Funding Cuts Don't Pay for Tax Cuts!

"The Bush administration and Congress have scaled back programs that aid the poor to help pay for $600 billion in tax breaks that went primarily to those who earn more than $288,800 a year."

Hogwash! Clearly those tax cuts have resulted not in a loss of federal tax revenue, but rather in an INCREASE in tax revenue. The budget cuts lamented here pay not for cuts in tax rates, but rather for other government expenditures, such as "bridges to nowhere", a cowboy hall of fame, big ag subsidies, unnecessary airport travel security, refusal to lease out AMWR and the coasts of FL and CA to petro companies, hookers for Katrina victims, the silly "war on drugs", all the unnecessary imperial trappings of presidential travel, and yes, Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Spending for these programs has increased even faster than the increase in tax rev caused by the cut in tax rates.

If you want more money for "programs that aid the poor", you have two choices: more cuts in tax rates to generate more tax rev, or cut some of these other programs.

1 comment:

Paul Hue said...

Also from the article: "Minimum wage earners got very little under the Bush tax cuts."

I also disagree: These people get more job opportunities thanks to expanding economy. They pay so little in taxes already, how much can a tax cut for them help? The reason why these tax breaks provide more direct income for "the rich" is that those bastards already have a higher tax rate; the most efficient tax structure is flat, and only by cutting the higher rate on "the rich" can you achieve the tax rate flatness that produced the most robust economy.

And that's what industrious poor people need most: robustness in the economy. Then they can get their own damn income increase.