Dems Attack Budget
The ink on President Bush's proposed budget isn't even dry and, predictably, it is already under fire by some (if not all) Dems. I don't pretend to be an economist, and I admit that I haven't yet had time to examine the figures in depth, but a glaring inconsistency in rhetoric has already become evident:
The White House budget director Josh Bolten on Monday bragged to reporters how the nation most-wealthy will see an increase in tax burden under Bush's new budget. ... "An example, the top 5 percent in income in this country -- that's people making above about $140,000 -- without the president's tax cuts that top 5 percent would be paying about less than 52 percent of our total income tax revenue. "After the president's tax cut that group is paying more than 54 percent of our total tax revenue.
Compare and contrast to remarks by Rep. Pete Starke, D-Calif.:
Rep. Pete Starke, D-Calif., said that the administration's insistence on protecting tax cuts which primarily benefited the wealthy showed Bush's flawed priorities. ... "Your plan is to cut benefits for Social Security recipients and cut taxes for the rich. That doesn't seem very fair," Starke told Snow.
How exactly is the White House protecting tax cuts for the "wealthy" when their effectve tax rate goes up by 2%? This is what Dems always do - lie and distort facts, making it into an "us against them" situation, one in which "they" are out to get you.
Heh, who am I calling inconsistent?
Posted by jkhat at February 8, 2005 12:18 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/680
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
I would like to know why the budget director is "bragging" that more taxes are being paid by the most wealthy Americans. Is it now the position of the administration that the wealthiest Americans don't pay enough in taxes? When did this happen? It's not very Reaganesque, is it? |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
my dear kris, bush is not very reaganesque. and i believe that the "bragging" could more accurately be described as "pandering" |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
Heh, I was also going to ask why he was pandering, it's not as if he needs to worry about getting elected again. But seriously, do they think being "republican-lite" on this stuff is really the way to go? It's looking more and more likely to me that we'll see a split between social and fiscal conservatives. Reagan was one of a kind, wasn't he? ;-( |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
Kris' comments are one reason why I sincerely regret the self-destruction in which the Democrats are indulging. As the Democrats move further to the left in their orgy of irrationality, that leaves a vacuum behind. That's a vacuum the Republicans have started showing a disturbing enthusiasm in claiming. I'm on record as saying I'd like the country to move to a principled debate between Republicans and Libertarians (because that's where all of the interesting debates are), and not a simpel Right v. Left debate. It would be unfortunate if that debate took place merely because Republicans replaced Democrats on the left side of the overall spectrum. |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
unfortunately, all americans understand is right v left, black v. white. no matter how complex an issue is, americans are trained to think that they are either for ir or against it. if you want proof of that, just look at the huge "divide" between the right and the left in america, a divide that is a very small crack thanks to modern day pandering. i.e. somehow, the republicans have become the big spending, big government democratic party of the early 80's, and no one in the whole country, on either side of the aisle, seemed to notice. i dont think that most voters have any idea where their parties stand on the issues. they pick a few issues and say "if you like god, youre a republican. if you like abortions, youre a democrat. if youre in a union, youre a democrat." it's pretty ridiculous that they are allowed to vote at all, imho. like it or not, the US is a two party system, and as long as it remains that way, we'll continue to have parties that try to be as broad as possible. because of our the majority vote-getter take all system, there is no room for a third party to emerge. (see 1992 when clinton won with 37% of the vote as more republicans split to vote with the reform party.) ive long admired the party list proportional representation system, similar to that used in the Israeli Knesset. This system allows people to align with parties that more closely represent their interests, and i think that everyone benefits in the long run. a principled libertarian has 2 choices in our system, and that is to either 1. vote republican or 2. vote libertarian, which is basically the same thing as voting for the dems, as your vote will be completely irrelevant. |