I was on CNBC Tuesday when Bill Clinton gave an interview saying that, given the deadlock between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, it seemed likely the Bush tax cuts would be extended in 2013 along with all spending. When asked to comment, I said Clinton was probably correct.
But, of course, Republicans have twisted Clinton's words into a pretzel. They say the former president came out in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy -- in sharp contrast to President Obama's position that they should not be.
It's typical election-year politics, except for the fact that the Republican megaphone is larger this time around due to all the Super PAC and secret "social welfare" organization bribes, er, donations that are filling Republican coffers.
Here's the truth. America has a huge budget deficit hanging over our heads. If the rich don't pay their fair share, the rest of us have to pay higher taxes -- or do without vital public services like Medicare, Medicaid, Pell grants, food stamps, child nutrition, federal aid to education, and more.
Republicans say we shouldn't raise taxes on the rich when the economy is still in the dumps. This is a variation on their old discredited trickle-down economic theories. The fact is, the rich already spend as much as they're going to spend. Raising their taxes a bit won't deter them from buying, and therefore won't hurt the economy.
In reality, Romney and the GOP are pushing an agenda that has nothing whatever to do with reducing the budget deficit. If they were serious about deficit reduction they wouldn't demand tax cuts for the very wealthy.
We should have learned by now. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were supposed to be temporary. Even so, they blew a huge hole in the budget deficit.
Millionaires received a tax cut that's averaged $123,000 a year, while the median-wage worker's tax cut has amounted to no more than a few hundreds dollars a year.
Bush promised the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves in terms of their alleged positive impact on the economy. The record shows they didn't. Job growth after the Bush tax cuts was a fraction of the growth under Bill Clinton -- even before the economy crashed in late 2008. And the median wage dropped, adjusted for inflation.
Let's be clear. Romney and the Republicans are pushing a reverse-Robin Hood plan that takes from the middle class and the poor while rewarding the rich.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Romney's tax plan would boost the incomes of people earning more than $1 million a year by an average of $295,874 annually.
Meanwhile, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Romney's plan would throw ten million low-income people off the benefits rolls for food stamps or cut benefits by thousands of dollars a year, or both. "These cuts would primarily affect very low-income families with children, seniors and people with disabilities," the Center concludes.
The rich have to pay their fair share. Period.
Take a look at this video, in which I provide the three key reasons. (And pass it on.)
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich
Jim Wallis: The Missing Religious Principle in Our Budget Debates
The middle class can't afford any more taxes -- disposable income is thing of the past. No one other than the wealthy take vacations, or go out to eat once week anymore. The net pay of middle class household is spent in gas stations, in utilities, & grocery stores, all with rising prices. State employees & public servants, teachers, firemen, & police, not just state & local clerks in office, continue to get layoff notices when millionaires don't have to pay taxes. That bottom line is the sad bad truth of it, & the GOP will defend no more taxes on the rich to their last ditch.
The Beyond Outrage of which Reich has written will, with any luck & despite voter suppression & propaganda ads from super PACs, produce an electorate groundswell of throwing these blatantly bought & paid for bums out in November. I hope the Dems sweep the House & Senate both.
They are hardly the same thing.
He has moved to cut military spending and PPACA will save billions in health care costs. As far as you other blather it's typical and why there is gridlock. Tell Boehner that Jobs bills don't consist of slashing regulations and cutting corporate taxes.
Would you believe that though I am not a DEM\Liberal whatever, "you people" have me ready to take the law into my own hands.
Tax cuts that are TEMPORARY ARE TEMPORARY.
KCID A TAE
Why then give any tax cuts to the rich? No historical precedent shows that it stimulates the general economy. The point where high marginal rates restrain the economy has never been demonstrated. Au contraire, our fastest sustained economic growth during fifties and sixties was at a time of exceptionally high marginal tax rates. Rather than hand all the money to Uncle Sam the rich folks invested some of it or paid taxes. Tax revenues were sufficient to build a transportation system and fund the Cold War.
Nothing that has happened over the last 30 years refutes the correlation between high marginal rates and economic growth. Tragically in the 80's taxes on working people rose (FICA) and top brackets fell. Even worse, the federal government diverted surplus payroll taxes to (partially) offset the shortfall of income taxes. The rich folks got it. Raise taxes on the bottom (on labor) and lower taxes on capital and income.
In the end we have businesses sitting on trillions in cash, a top 0.1% continuing to hijack the productivity growth of our economy (while paying taxes at half the rate of the middle class), and the "bottom" 99% stagnating to the point that our consumption-driven economy has collapsed. Ask yourself how many yachts and summer homes the tiny population of super-rich can buy? Will that stimulate our economy? Clearly we MUST put spending power back in the pockets of the middle class and put more of them to work, not by enriching the rich but by investing in neglected projects to restore our infrastructure.
