WaPo: Is allowing Bush tax cuts to expire a tax hike?
The Washington Post asked Grover Norquist that question, in an obvious attempt to trap him…and it worked. Norquist answered that “no” it wouldn’t violate the promise that most Republicans made to the public. Let me tell the Post that Norquist doesn’t speak for me or my vote.
Of course, letting the tax cuts expire is decidedly not Mr. Norquist’s preference. Indeed, as a matter of policy, he is passionately opposed to a single dime in new tax revenue. But the fact that Mr. Norquist interprets his own pledge to permit such conduct suggests that Republican lawmakers who have been browbeaten into abjuring any tax increase, at any time, for any reason, may not be as boxed in as they believe. The official Republican line has been that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, even for those earning more than $250,000, would be a job-killing tax increase. The fact that the godfather of the pledge does not interpret the lapse as an increase is significant.
I’m not adverse to an increase in tax revenues – I’m opposed to an increase in taxes to achieve an increase in revenues. revenues increased during the period of the Bush tax cuts (by the way, ten years after the tax cuts were effective, can we stop calling them tax cuts and start calling them the tax rates). I don’t know what political game Norquist is playing here, but if the tax rates rise above what they are today…well, that’s a tax hike. And if it’s caused by action or inaction by Congress, I’m holding them responsible in the 2012 election.
The Post continues a few more times accusing Republicans of being opposed to an increase in tax revenues – and that’s not the case at all. Republicans don’t oppose increased revenues, that’s just ignorant and intentionally misinforming the public – apparently the bread and butter of the Post. Tax increases aren’t the only way to increase revenue as the post wants you to believe.
In fact, the best way to increase tax revenues is to put Americans back to work – and raising taxes on their potential employers won’t do that.
Category: Congress sucks, Media, Taxes
The tax cuts from 10 years ago have fully integrated into the economy now. It’s disingenuous of the left to continue to refer to them as “The Bush Tax Cuts”. If the Dems choose to restore rates to pre Bush levels then they should be called what they are, Tax increases and the GOP should hammer them on that point.
Did Norquist actually say that? WAPO’s been given to creating flights of fancy before. I’m no Norquist fan either.
Of course, I favor a flat tax on consumption collected at the point of sale, so I’d be putting tens of thousands of IRS nomenklatura out of work.
you’d think two years after Bush left office we’d stop referring to them as the “Bush Tax cuts”. Actually you’d think we’d stop referring to any Bush policy at all, except maybe in a historical context.
So if they get rid of the “Bush Tax cuts” can we call it the “Obama tax increase”?
So if they get rid of the “Bush Tax cuts” can we call it the “Obama tax increase”?
If you do, Doc, you’ll make poor Joey’s head explode. Even though it’ll be true, he, and the other libs just can’t accept that. It’ll be “revenue enhancements”, or “fairness”, not tax hikes.
“Fairness” in that EVERYONE has their taxes increase? Hate to say it, but I can live with that. You know it’s a fucked up situation when HALF the wage earners in this country have no (or negative) tax burden. Maybe if that person making $25K a year pays a SMALL amount, they’ll be a little more concerned about people making $60K a year getting SCHIP, food stamps, and other “freebies” on their dime, and be a lot less susceptible to the Democrats (and to a lesser extent Republicans) claiming that people are trying to take away “their” benefits which they neither worked for nor earned.
Jonn Agreed.
2# I’m not a fan of Norquist myself. Michelle Malkin did a virtual dossier of this guy a while back, if I recall.