“We can’t let the people who’ve been hit hardest by this recession and who we need to create the jobs that will get us out of it foot the bill for the Democrats’ two-year adventure in expanded government.” – Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, arguing to extend the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year
It is objectively true. Most people are doing fine. They still have jobs. Sure, maybe their retirement plan balances are down, but if they were $80,000 and now $60,000 – or their home has declined $100,000 in value – well, all told, they’re down $120,000. But if you’re rich, you might have seen your net worth drop by $10 million! Or $500 million! So don’t whine to me about $120,000.
(ChattahBox Political News)—Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) knows which side his bread is buttered on. Yesterday the Minority Leader delivered an impassioned speech on the senate floor, supporting tax cuts for the richest Americans. He reminded his colleagues that our country has been hit hard from a deep recession. And who in America has been suffering the most? The rich. What about the poor and middle class who have lost their homes, lost their jobs and are now making weekly trips to food banks to feed their families? You know, the same people who Republicans have attacked as lazy hobos? No, sorry. According to McConnell, people making over $250,000 a year are “the people who’ve been hit hardest by this recession.” . . .
☞ They’ve been hit the hardest – and (we are constantly told) they are the job creators. Why would we tax the golden goose?
But hang on.
When Clinton came into office and raised the top income tax rate from 31% to 39.6% (but lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%), unemployment went down. From 7.5% when he was elected to 4% when he left. Despite the tax hike, the job creators somehow managed to create 22 million jobs over Clinton’s eight years. Yet when Bush took office and slashed rates on the best off – from 39.6% to 15% on dividends, from 20% to 15% on capital gains, from 39.6% to 35% on ordinary income – unemployment went up. The job creators went on strike, creating almost no net new jobs.
So why would going back to the Clinton rates hurt job creation?
Democrats support targeted tax cuts to help small business (and even, when it makes sense, targeted help for big business – like the help we gave GM). The Obama Administration has been all over this.
And Democrats totally support seeding vibrant new 21st century industries – see yesterday’s Time excerpt.
But borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to give all those at the top tax breaks?
It makes no sense.
. . . expiration of the Bush tax cuts would only affect roughly 3 percent of small business owners — a fact that Boehner conceded yesterday — and McConnell has been blocking a bill to help small business owners since July.
Blocking a bill to help small business. But borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to continue Bush’s tilt toward those best off? That is a Republican must.
Monday (sorry, I thought the above was more important): Shucking Like a Guy