Posted on 03/26/2009 5:45:05 PM PDT by Kaslin
The debate on the budget is phony, the howling on deficits a charade. Few politicians want to acknowledge that if you really are concerned about long-term deficits, you have to support tax increases.
That's why the most significant moment of President Obama's news conference on Tuesday was not his dodge of a question on AIG, but his defense of the least popular tax increase in his budget: limits on the benefits wealthier taxpayers get for their charitable contributions and mortgage payments.
It has been a long time since a president was willing to defend raising taxes. You have to go back to Bill Clinton and his 1993 budget. The consequences for Democrats who voted for that budget — no Republicans did — were grave.
Republicans swept the 1994 elections and held on to the House for 12 years. No wonder politicians are so phobic about taxes.
Obama himself is only going part of the way on tax increases. He is still arguing that he can fix things with hikes on just the top 5% of taxpayers.
He's right that a large share of any increase should hit those who enjoyed the biggest income gains over the last decade. But in the end, no politician (with the possible exception of libertarian Ron Paul) is willing to cut the budget enough to contain the deficit without a general tax increase down the road.
Every budget analyst knows this, and every politician knows that it's far easier to bemoan deficits in the abstract than to risk spending cuts or tax increases that hurt sizeable groups of voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
It’s “brave” to raise taxes???? LOL...yeah...cause you know you’ll lose the next election doing it....
Do they teach common sense where all these leftist pundits attend school?
Obama plans a budget that dwarfs anything in the history of the Republic so now we have to raise taxes to pay for it?
Why not just cut the budget? Does ACORN really need billions? Do we need all these bailouts? Does government really need to waste more money on unproven alternative fuels? Shouldn’t Congressional pay and benefits be aligned with private sector pay (mimimum wage based on their performance lately)? And I could go on...Do we need a Federal department of education that does not teach 1 freakin’ student!
And we want to cut back the charitable giving tax benefit? We need to increase it! Get churches, charities more involved and I bet you see less need for welfare, public schools and government assistance. Its a novel thought.
EJ - there is nothing brave about raising taxes. The truly brave thing would be to stand your ground and to refuse to spend one penny more than what you take in. Its called fiscal responsibility. Look into it.
And if taxes were lowered and more revenue came in, you make sure you lower the tax rate or return excess funds to the people. I’m not holding my breath with the current crop of clowns that any of this would ever even be considered.
The lisping liberal strikes again.
Higher taxes less revenue for the government
Lower taxes more revenue for the government
That is the economic constant the liberals do not understand.
What about brave leaders cutting spending....
“Few politicians want to acknowledge that if you really are concerned about long-term deficits, you have to support tax increases.”
What stupidity. Cut taxes and govt spending, and we can still grow our way out of this mess. Frankly, I’m shocked - IBD usually “gets it.” What’s this moron doing writing for them?
“Growth” is NOT the only way out....CUTTING SPENDING and taxes would do it...but, the Socialists are like drunken sailors right now....
Well, the outcome of your point is growth but I will not belabor the point. More importantly the fed is buying treasuries. Monetizing the debt. Fiat money. The end is near for our current society. I fear 2010 will be too late.
No mention in this article of the elder President Bush who did agree to a tax increase in 1990. This brought him derision and condemnation from the same lefties and media elites who love high taxes. He had made a very public pledge to not raise taxes and conservatives would have preferred he stuck to that. But he did what he thought was a principled thing and was called a liar, and suffered great political consequences. When a lefty (like Lowell Weicker) does this they call him a profile in courage.
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.