This stimulus is actually the deal on the extension of the Bush tax cuts announced earlier today (technically yesterday) by President Obama. Key quote from the New York Times article (emphasis mine):
"The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances."
Oh, that's right. I forgot that it's not deficit spending if you spend it on the crap you want to buy. I get it now Republicans! See, if Democrats want to use the country's credit card to buy some construction workers to fix a bridge, that's deficit spending. But if Republicans want to give more money to millionaires with the country's credit card, money that in all likelihood those millionaires will save. That money comes from a special magic Republican fund that doesn't come from borrowing!
Remember folks, you only have to find a way to pay for a program if it affects someone who might actually need the money, like unemployment insurance extensions for those laid off during the great recession (those lazy bums) and food stamps (if more poor kids are starving, they might be more motivated to find work, right!?).
Now that I'm done with my little rant, I actually think the deal President Obama got on the "Bush tax cuts" is probably the best he could get considering the circumstances. And if you remember, this deal between the President and Republican leadership, I advocated for earlier on this blog (it's actually former OMB director Peter Orzsag's - but I'll take the credit). And if this deal helps pave the way for the ratification of START and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, then overall I think it was the right thing to do. Losing some important chess pieces in order to control the rest of the game is worth it.
Hello world!
6 months ago
Here is the difference between liberals and conservatives, Ernie: Conservatives believe that the money people earn belongs to them; conservatives believe it is their property, and should not be confiscated lightly (or in legal parlance, without a compelling government interest).
ReplyDeleteLiberals believe, however, that allowing people (at least allowing rich people) to keep that money is simply "[giving] more money to millionaires with the country's credit card." Indeed, I think liberals believe government is a compelling enough reason alone, and that the fact people are allowed to keep any of their money/property at all is a tax loophole in and of itself.
The reality, however, is that the government is not "giving" anyone money that doesn't already belong to them. Merely allowing people to keep what is rightfully theirs to begin with is not a give-away on the country's credit card. Perhaps it would be prudent for the government's liberal members to cut spending in an area not necessary or essential to the government's endurance. After all, the rest of us must make due and not spend money we don't have and that does not belong to us. Perhaps Democrats should learn to do the same. (Republicans need to learn how to do that too, but I feel it is more important the Democrats learn that lesson post-haste.)
But I won't hold my breath regarding the Democrats ever cutting any type of government spending (nor will I hold it waiting for Republicans to do the same). For some reason, Democratic accountants seem to not understand that accounting has more than one side to the ledger.
Anyway, I guess the bottom line is that I wouldn't have as much of a problem with taxation if our "leaders" (and no, the term is not supposed to be misleading, even though it is) were of a mindset that (a) the money derived from the people actually belongs to the people from which it is taken; (b) there must be a compelling government interest to deprive the people of that property (I mean after all, aren't liberals big fans of the 14th Amendment?); and (c) when people are allowed to keep their money (read: the government doesn't take it from them), most of one side doesn't throw a temper tantrum and act like money is being stolen from them and given to criminals whom the rest of the country should hate, simply because they have more.
Indeed, sometimes it is not what you say ("we need the revenue to pay down the national debt and not increase the deficit"), but how you say it ("give more money to millionaires with the country's credit card").