Why do Illinois Republicans go crazy when they move to DC?
I really don't understand it.
I find Illinois Republicans to be a very sensible bunch. Easy to work with, not driven by ideology, pragmatic, all good stuff.
Then when they get to DC, they decide the number one priority of government is to make rich people richer.
Today, the House of Representatives is voting on a $70 billion tax cut. For rich people.
A tax cut for rich people! They are pushing hard to extend a tax cut for capital gains and dividends and allow those with incomes over $100,000 to convert their savings into tax-free accounts. This will shower rich people with money and put the federal government further into debt.
I mean, we're occupying another country that's in the middle of a civil war.
We're so far in debt, largely financed by China, that it's not even funny.
The Defense budget it out of control.
College aid has been cut back putting higher education out of reach of more people.
And the answer?
Tax cuts for the rich!
Do you know what $70 billion could do for higher education and our economy?
This $70 billion for rich people will do very little to improve the quality of our lives.
Here is a good analysis of the proposed tax cut by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
I know this is a little off topic, but I'm honestly puzzled why Illinois Republicans, like Speaker Hastert, can't shake some sense into the southern evangelicals who run the federal GOP.
Is there something in the water in the Potomac?
The state budget -- at least, the new items -- largely help working people.
The federal budget -- certainly the new items -- largely help rich people.
Why isn't there an uprising at the Tribune? This budget has got to hurt Peter Roskam and David McSweeney, because most voters in the northwest suburbs are not wealthy.
And how does Jerry Weller get away with voting for this tax cut for rich people?
No wonder Congress and President Bush have the lowest approval ratings in the last decade. They are bankrupting our country for the benefit of the wealthy.
Come on Illinois Republicans! Stop this crazy tax cut!
12 comments:
Along those lines, what is up with Speaker Hastert? Yesterday he sided with the far left and ripped Bush's choice for the CIA.
The Republican Speaker of the House needs to stand up for the President on these issues. He also needs to learn some history. About half the the people who have lead the CIA have been military.
Why do Illinois Democrats and Republicans want to expand gambling?
Probably the same answer as to your question:
Campaign contributions.
Dan,
Proposing Personal Accounts for Social Security was a huge "Tax Cut for Poor & Middle Class People" and we all saw how well the ideologically entrenched left treated that.
Try as you might, the fact is that the 2003 cuts are one of the factors driving this not so bad economy right now, and despite deficits (at a mere 3% of GDP & dropping), extending these cuts are still good policy.
You raise a few good issues that reasonable people should be able to hash out, but I'll start taking the "bankrupting the country" talk seriously when you go after Illinois Public Pensions with the same zeal that you go after those bad, bad Republicans.
For my part, I see no problem negotiating some tax issues in exchange for more aggressive Social Security Reform (PRAs are intellectually unassailable) and Health Care Reform. (So are HSAs)
Here in Illinois, I'll gladly accept a hike in the income tax for real and permanent (not HB750 style fake & fleeting ) property tax cuts. Of course, this must go hand in hand with funding children directly, and not funding padded bureaucracies with 33% drop out rates.
Let's make a deal. We Republicans will put our ideological sacred cows (tax cuts & marriage amendments) on the block at the same time you Dems put yours on the block (Protected Education Monopoly & piggish public pensions).
You know what they say. Sacred cows make the best burgers. I'm up for BBQing if you are.
Consider this a standing invitation to come on my show and fire up the charcoal.
tax cuts for the rich, blah, blah, blah.
Greg,
How's the koolaid taste? The chairman of the Cato Institute (which cannot be dismissed as a liberal institution by any stretch of the imagination), William A. Niskanen, who served as acting chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan, did actual economic analysis--as opposed to spewing loads of out-of-context and possibly unrelated figures, like you did--and lo and behold:
Niskanen recently analyzed data from 1981 to 2005 and found his hunch strongly confirmed. When he performed a statistical regression that controlled for unemployment (which independently influences spending and taxes), he found, he says, “no sign that deficits have ever acted as a constraint on spending.” To the contrary: judging by the last twenty-five years (plenty of time for a fair test), a tax cut of 1 percent of the GDP increases the rate of spending growth by about 0.15 percent of the GDP a year. A comparable tax hike reduces spending growth by the same amount.
For those who like to learn how the world works in reality, as opposed to in hallucinatory fantasies, read more of the article from which that passage comes, in the June issue of The Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/tax-cuts
If you wanted tax cuts to stimulate the economy, then cut taxes on working people who will spend their money here. If you cut the capital gains tax or the dividend tax, then the wealthy people who will be showered with the extra money ($48,000 for the average cut among the top 1$ of income earners) will buy some investment vehicle. Maybe some broker will get a commission, and then that's it. The money will flow into the global capital market. That won't nearly the same impact on the American economy as increasing the purchasing power of American consumers. And if you believe that cutting taxes means you generate more revenue, then you've been drinking the Friedman Kool-Aid....
And Extreme Wisdom, it was the Democratic General Assembly and Governor Blagojevich that pushed through the first significant steps on reining in public pensions in a long time. Those savings are real. People can debate how much we'll save over a generation, but you should give the Dems credit for -- for the first time -- reducing pension obligations over the long haul. Finally, if you're stuck on tax cuts, why are you stuck on tax cuts for the wealthy? A payroll tax cut would be so much better for 75% of us.
It's not just Republicans. Bean voted for the tax cuts back in '05. It's not clear how she'll vote this time around.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Senate last week approved $109 billion in additional spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $1.5 billion in added Iraq reconstruction money. In the past, everybody would sacrifice and pull together during a war. Not so with the Bush Administration and it supporters in Congress. More tax cuts for the rich to go along with no-bid contracts, graft and mismanagement. Our children and future generations will have one heck of mess to clean up.
Bush is just like Daley just at a bigger later with increase taxes for the little guy, the rich get rich, and the insiders get everything
"Do you know what $70 billion could do for higher education and our economy?"
We can find out what $70 Billion will do for the economy with a tax cut, putting those $ into the economy and out of Washington DC.
For Education? I speculate that the state would extend the early retirement program, school districts would hire more paid volunteers, and there would be a gigantic mold remediation program costing $71 Billion, so that Teachers Unions and Administrators could cry poverty in the flushest of times.
Two big dodges. One, everyone pays the payroll tax and 75% of Americans pay more through the payroll tax (13.4 percent, I think) than the federal income tax. And the big money goes to the very wealthiest in high-income tax cuts. There's no denying that one. This one is skewed rich even more than the 03 tax cuts. As for how to spend the money on higher ed, how about in scholarships? Or graduating far more engineers than we currently do as China and India have overtaken us big time. That's an investment in our economic future -- not more money for the portfolios of the wealthy to invest in vehicles all over the world (not just in the USA). Yeah -- those tax cuts do more than take money out of Washington DC, they take money out of the US economy altogether. That's not good for us. Plus, by keeping us even more in debt, we're sending that money to China (who is financing our debt).
Post a Comment