Seventeen to One? Never Tell Me the Odds!
James Fallows knows what’s wrong with America’s finances:
It’s based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who’s “to blame” for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.
Restoring the Clinton rates on “the rich” is already assumed in President Obama’s last budget, which would raise a trillion dollars in additional revenue over the next ten years. Also included in Obama’s budget over the next decade, is $17 trillion in additional debt.
Repeat after me: Taxes are not the problem here.
Hat tip, Gruber, who has, unfortunately, drunk the Kool-Aid on this one.
“Restoring the Clinton rates on “the rich” … which would raise a trillion dollars in additional revenue over the next ten years. ”
Maybe, but probably not. Not in the dynamic world we live in.
I thought of this yesterday: Any tax hikes in the deal, you’re only getting them weekly(ish), and therefore 1/52d of the increase is taken in to move us away from a ceiling. That is, if you increase taxes, the rate of decrease in the deficit is two cents on the dollar.
Cuts, on the other hand, can begin on Day 1.
Oh, “Go back to the Clinton Tax Rates”? Ok, How ’bout let’s say we go back to the Clinton Spending Plan as well, eh?
By the way, that’s a good metric to let you know how far down into the DC cesspool we are these days – Clintons actions now seem downright conservative compared to the current administration.
Gruber should stay out of political and economic commentary. He’s a first-rate idiot in those areas.
Okay, this is how lame Gruber is. He’s now got a quote up from Krugman’s latest column, and Krugman’s claiming:
I’m sorry, what? I’d like a sample of those drugs, Paul. They must be hella good.
Great, the Bush tax cuts reduced rates for a lot of middle class people. Go ahead, Barry, repeal them. Hey, shared sacrifice.
The dems keep listing the Bush tax cuts as a cost. The tax rates are whatever the tax rates are. Some years they are higher, some years they are lower. I always thought for something to be a “cost” you had to spend money on it. To spend money on it, you had to have had money. The government never got that money so it can’t possibly be labeled as a cost.
I made about twice as much money in 2000 as I make today. When I am going through my budget every month I don’t list my decreased income as a cost. That we consistently allow these people to get away with this tactic is political malpractice.