Republicans want to extend the Bush tax breaks for the super-rich. They say that this is absolutely necessary, as it’s the rich who create jobs. It sounds logical enough, right? But, recent history tells us a different story.
In 2001, when Bush first pushed these tax breaks through Congress, we were told that doing so would supercharge the economy. Here, in the words of the Christian Science Monitor, is what actually happened.
…When Congress passed the tax relief act in 2001, the US Treasury had a surplus, which economists predicted would grow to $5.6 trillion 10 years down the road. Instead, the United States has an estimated deficit this year of $1.34 trillion. If the federal government extends all those tax cuts this fall and takes no other actions, America could be looking at $9 trillion or $10 trillion in accumulated red ink over the next decade…
I know it doesn’t tell the whole story, as Bush also led us into an extremely expensive war, among other things, but here are the tax rates for America’s top earners in 2000 and 2010 respectively, along with our national unemployment rate at the outset of said year.
2000: Income tax rate of 39.6% for the most wealthy Americans.
Unemployment at 4.0%2010: Income tax rate of 35.0% for the most wealthy Americans.
Unemployment at 9.7%
But, in spite of this, we have reason to believe that making these tax cuts permanent will somehow spark a flood of job creation not realized over the past decade, in the wake of the Bush tax cuts.
What we have seen during that time, however, is a growing gap between the rich and poor in this country. Here, on that subject, is a clip from the Associated Press.
…The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its largest margin ever, a stark divide as Democrats and Republicans spar over whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.
The top-earning 20 percent of Americans – those making more than $100,000 each year – received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent made by the bottom 20 percent of earners, those who fell below the poverty line, according to the new figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968…
Fortunately, though, a majority of Americans realize this, and want the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. You wouldn’t know it to listen to our President, though. He, it would seem, would love to extend the cuts, if only there were a way to pay for them… And, what’s worse, he may agree to extend them even though we clearly can’t.
I want to say more, and do my part to stir up the revolution, but the heat from the laptop is beginning to burn through my gut, upon which it’s precariously balancing. So, that’ll have to be it for tonight.
[Tonight’s post was brought to you by earmark accepting anti-earmark Republicans, and those Teapartying members of Congress who, although having campaigned against Obamacare, now really want their government-run healthcare.]
update: The burning, as it turns out, wasn’t coming from outside my gut. It was coming from inside. I think my body is producing excess bile.
14 Comments
I think a clip from the recent piece by Frank Rich is probably called for…
Are they extending all of the tax cuts, or just those for the rich? If all are being extended, then I don’t care. The rich won a long, long time ago. I’ll take what I can get, and keep on stockpiling the whiskey and the bullets.
Maybe the problem is that the taxes on the rich still aren’t low enough. Maybe if we eliminated them altogether, we’d see an enormous surge in job production. We could make a 0% tax bracket called “Winner”.
I can’t believe that people are seriously having this discussion. Is the American working class really this amazingly spineless? It’s like they are perpetually frightened of angering their feudal lords.
Trollio – I prefer Stoli, closed garage door and car running with Billie Holiday cd’s playing.
Peter – the answer to your question is ‘yes they are’. We’ll just bend over and take it. No France type protests here. Social Security at age 69 or 70 now? Younger workers take notice – those jobs that might have been yours due to baby boomers retiring will not be. (Sucks to be you I guess, but you won’t do anything about it).
That’s it! I’m going to open a Monocle Waxing and Top Hat Blocking business.
According to the news today, it looks like Dems are ready to make a deal and extend the tax cuts for the wealthy two or three years.
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2275259/
The Republicans are saying emphatically that they will not vote to keep the middle class tax cut unless these tax cuts for the rich are extended as well.
I love hostage negotiations.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/gops-top-tax-guy-republicans-will-block-permanent-middle-class-tax-cut.php
What the world needs is a pissed off, poor, hacking Super Hero who takes it upon himself to erase fortunes and level the playing field.
This comes from Eric Alterman.
Read the rest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20101117/ts_dailybeast/11019_obamawimpsoutwithpossiblebushtaxcutcompromise
I do not think that Mr. Obama will win the nomination for the Dems; don’t know who will, but if he and his fellow dems are too dumb to realize that those on the other side of the aisle will be getting what they want (tax cuts extended) and will then hammer the Dems for increasing spending (in this case for additional unemployment benefits) then they really are as stupid as they appear to be.
