About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Charlie Bass: Part of the Problem on the Bush Tax Cuts

by: Dean Barker

Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 20:54:40 PM EDT


Tax policy, according to Charlie Bass:
Bass said he supports extending the Bush tax cuts for all income brackets, and he objected to the use of their approaching expiration as "the class warfare issue of the election." He said no "intelligent economist" would support the stance of most Democrats, who would extend the tax cuts for everyone but the highest earners.
Here's one of those uneducated economists:
"Not all budgetary dollars are created equal," said Alan Blinder, professor and co-director of Princeton University's Center for Economic Policy Studies, in a conference Wednesday morning. "Some have a lot of bang for the buck, and some have very little. The GDP increase per dollar of budgetary cost is in the range of 1.6, 1.7 for things like food stamps and unemployment benefits, and in the range of .35 for extending the Bush tax cuts. We could get some substantial job creation by simply reprogramming the $75 billion that would be saved over the next two years by not extending the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts and spending it instead on unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the like."

Blinder's economic advice supports the tax policy of President Obama and the Democrats, who would like to maintain tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans, while letting the cuts for those with incomes above $250,000 expire. Letting the tax cuts lapse is projected to trim approximately $675 billion from the deficit over 10 years, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

By doing the opposite of what Charlie Bass wants, we can create more jobs and lower the deficit.

No wonder the American people want the Bass-supported Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire.  No wonder this view is also found here. And here. And here (.pdf). And here. And here (.pdf).

Annie Kuster's got a new approach.   As she said last night (2:28):

Instead of going backward to an economic policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and companies that move jobs overseas, I believe we need a new approach.  One that cuts taxes for the middle class, eliminating capital gains tax on small business investment, and rewarding companies for creating jobs right here at home
Charlie Bass, a creature of Washington for many years, is part of the problem.  Between now and election day, it is your job to remind voters of that.
Dean Barker :: Charlie Bass: Part of the Problem on the Bush Tax Cuts
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
If you want to go backwards, vote Bass: (0.00 / 0)


birch, finch, beech

Bass Ackwards (0.00 / 0)
I've said it before, and it was never more true than now.

Republicans believe government is bad - then they get into office and prove it.

Why not change the verbiage (0.00 / 0)
and talk about reducing revenue from the majority of tax payers?  I'd leave the phrase "tax payers" 'cause Republicans have imprinted on it.  They like being referred to as tax payers, even if they don't want to or actually pay.

Why we levy a fee on profits is a puzzlement.  It means that those who use our resources well have to pay, while those who waste resources and fail to satisfy get a free ride.  A transaction fee would be fairer and more efficient.  It's estimated that one half of one percent collected on currency transactions would fund ALL our public corporate activities.  Since hardly anyone keeps cash in the mattress, almost all users of money would pay a small rent, including foreigners who use our money overseas.



Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox