Allow the 2001 and 2003 high-income tax cuts to expire and return the estate tax to 2009 parameters. The tax cuts for those with household income above $250,000 per year passed in the Bush Administration were unfair and unaffordable at the time they were enacted and remain so today.Good. I wanted to hear him say he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire. I hope he does let them expire, all of them, if need be.
The December 2010 deal keeping the tax cuts was crap. Did I neglect to say that before? Maybe, kinda, sorta. But I did feel that way starting about 2 days after the deal. I thought about the deficit hole getting bigger, and realized the deal was a mistake.
Please God, let the Bush tax cuts expire this time. Please.
4 comments:
This will only happen if he's re-elected. If the Republicans get control, you can actually expect either them making the Bush cuts "permanent" or yet another wave of tax cuts mostly for the wealthy.
They expire on Jan 1, 2013, but once a Republican president takes office (if that happens) they can make any changes retroactive to that date.
Also, ALL the tax cuts expire together, for over $250K and under. So Obama can't make it only for $250K and over on his own. That can only be his policy choice. Congress would have to make the change or we'll all see a tax increase on 1/1/13. That's a hostage the GOP will definitely hold: everybody's taxes will go up unless we keep everybody's taxes where they are. That is actually an effective, ruthless, strategy to get what they really want, which was -- of course -- the point to the whole scheme in the first place.
Now some -- including me -- think all the cuts should expire, but I don't think that will work politically and the GOP candidates will rely on the small cut dangled in front of suburban voters to allow the big cuts for the wealthy to remain. I suspect that might work, living as I do in such an area. So Obama's popular call for the rates to go back up on some is good politics, and probably good policy given the economic conditions, but I doubt he can deliver legislatively. He had the chance in 2009, and let it go by. Strike 1.
The facts on the ground make it likely the GOP will use the pending increase on everyone to get their way. Strike 2.
It's not over yet -- there's no Strike 3 -- but when people figure out that Obama can't deliver without GOP support or unless the Dems get back in control of Congress, they might decide to let the GOP have their way. In which case, you'll hopes will be dashed.
I'm aware that the expiration won't necessarily last unless Obama's reelected. But maybe, at last, someone is saying "I will let these cuts lapse." It might be like the first person who says the emperor has no clothes.
Of course, anyone's predictions can be undone by unpredictable public opinion. Will GOP propaganda fly better than Dem propaganda? Hard to say.
As for my hopes being dashed, that's OK. I seem to have a good supply of hope. And things rarely turn out as bad as pessimists predict.
Well, this is going to be very bad if the current crop of Republican blowhards gain even more power than they exercise now. You can look at states around the country for that, with union busting, voter suppression (even reducing early voting, which was designed to expand participation), rule changing (like in PA to re-apportion electoral votes), and you can see where things will go.
Under Bush, they slashed revenues but greatly expanded spending on wars and unfunded benefits for seniors, which was really just a bonus from taxpayers to big pharma. And Bush is moderate compared to these guys. But I doubt you'd call Bush and his cronies, like pro-torture Cheney, a moderate.
I am seriously considering moving to Canada if any republican other than Romney is elected. It's part disgust and part self-preservation. I don't want them to get my money for their nonsense. They will just blame Obama for as long as they can, then when people get restless we'll have another war.
Canada has problems, too, but at least they understand socialization of benefits and aren't militaristic. But things are very, very bad and heading worse, and scapegoating is a tried and true political tactic in these sorts of times. Which side is better at that?
Yes, I'm pleased to hear that Pres. Obama is finally standing up for the country and is off appeasement. But I'm not sold on his leadership going forward and as of right now my vote for him in 2012 will be by default, not affirmative.
If Hillary primaried him, she'd have my vote. He's shown that he's weak, and that doesn't inspire confidence among independent voters. I saw Gallup had him down 53-28 among independents. Maybe he'll survive a weak opponent, but maybe not. In hard times, bet on the demagog.
Anonymous, watch the insults. "Blowhards" is getting toward the limit.
Post a Comment