"Why then give any tax cuts to the rich? No historical precedent shows that it stimulates the general economy. The point where high marginal rates restrain the economy has never been demonstrated. Au contraire, our fastest sustained economic growth during fifties and sixties was at a time of exceptionally high marginal tax rates."
From the CBO:
"the highest quintile (top 20%) earned 55.9 percent of pretax income and paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes; the top 1 percent of households earned 19.4 percent of income and paid 28.1 percent of taxes. The share of taxes paid by high-income groups exceeded their share of income because average tax rates rise with income. In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share."
It also states that the bottom 40% of citizens had a negative tax rate. Meaning they received money back from the rich people who pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. In other words, they received money for nothing, from the rich.
I'll post the CBO link again, and it won't get opened again.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42870
Even if the government could somehow cause more spending by re-distributing wealth it wouldn't do any good because you do not become wealthier, as a nation, by spending more. You only become wealthier by producing more. It's just like in your household, buying stuff doesn't make you any wealthier but working longer hours does.
You compare apples to oranges.
10+ yrs low taxes
10+ yrs low economic growth.
That would be a realistic goal, which they could aim for with their heads held high.
Oh wait. I stole that from a novel...
A temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts, as Bill Clinton initially suggested this week, may be all that Congress can muster in a post-election period.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a member of the Gang of Six, said in an interview that it “might make some sense” to extend all the taxes in the short term if lawmakers need more time to fundamentally reform the current corporate and individual tax system
“But on a short-term basis, … I think something like that is going to have to be done,” he said of a temporary tax cut
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77140_Page2.html#ixzz1x8UXQFVU
Anyway, as to fair share, I think people that use that term do indeed know what they are talking about. Why should i pay the same percentage in taxes on my income then someone who makes a $100k more than me? It's absurd. High income earners do NOT pay their fair share of taxes when you break the numbers/percentages down.
Those who enjoy more of what this country has to offer should pay more for such enjoyment.
"They think that only the 1% have "loopholes" that reduce their tax liability."
It IS only high income earners or wealthy people (wealth through capital gains) who have the most loopholes.
Do you own a home? If so, you benefit from a loophole called the interest rate deduction. If you give to charity, you get to deduct that. If you pay excess medical costs, you can deduct those.
I believe that you are correct, however, when you say that no politician really cares about reducing the deficit. They can't get re-elected if they have to make hard decisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
The Republican rhetoric about cutting taxes – all the talk about stimulating the economy and giving money back to hardworking Americans, there is another, deeper political goal: to strangle government social programs. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they’re affordable, but because they aren’t.
Growing deficits were entirely consistent with the long-term plan to reduce government. The hope was that soaring deficits and a rapidly growing national debt would eventually force policymakers to reduce government spending –
The Bush administration embraced deficits as a good way to rein in government. goal: to strangle government social programs.
For decades, a key part of the anti-government agenda of conservatives has been to cut spending on social programs.
Targeted programs – Public Schools, USPS, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood, health care for the elderly and poor, welfare and food stamps, military retirement, drug abuse centers, unemployment compensation, aid to education, college student loans, nursing homes, employment training, childcare centers, housing subsidies for the elderly and disabled, WIC, Head Start, and school nutrition.
The bankruptcy of this nation was intentional.
The "bankruptcy of this nation" was indeed intentional. But it began when liberals began making citizens reliant on government rather than themselves. This was furthered so that currently, roughly the bottom 50% of our citizens don't pay taxes, while the top 10% pay roughly 73% of all federal taxes.
The left likes to keep people poor so they'll get their votes. They accomplish this by giving them more and more of other people's money and telling them their lot in life is the fault of others.
Further regarding bipartisanship:
"Mourdock outspokenly opposes bipartisan compromise. 'Bipartisanship has brought us to the brink of bankruptcy,' he told ABC. 'We don’t need bipartisanship, we need application of principle.' ” (2)
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/richard-mourdock-bipartisanship-indiana-senate_n_1502718.html
(2) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/mourdock-defeats-lugar-in-indiana/
Why isn't this treason? To purposefully hurt the welfare of the country? To risk financial collapse because of a third party pledge?
Hang them in the square.
Reagan,GHWB and Clinton RAISED TAXE (not tax cut) to END RECESSIONS
Now if you cannot remember "READ MY LIPS" or "SURPLUS"
Then what hell are you doing watch so much TV MEDIA. We all saw these 3 raise taxes and we all saw the economy recover.
In spite of what TV Media tries to distort. What were you looking at...
NOW you love 2 parties who have both decieved you and taken your cash for themselves. And we are about to do 3