't believe me here's some data that might help convince you:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html

In the hands of roughly 150 million people, that added income will lead to increased spending on goods and serivices nad cause the economy to grow in a real way. With a little imagination you even extend the unemployment benefits as well.

It would be the best stimulus tried so far.
nobamanopelosi   02:39 AM on 7/16/2010
I AM BLUE DOG DEM.
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
photo
texfly   02:26 PM on 7/16/2010
As I recall, when Clinton raised taxes, menaingful investments increased and the economy as a whole prospered.

Your Kennedy quote may have had merit in the past when extra money was invested in building businesses. But investment strategies are now different. It is far easier and faster to invest in gambling concerns where brokerage firms offe products that simply make money without actually doing any true investemnt. It's a big game of 3-card Monte. Economists measure economic GDP by how fast money changes hands (between big brokerage houses), not by how well-off the avergae citizen is. Haven't you figured that out yet?

You and Kennedy are dead wrong in your analysis. Putting tons of money in the hands of the rich, never resulted in sustained economic growth - ever in the history of the world. What did promote growth was paying decent wages to normal workers so they had enough discretioanry income to drive new business opportunities.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung   04:00 PM on 7/16/2010
Kennedy lowered taxes on millionaires from 91% to 77%.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Now, the wealthiest households are paying about 16% of their income.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/the-bigger-shame-the-rich_b_162485.html

Clearly, somebody took tax cuts for the rich WAY TOO FAR. I think it was Reagan.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ColinStevens   02:06 AM on 7/18/2010
Uh - John F. Kennedy lowered the tax rate on the rich all right - to 75%.

So you're suggesting that instead of 39%, the top tax rate should be 75% for the rich? Huh.
Agent672   11:13 AM on 7/15/2010
Tax Cuts for the Rich,
Put the economy in the Ditch
photo
Higgs Boson   02:43 AM on 7/15/2010
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse! You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work environment!
Chairman Wow   11:59 AM on 7/15/2010
Hah! Brilliant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa Kerr   09:02 AM on 7/18/2010
if your existence is ever confirmed, Higgs, let us know.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
buzzbeedc   11:43 PM on 7/14/2010
Why would this surprise anyone?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung   08:39 PM on 7/14/2010
Epic fail, Jon, just epic! This is how Congressional Democrats SHOULD campaign against the Republican Party.

They're paying 16% income tax now
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/the-bigger-shame-the-rich_b_162485.html
... and they want even MORE tax cuts for the rich.
"Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs."

They've promised you that tax cuts for the rich would create jobs before, but what really happened? Millions of jobs were shipped overseas.

They promised that deregulation would spur innovation and economic growth. But they squandered their tax cuts for the rich speculating on worthless derivative products they never bothered to understand.

THEIR greed and incompetence destroyed OUR economy.

(audio of President Barack Hussein Obama's brilliant analogy to a teenager who drove the family car into the ditch -- halt just before he says "NO!")

If you lost your job, or you have a mortgage that's more expensive than your house is worth, it was the Republicans in Congress who drove us all into this ditch -- and they still haven't even admitted that THEY did it!

(audio of "nation of whiners" which if I recall correctly, is also Jon Kyl! then audio of Obama: "they want the keys back -- NO!")

Don't give THEM back the keys, ever. For a truly conservative approach to financial risk, vote Democrat.
photo
treboi   12:44 AM on 7/15/2010
true true!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung   09:50 AM on 7/15/2010
Thank you!

I really think that would work very well as a campaign ad.

(1) "Voters Say To Hell With Deficit Reduction, Help The Unemployed"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/14/unemployment-deficit-polls-voters_n_646600.html

(2) Kyl just has a smug, over-privileged kind of look about him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa Kerr   09:07 AM on 7/18/2010
a great post. i fanned and faved you, mostly for the point you made that "a truly conservative approach to financial risk" is based on Democratic philosophy. There is nothing conservative about Republican financial non-responsiblity.

however, I "vote Democratic," I don't "vote Democrat." "Democrat" is a Republican slur that came into use because they are aristocrats who actually hate democracy, and can't stand to have the word "democratic" cross their lips.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung   03:43 PM on 7/18/2010
Good point. 10 years ago, I might have said that "vote Democrat" meant "vote (for a) Democrat" but now that gops (pronounced like flop, slop, plop) have played that little word game with "the Democrat Party" I'll have to be sure to make it clearer: either "vote for a Democrat" or "vote Democratic."

F&F back!
DonMinGA   07:49 PM on 7/14/2010
$30 billion vs $678 billion (since tax cuts HAVE TO BE paid for from somewhere)...

That's over 20x what you're arguing about trying to be "fiscally responsible". Stop lying and just say you want to help out your friends that helped you get elected.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AtheistMaximus   02:36 PM on 7/14/2010
Of course why didn't we think of this sooner. Just do the same cr@p over and over again, that should bring us back on top.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Economike   01:15 PM on 7/14/2010
Those at the top delude themselves that the wealth they are hoarding will make them secure. When most of the people in the country are hurting it will trickle up for sure.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ReedYoung   08:45 PM on 7/14/2010
Absolutely! The over-privileged are utterly failing to learn the lesson of history that when those on "the bottom" rungs of society are hurting badly enough in large enough numbers, that PAIN TRICKLES UP. And boy, do these Repunklicans deserve what's coming to them!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
electra10   12:36 PM on 7/14/2010
Republicans have been complaining for weeks about the 49% of Americans who don't pay any income tax, so this is consistent with their platform: "Give tax breaks to the rich and raise taxes on the poor"
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
hypnotoad72   06:33 PM on 7/14/2010
AND offshore jobs, which ensures the revenue government brings in to pay for corporate subsidy and bailouts also goes down... (and the military, but safety nets for the working class are apparently 'socialism'... unlike what those who say 'socialism' is bad get.)

Twitter Edition