Posted on 12/15/2010 7:02:57 AM PST by Brittany Pounders
The battle over the extension of the Bush tax cuts rages on. We hear about it in the Congress, from the White House, on the news and even at the water cooler. Everyone is taking sides. If these cuts do not continue, the United States will experience one of the highest tax increases in US history and the continued attack on job creation. Furthermore, we will likely move to the top spot of highest taxed countries in the industrialized world. In a world where capital can easily take flight, this spells dire consequences for an economy that is the worst we have seen in three decades.
Political pundits and economists breakdown the prospects for the tax cuts into three likely scenarios:
The first scenario paints a picture in which the complete package is extended to all income groups for at least two years. This is obviously what investors, small business owners, and others with a vested interest in a robust economy desire. This will allow business owners to make some economic decisions, particularly job creators who have sat on the sidelines in order to see what government will do next. I believe this is the least likely scenario in the current political environment if, for no other reason, such will show tax cuts on wealth creation actually works. There are many in Congress who do not want Americans to come to that obvious conclusion.
A second, and more likely scenario has a multi-year extension of tax cuts for those who make $200,000 or less a year. In other words, a cut for those who contribute little, if anything, to job growth. I personally think that this is the most popular scenario in the current political environment. These type of cuts will have zero or even an adverse effect on an already weak economy. They will not work at creating jobs and the politicians will tell voters such, while failing to mention that the cuts were not extended to the ones who actually create jobs. It is bad economics, but excellent political pandering for those who are in the class conflict business.
A third scenario is one that includes a very short term extension of cuts for all groups. I think this, too, is a strong possibility and how long these cuts last could be predicated entirely on election results. If the House falls to a GOP majority, I could easily see a lame duck Congress rescind any extensions they passed before the election to persuade voters. These “sore losers” could come back with a vengeance between November and January with a list of bad bills, including one that turns its backs on the tax cuts for job creators.
With that, I think it is imperative to draw a line in the sand and stop the lame duck Congress from passing legislation. That battle will largely be fought in the US Senate through the use of the filibuster and conservative activists reminding the ten Republicans up for reelection in 2012 how important it is to hold the line on a government out of control.
Ironically, John Boehner, the leader of the Republican party in the US House and the probable next Speaker of the House, has already conceded that, in his opinion, “it would be better” to extend the tax cuts to those under $200,000 than to not have cuts for anybody. Better? In what way? The only advantage I see is in the arena of garnering votes, not jobs. This is political pandering at its worst and why the Republican Party has received as much scrutiny from Tea Party and other conservative activists as the Democrats.
Republican strategists are underestimating the intelligence of voters when provided a “teaching moment.” Boehner and other Republicans should just honestly say that we are in a fiscal crisis and if we are going to cut taxes, it should be to produce jobs and not votes. With that, the GOP should support cuts for all or for none. That kind of stand would resonate with voters who are tired of policy making as another form of political campaigning.
About the author: Kevin Price was an aide to U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH) and later went on to work in policy areas with some of the nation’s leading think tanks including the National Center for Public Policy Research and was part of the Heritage Foundation’s Annual Guide to Public Policy Experts. He is also a prolific writer, posting several times a week at his critically acclaimed blog and having authored The Debt Crisis and You and the public policy best seller, Empowerment to the People.
Ride that “Tax the Rich” ship into the sunset for once and for all
And I hope all the rich ‘go Galt’ for the next 2 years and sit things out until the next election
then I hope Palin runs and TALKS PLAIN ENGLISH the way she does so wonderfully (instead of Romney-type political-speak) about why the government stinks so bad and what a liar social Obammy and the democrats are
then I hope for a pony, but I don't want to push my luck
If the tax rates do not stay the same, they will revert back to the Clinton tax rates, and Zero just had Bubba defending President Bushs tax rates,in the Presser when Zero had to leave to party with Michelle, strange games they play in DC
The really screwed up part about this everyone seems to be ignoring is the truly rich, i.e., the elitists like the Kennedy's, Rockefeller's et al, by and large don't have earned income. Their income in large part is derived from investments. What this "tax the rich" nonsense is really designed to do is keep the up and comers from presenting any sort of challenge to the old school elitists. Those up and comers are primarily small business owners. The overwhelming majority of millionaires in this country are first generation, self made and earned every dime they have, rather than inheriting it like the Kennedy or Rockefeller clans........
Bingo! That’s why the rich love socialism, it keeps out their competition.
Government regulation has the exact same goal.
Gubmint regulation and taxation have the exact same goals. Behavior modification. One of the things I like about dumping the current tax system in favor of a NRST is that the NRST "catches" everybody, i.e., the rich, the poor, the thieves, the drug dealers, gamblers, everybody, because eventually everybody buys something. This is also the reason why it will never become law......
Raising taxes now will accelerate the deindustrialization of America.This is something the left has been striving for.
Letting the Democrats raise the rates is better than accepting the near trillion of new spending that comes with it. Let the Democrats eat the downturn that will come with the raising of the rates. The cause-effect connection this time will be glaringly visible to all, even Democrat voters.
$713,625 Woody Biomass at SUNY-ESF. Walsh and Schumer sponsors
$951,500 Sustainable Las Vegas. Berkeley and Reid sponsors.
$24,000 A+ for Abstinence. Specter is sponsor.
$300,000 Montana World Trade Center. Rehberg sponsor.
$950,000 Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center. Graham sponsor.
$200,000 Oil Region Alliance. Peterson sponsor.
$190,000 Buffalo Bill Historical Center, Cody, WY for digitizing and editing the Cody collection. Barbara Cubin is the sponsor
$143,000 Las Vegas Natural History Museum, Las Vegas, NV, to expand natural history education programs. Sponsored by Harry Reid
$238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, Honolulu, HI, for educational programs. Sen. Daniel Inouye is the sponsor.
$381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York, NY for music education programs. Jerrold Nadler is the sponsor.
By the way, I hate using the term "cuts" in this case, because they aren't cuts at all. It's a decision not to take more, not a decision to take less.
The Marxists don’t even WANT to tax the “rich.” Instead, they want to tax the most productive. The rich won’t have their already accumulated wealth effected.....
While I agree with you, I am not really worried about “catching” folks to pay taxes. I am a fan of it because every citizen would see the cost of the government. With every purchase every citizen would get a smack in the face.....My bet is we would get federal shrinkage in a heartbeat.
Those of us who are entrepreneurs get that smack in the face four times a year. I've said for a long time if withholding was ended and everyone had to write the big check to Uncle Sugar four times a year it would take less than an election cycle for the halls of Congress to be stormed by pitchfork and torch toting mobs.
What really concerns me here is the class warfare that is being used and how badly it is going to backfire. The powers that be are setting the country up for another civil war, in fact they are guaranteeing it will happen. 50% of the people in this country now receive compensation from Uncle Sugar in one form or another, whether it be in direct welfare payments, WIC, earned income tax credits, etc. We simply do not have the money necessary for the Federal gubmint to be all things to all people. As a result we are very, very close to losing our Republic entirely to the gimme generation.
.
They fight "the rich" because, thanks to them, the poor and middle class far out number "the rich."
They are fast turning the middle class into the "new poor!"
It is ridiculous...and I am NOT rich!
The best rationale I can come up with is this:
The very, very rich are able to buy special treatment from the government -in the form of campaign contributions, for example - that enables them to preserve and expand their wealth; treatment that isn’t available to us mere mortals.
So it’s only fair they pay more taxes.
Not sure if I buy this myself...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.