GOP Grown-Ups Oppose Extending Bush Tax Cuts

by: William Tucker

Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 18:10:12 PM EDT

In the NHPR candidate forum this morning, Kelly Ayotte reiterated her support for extending the Bush-era tax cuts without paying for them — even for those making over $250,000/year — claiming it will help small businesses create jobs. Senior Republicans from the Reagan and Bush administrations know better:

While Republicans are heavily invested in permanently extending the Bush era tax cuts, there is virtually no evidence the tax cuts helped the economy -- only raised the deficit.

—Bruce Bartlett, domestic policy adviser to Pres. Reagan and Treasury official under Pres. George H.W. Bush

I find it unconscionable that the Republican leadership, faced with a 1.5 trillion deficit, could possibly believe that good public policy is to maintain tax cuts for the top 2 percent of the population who, after all, have benefited enormously from this phony boom we've had over the last 10 years as a result of the casino on Wall Street.

—David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Pres. Reagan

Cross-posted to Miscellany Blue

Bass: Part of the Problem on the Bush Tax Cuts, Pt. II

by: Dean Barker

Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 19:03:03 PM EDT

...no "intelligent economist" would support the stance of most Democrats, who would extend the tax cuts for everyone but the highest earners.

In today's episode, we learn that some high-powered Republican economists aren't intelligent either:

It's hard even to find Republican economists who will defend Bush's policies. Summing up the Bush years, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers in Bush's first term, had this to say in an interview with the Washington Post at the end of the Bush administration:

The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing. There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable. For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view. It was all Band-Aids.

Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson, who is highly respected by supply-siders, put it more succinctly. When asked by The New York Times last year to name some positive aspects of Bush's economic policies, he replied, "I don't see any redeeming features, unfortunately."

Ideological Purity v. Appealing to a Wide Range of Voters

by: Dean Barker

Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 19:27:18 PM EDT

"We will see if Democrats, whatever the deepest feelings of their hearts may be, decide to nominate somebody who has that ability to appeal to a wide range of voters in what is going to be a very tough year for Democrats," Swett said, "or whether there is going to be an ideological purity test."

Annie Kuster is also opposed to extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest. Less than a month ago, 56% of Americans polled by CBS News said the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest should expire.

Shea-Porter Represents Her Constituency

by: Gary Patton

Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:29:18 AM EDT

"Swimmingly, swimmingly, my man," he replied. "Everything is going my way. My errand boys, the Republicans in Congress, are working hard to extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001. If they can do that, because I earn more than $1 million per year, I will save $103,000 in taxes in 2011. Bully!"

"But wait a minute, sir," I responded, "the Bush tax cuts of 2001 were intended to expire in 2011. If they are made permanent for the wealthiest Americans, $36 billion would be added to the deficit in 2011. President Obama has a fairer plan; he would retain the tax cuts for individuals who make less than $200,000 and couples who earn less than $250,000. That's 98 percent of workers. Only the wealthiest 2 percent would be affected by the end of the Bush tax cuts."

"Nobel-winning columnist Paul Krugman wrote," I continued, "according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years." (New York Times, 8/23/10)

Bedford-Amherst turned red with anger. His monocle popped out of his eye. "I take offense, sir. Wealthy people pay unconscionably high taxes. Soak the rich. Soak the rich. It's always the same - the rabble always soaks the rich."

"I beg to differ, sir," I replied. "Do you know that the top tax bracket was 94 percent in 1944, and it remained above 82 percent until 1964? Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but still the top tax bracket was 69 percent during his presidency. (Mutual Funds, March, 2002) The top bracket continued to decline to 35 percent partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts. The end of Bush's tax cuts would increase the top 2 percent's rate only 4.5 points to 39.5 percent, far less than the top bracket has been in the recent past.

Now, Bedford-Amherst was truly annoyed. He impatiently tapped his riding breeches with his crop. "Lord knows, we wealthy people are doing all we can for the lower classes. Our servants, the Republicans in Congress, stoutly maintain that tax cuts for the rich stimulate economic growth."

"Again, sir," I offered, "I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that each $1 million in tax cuts would create between 1 and 4 additional jobs; compared with 6 to 15 jobs from increasing unemployment assistance; 3 to 9 jobs from providing aid to states, and 4 to 10 jobs from investing in infrastructure. (Washington Post, 7/28/10)

"Moreover," I continued, "when Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly 20 years, was asked if he agrees with Republicans who say that tax cuts pay for themselves, he said simply, 'They do not.' (Reuters, 8/2/10) If tax cuts were magic stimulators of the economy and generators of tax revenue, then why have the Bush tax cuts of 2001 left the nation with such a huge budget deficit? However, I can see that we don't agree on tax cuts, sir. Can we turn to another topic? Who do you favor in the race for member of Congress from the 1st Congressional District?

"No doubt in my mind," answered Bedford-Amherst, "no doubt at all. I support the Republican candidates - they're from my class you know. According to public records, Shawn Mahoney lists diversified investments valued between $11.4 and $35.6 million; Rich Ashooh earned $391,213 last year as a lobbyist for BAE systems, and has a savings account holding between $100,000 and $250,000. Bob Bestani received $116,835 last year from a pension and consulting fees. Bestani lists investments worth between $726,000 and $1.366,000."

