DCCC has a cute "tax cut gimmick" on the net

[papau]

http://media.whatcounts.com/dccc/@%20Stake%20General/February/tax_hike_top.gif http://media.whatcounts.com/dccc/@%20Stake%20General/February/tax_hike_bottom.gif


http://www.dccc.org/press/newsletters//2004-02-26AtStakeBig.html


Add up all the Gimmicks, You've Got Yourself a Tax Hike

Allen Greenspan warned this week that the Bush tax cuts and social security as we know it cannot coexist, prompting a firm rebuke from Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi: "Chairman Greenspan's comments today dramatize the destructive effects of Republicans' reckless economic policies: record budget deficits, higher interest rates, lower economic growth, and substantial risk to the Social Security benefits that retirees depend on."

Meanwhile, a story in the Christian Science Monitor, "Surprise! Some Taxes go up," confirms what a majority of Americans already knew in a New York Times / CBS poll last year: Republican priorities have left most Americans paying just as much in taxes, if not more.

Citizens for Tax Justice also performs an astute analysis comparing the immediate tax savings of American families with the debt they are accruing as a result: "Even after subtracting the average six-year tax savings from the President's tax cuts, the net burden of Bush's policies over six years will average $9,456 per person and $37,826 per family of four nationwide."

How can it be that you owe so much more than you get? "The reasons why Bush's debt build-up is so much larger than his tax cuts are straightforward. First of all, Bush has borrowed all the money to finance his tax reductions, and the interest on that enormous borrowing is building up rapidly. Second, the President's trickle-down economic strategy has been a failure, and the poor economy we've come to expect in a Bush presidency has depressed tax revenues, which has required still more borrowing."

Luckily, according to the Washington Post, GOP budget gimmicks may also be costing the President his opportunity at making permanent his disastrously massive hand outs to the wealthy. Essentially, Republicans would have to overcome a Democratic filibuster in order to make the cuts permanent with a five-year budget. But the normal ten-year budget, which would necessitate just the normal 51 Republican votes in the Senate, was abandoned by the administration because it reveals drastic cuts and skyrocketing deficits after 2009- so Congressional Republicans cannot use it either. What a shame.

The Washington Post also sorts out a couple other Republican spin campaigns. First, Dana Milbank points to several recent incidents of budgetary hi-jinks, and notes that, "These are not isolated cases," proceeding to explain how the Bush administration continues to feign oblivion to the failure of its own projection formulas. In a second article, Jonathan Weisman flatly debunks administration claims that the tax cuts primarily benefit small business, or the "entrepreneurial class," citing that a mere 3.8% of small business owners qualified for serious tax refunds, and noting the already exposed deception of classifying any individual who happens to have income from smaller sources as a "small business owner." As Weisman notes, under administration definitions, "both Bush and Vice President Cheney are members of the entrepreneurial class."

[w4rma]

1. The DCCC did a good job with this. Very accurate. (n/t)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Sounds eerily familiar to a speech Iv'e heard.

[DebJ]

3. Out of the mouth of Howard Dean, once again....

[bread_and_roses]

4. notice: "mega tax cuts for the WEALTHY"

It was not the paltry tax cuts for lower-wage earners that beggared the bank.

[mac2]

5. Sock it to em Nancy!!