 |
| Source:CNN Politics- President George W. Bush (Republican, Texas) 43rd President of the United States. |
"Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon mocked Republicans in the House. "Let all the Bush tax cuts expire!" DeFazio said. "That's 4 trillion dollars. It's not too complicated! It would take us back to those bad old Clinton years when rich people paid taxes. The 'job creators,' they call them," he said in a mocking voice. "They can't make the 'job creators' pay taxes -- it will ruin the economy!' "
From CNN Politics
"DeFazio on the Bush Tax Cuts and the budget"
 |
| Source:U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio (Democrat, Oregon) speaking on the floor of the U.S. House about President Bush's tax cuts. |
From Peter DeFazio
I'm a little reluctant to criticize Representative Peter Defazio even in a constructive way, because he's one of the most articulate, honest and humorous members of Congress, in both chambers and both parties. (Which is like saying someone is the best ballet dancer in Wichita) And if he ever got around to running statewide in Oregon, I believe he would get elected and I would support him. But he's dead wrong as far as letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire even on the middle class.
I believe the main reason and its certainly a reason for our weak economic recovery is because of the low- demand in our economy, because people aren't spending enough money to create big enough economic growth to give us enough job creation to create enough jobs to bring down our high unemployment rate. Pass a middle class tax hike on people who perhaps right now are just barely middle class and are worried about whether they'll have a job tomorrow, if they still have one.
The lack of consumer demand in the economy means middle class Americans spend less money and because they'll have less money to live on and have an even tougher time paying their bills. Which would mean our economic growth would be even weaker and we would lose more jobs and have a higher unemployment rate as well.
The so-called House Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) and its allies make the point, that we had a much better economy in the 1990s especially in the late 90s (97, 98, and 99) so since the economy was stronger then, we should go back to those tax rates which were higher. What they don't mention and I'm sure they are aware of this because they talk to their constituents on a regular basis if nothing else, is back then we had a very strong economy, perhaps the strongest in our history. Which is completely different from today with the weakest economy in at least thirty years.
Back in the 1990s we could afford higher tax rates on even the middle class because the economy was much stronger then it is 10-20 years later. Higher tax rates can work on high-earners because they already have plenty and aren't looking to spend money just to survive, because they already have plenty. They are not the people that we need to spend more, they rather save and invest. Its middle and low-income people that we need to spend more money and to encourage them to spend more, to generate enough economic and job growth to bring down our unemployment rate to a much more manageable level.
Tax hikes on people can't afford them and are struggling just to survive, will just make life more difficult for them, because they'll have even less money to live on. And would be even worse for our economy and debt and deficit outlook.
What we need to do is pass tax hikes on the upper class, to help pay down our debt and deficit. And encourage middle and low-income people to spend more money to generate more economic and job growth.