"Finally," Bedford-Amherst went on, "Frank Guinta has between $89,000 and $355,000 invested; owns two properties assessed at a total of $758,700; and has somewhere between $267,000 and $580,000 in savings. The incumbent, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter? Tut-tut. She's a ragamuffin. Shea-Porter lists savings and investments totaling less than $30,000. Oh, my."

"Excuse me, sir," I responded, "but we have a representative form of government. That is, elected representatives are expected to be like the people they represent. That way, elected officials can understand the problems of their constituents and act effectively in their best interests. Carol Shea-Porter experiences the same economic conditions as the vast majority of people in her district. She has walked a mile in their shoes and knows the challenges they face. Her modest financial condition is an advantage, not a disadvantage."

"One other thing," I added. "As Harry Truman said, 'You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook.' I guess we can be pretty sure that Congresswoman Shea-Porter is honest."

This column first appeared in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum.

Ann Kuster's Union Leader Seal of Approval, Pt. II

by: Dean Barker

Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:52:27 AM EDT

Good thing Annie has her own website for her own words:

I support permanent middle class tax relief instead of extending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Apparently that position is enough to prompt an accusation of "economic illiteracy" from this newspaper.  

...Frankly, this isn't a partisan debate.  My opponent in the Democratic primary, Katrina Swett, supported the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and now the escalation in Afghanistan.  And while I am proud to have widespread support from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, I am equally proud that so many Independents and open-minded Republicans are already standing with me in this campaign.  They recognize that the reckless spending of politicians like Congressman Bass made a mockery of the fiscal restraint for which the Republican Party  was supposed to stand.

...If that belief earns me some name-calling from the defenders of George Bush's policies, so be it.

Ann McLane Kuster's Union Leader Seal of Approval

by: Dean Barker

Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:06:05 AM EDT

The Union Leader calls that "economic illiteracy."  OK, then:

When the Union Leader uses its editorial page to turn reality upside down in an effort to cut you down a notch, you know they are worried about you.  It's their seal of approval, in my view. Congrats, Annie!

I Just Want To Get My Life Back

by: Gary Patton

Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 22:00:25 PM EDT

Just listening to these words seemed to anger Crawford even more. "And there's more. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said, 'You know, we should not be giving cash to people who basically are just going to blow it on drugs.' Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona said, 'That doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek work."

"My, my," I responded, "I hate to disturb these tirades with a few facts. Do you know that nationwide there are five job seekers for each job that is available? I guess the other four will just have to look harder for a job that isn't there."

"Peter S. Gordon has visited areas of high unemployment throughout the nation. He writes in the New York Times, 'I just want to get my life back.' Different versions of this sentence have landed frequently in my notebook - in Cleveland, where a former homeowner told me of camping in her car after she lost the place to foreclosure; in Newton, Iowa, where a man who had earned middle-class wages turning steel into refrigerators broke into tears as he described his inability to provide medical care for a sick child after he lost his job; in Portland, where an unemployed marketing executive struggled to imagine how she would send her teenage daughter to college. Another regular notebook entry: 'I never saw myself as the sort of person who would land on public assistance.'"

"Well, that's not all." groused Crawford. "The money we give jobless people just adds to the deficit. Any money we give them should be balanced by a reduction in government spending."

"That's an interesting idea, Crawford," I replied. "Let's pursue it a little further. A deficit occurs when money coming into the government, like taxes, is less than the money going out through spending. Republican Senator Kyl says that unemployment compensation must be paid for by a spending cut somewhere else."

"But wait a minute," I continued, "Sen. Kyl opposes letting the Bush tax cuts for wealthy individuals who make more than $200,000 per year lapse after 2010. And that loss will balloon the deficit immensely. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. Remember, a deficit occurs when taxes are less than spending. But, Sen. Kyl says that we don't have to compensate for this loss in tax revenue. He is willing to let the deficit increase due to tax cuts, but not for unemployment compensation. Kyl is contradicting himself."

Crawford beamed brightly. "Well, that's because a tax cut stimulates the economy so much that it creates more than enough revenue for the government to compensate for the tax loss. Just get out of our way, and let the free market solve all our problems."

"That's not what conservative economist Mark Zandi says. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC explained Zandi's thinking. 'Every buck that the government spends on an across-the-board tax cut creates $1.02 in economic activity. Not very much bang for that buck. Every dollar the government spends on unemployment benefits, on the other hand, creates $1.63 in economic activity. That money is spent. It goes right back into the economy. It makes sense. You're giving money to people who are broke and don't have jobs and desperately need money. They need to be able to spend that money. It goes into the economy, it drives demand, it helps the whole country's economy."

"I can think of other reasons why arch-conservatives favor tax cuts, but not unemployment benefits," I added. "They are selfish tightwads who don't care all that much about what happens to other people."

Gary Patton
Hampton, NH

This column appeared first in The Forum. It appears here with the consent of The Forum.

If Judd Gregg Weren't Real, You Couldn't Make Him Up

by: Dean Barker

Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 22:48:57 PM EDT

Top Republicans called on Democrats in Congress and the White House to extend all the tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year.

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, joined House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in pushing for the extension of a series of taxes set to expire at the end of this year, including a series of cuts for households making more than $250,000 per year.

The saddest part of all is how Very Seriously this servant of the plutocracy is taken.