Were you against the Bush taxcuts of 2001 and 2003?

[unblock]

10. i opposed the original cuts BECAUSE the benefit went disproportionately to the top

so making it permanent for except for the top part is much better in my book.


having said that, i'm a firm believer that tax (as well as spending) policy should adjust with economic times. the early shrub years seemed a great time to actually run a surplus and reduce our total debt, so any tax cut was unnecessary and stupid, but if we were to have a tax cut, it should at least be fair, and the shrub cuts weren't. in part because the rich got too much, in part because non-taxpayers were left out, in part because there were far better uses for the money.


today, the economy is more fragile, and some taxes were going (back) up anyway (payroll taxes & obamacare/medicare taxes for the rich) so making ALL the shrub cuts expire would have been too much for the economy to handle. given that, letting them finally expire for the rich only is pretty good.


as for the notion of "permanent", this is an odd artificial term for tax policy. tax policy has been written and rewritten scores of times since its inception and policy nothing was ever considered "permanent". we only talk about this concept now in contrast to the "temporary" shrub cuts because they had a sunset provision. but all tax policy only lasts until the next congress decides to mess around with it, and tax policy is something congress and presidents love to tax about and mess around with.

so this will change. nothing in tax policy is permanent.