Just Fix It!
Believe it or not, this is a truly non-partisan post. That doesn't mean that it is going to be nice, to hold hands and sing kumbaya.
I am talking about tax reform. Right now, we have a president with a low approval rating. (mostly self inflicted, admittedly, but the media has done everything possible to push it down). But for Congress, they could only DREAM of having the ratings that the President has. (the same could be said for the media, FYI)
Right now, Senator Mitch McConnell, (R-KY), Majority leader, and Congressman Ryan, (R-WI) Speaker of the House, have said that any reform has to be "revenue neutral". If you are not sure what that means, it means that if they "cut" revenue by reducing a tax rate, we either have to raise taxes somewhere else, or cut spending, in other words, ultimately, there is no tax cut. So, before we get into why we shouldn't care about whether tax reform is "revenue neutral", and if those two are hypocrites for using neutrality as a shield, let us see how "revenue neutral" they have been:
2010: -$1,294 TRILLION
2011: -$1.295 TRILLION
2012: -$1.087 TRILLION
2013: -$697 BILLION
2014: -$485 BILLION
2015: -$438 BILLION
2016: -$585 BILLION
2017: -$603 BILLION Estimated
(usgovernmentspending.com)
So, to those who would claim the need for revenue neutrality as a starting point for tax reform, I would just say:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? REALLY? WHICH YEAR IS REVENUE NEUTRAL? YUP, DEFICIT SPENDING, AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE.
How can you claim some sort of fiscally sane moral high ground for tax reform, when you have been sitting comfortably running up the card for the last seven years?
We would believe you, if you had been practicing it since you were in power, Speaker Ryan (2011) and Majority Leader McConnell (2015).
Should we be fiscally responsible? Absolutely!
Should we care about spending our descendants money today? I hope so, but we don't.
Since we don't, we can't use it as an excuse to not fix the CRONY code. Besides, by reducing the rate, for businesses in particular, and eliminating deductions, tax credits, and subsidies, the government will stop picking winners and losers. Those super rich that preach they need to pay more, will get their chance, by eliminating their tax schemes, they will get to pay more, even though the rate would be much lower. The winners would be those who can't afford to buy their legislator's ear, and have to pay the current ridiculous rate.
Those who advocate "revenue neutrality" should just shut up, and replace the code. Deal with the deficit spending later. Which is what they are doing now.
Write/call your congressman, and your senator. They need to hear your voice.
If you are a member of the GOP, FYI, your majority depends on this.
I am talking about tax reform. Right now, we have a president with a low approval rating. (mostly self inflicted, admittedly, but the media has done everything possible to push it down). But for Congress, they could only DREAM of having the ratings that the President has. (the same could be said for the media, FYI)
Right now, Senator Mitch McConnell, (R-KY), Majority leader, and Congressman Ryan, (R-WI) Speaker of the House, have said that any reform has to be "revenue neutral". If you are not sure what that means, it means that if they "cut" revenue by reducing a tax rate, we either have to raise taxes somewhere else, or cut spending, in other words, ultimately, there is no tax cut. So, before we get into why we shouldn't care about whether tax reform is "revenue neutral", and if those two are hypocrites for using neutrality as a shield, let us see how "revenue neutral" they have been:
2010: -$1,294 TRILLION
2011: -$1.295 TRILLION
2012: -$1.087 TRILLION
2013: -$697 BILLION
2014: -$485 BILLION
2015: -$438 BILLION
2016: -$585 BILLION
2017: -$603 BILLION Estimated
(usgovernmentspending.com)
So, to those who would claim the need for revenue neutrality as a starting point for tax reform, I would just say:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? REALLY? WHICH YEAR IS REVENUE NEUTRAL? YUP, DEFICIT SPENDING, AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE.
How can you claim some sort of fiscally sane moral high ground for tax reform, when you have been sitting comfortably running up the card for the last seven years?
We would believe you, if you had been practicing it since you were in power, Speaker Ryan (2011) and Majority Leader McConnell (2015).
Should we be fiscally responsible? Absolutely!
Should we care about spending our descendants money today? I hope so, but we don't.
Since we don't, we can't use it as an excuse to not fix the CRONY code. Besides, by reducing the rate, for businesses in particular, and eliminating deductions, tax credits, and subsidies, the government will stop picking winners and losers. Those super rich that preach they need to pay more, will get their chance, by eliminating their tax schemes, they will get to pay more, even though the rate would be much lower. The winners would be those who can't afford to buy their legislator's ear, and have to pay the current ridiculous rate.
Those who advocate "revenue neutrality" should just shut up, and replace the code. Deal with the deficit spending later. Which is what they are doing now.
Write/call your congressman, and your senator. They need to hear your voice.
If you are a member of the GOP, FYI, your majority depends on this.
Comments
Post a Comment