Let the cuts expire – across the board; the world will not end. I am in that middle class who is supposedly benefitting right now – frankly I haven’t noticed any difference.
The thing I like most about Republicans is their clairvoyance. They can’t see what is going on right in front of their eyes real good, but boy can they tell you all about what WILL happen in the future, or what WOULD HAVE happened in an alternate reality…and they can tell you about these things in amazing detail. Never mind that history has shown that their predictions are always wrong. You have to keep in mind, those were Republicans from the past which made those predictions. They aren’t REAL Republicans. Only current Republicans are REAL ones. Well, OK, some are the same people from before, but those are just Republicans which hadn’t quite figured everything out yet. They had one or two details wrong. It was just unfortunate that it was those exact details which were the important ones at the moment. Had it been any of the other infinite details they would have gotten it perfectly right. Either way, the only REAL Republicans are the ones from the present. They have all the details figured out perfectly…I mean regarding the future and worse alternate realities we only avoided because of them, not the shit that’s going on right in front of them – You know, like PDA’s and crap like that.
Fox News, for example, has by far the worst record for reporting facts, but only those from the present or past. They’re batting 1000 on getting those facts right which would have happened in an alternate reality, or which are going to happen in the future. If only they didn’t have to pander to that portion of the population which are obsessed with this dimensions and those irrelevant facts one might find here in the present or past.
Sure things went to shit when Republicans were in charge, but they would have gone to way more shit if they weren’t in charge. You would know that if you could see into alternate realities like they can.
Bush’s greatest accomplishments are all those things that DIDN’T happen, you know, like all those attacks that would have happened if it weren’t for him “keeping us safe” (starting 9/12/2001 of course). You could tell just from looking at him and listening to him that Dubya’s mind was focused on alternate realities where it should be. It must have been such a burden for him. That must be what explains those repeated claims of it all being such “hard work” which I never heard any other president say. They weren’t burdened with the ability to see the future and alternate realities… or into people’s souls, as Bush did Putin’s for example.
As impressive as all this GOP-ESP is to me, I think I am most amazed at how Bush was able to keep us safe for many years before he was even in office. That was the most incredible thing if you ask me.
Sure the tax cuts were made just before everything went to shit, but the tax cuts actually kept things from being even worse. Didn’t you know that? Oh yeah, that’s right, you don’t have their clairvoyance. I keep forgetting that the rest of us don’t have that magical insight. Boy, I’m glad they’re back in charge of congress. That was a close one.
Yes, that’s a good point, Robert. Things would have been much worse if not for the Bush tax cuts… Also, if he hadn’t allowed 9/11 to happen, I’m confident that a much worse attack would have taken place.
And, if you’d asked me a few weeks ago, I definitely would have said that Obama should run again. Right now, I’m not so sure. I think I’d prefer to have two years of kick ass “I don’t care if I get reelected” Presidency than another 6 of compromise.
Check this out from Open Secrets.
Members of Congress are enjoying their own financial stimulus.
Despite a stubbornly sour national economy congressional members’ personal wealth collectively increased by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics of federal financial disclosures released earlier this year.
And while some members’ financial portfolios lost value, no need to bemoan most lawmakers’ financial lot: Nearly half of them — 261 — are millionaires, a slight increase from the previous year, the Center’s study finds. That compares to about 1 percent of Americans who lay claim to the same lofty fiscal status.
And of these congressional millionaires, 55 have an average calculated wealth in 2009 of $10 million or more, with eight in the $100 million-plus range.
“Few federal lawmakers must grapple with the financial ills — unemployment, loss of housing, wiped out savings — that have befallen millions of Americans,” said Sheila Krumholz, the Center for Responsive Politics’ executive director. “Congressional representatives on balance rank among the wealthiest of wealthy Americans and boast financial portfolios that are all but unattainable for most of their constituents.”
In 2009, the median wealth of a U.S. House member stood at $765,010, up from $645,503 in 2008. The median wealth of a U.S. senator was nearly $2.38 million, up from $2.27 million in 2008.
For all members of Congress regardless of chamber, median wealth in 2009 reached $911,510, up from $785,515 in 2008. This spike in personal wealth represents a notable rebound from the period between 2007 and 2008, when overall congressional wealth slipped by more than 5 percent. Federal lawmakers’ personal wealth climaxed in 2007 — the pinnacle of nearly a decade’s worth of steady asset value expansion.