This Will Mean A Tax Hike
As I wrote a few days ago, the Democrats have promised to bring back "paygo budgeting" should they reclaim Congress next week.
Unfortunately, for them, anyone that can do math, and has seen their "Six for 06", the six items they claim they will do right away, the only way to pay for them is with a tax hike.
They are proposing somewhere in the area of $200 billion in new spending over the next four years or so. However, most of it is concentrated in the 'discretionary spending' portion of the budget, which is where paygo makes all of it's cuts.
So, to increase discretionary spending by $200 billion, under the plan Speaker-wannabe-Pelosi has proposed they have two choice, cut discretionary spending by that same amount, or raise taxes to cover it.
Don't just think it's us "right wing reactionaries" who believe they can't do what they are claiming (from the Washington Post):
"There's a trade-off that's being left unspoken here," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan opponent of deficits. "To pay for their new spending, they would have to cut programs, raise taxes or be unable to do what they want."
I have a soft spot for the Concord Coalition folks, it was the founding of that group that really got me into politics; and for years they've spoken the truth about our budgets, even though too few people listen to them.
In this case it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which option they'll use. Cutting the spending they are increasing doesn't make much sense. They've covered every big "discretionary" item with their Six for 06, meaning that the only place to come up with the money for the programs is our wallets.
So, if you are one of those conservatives who's pissed at Bush, etc. for their spending, just keep in mind that voting for the alternative is probably voting for a tax increase on yourself. Yeah, that's the way to show them!
Technorati Tags: Six for 06, taxes, Democrats, Concord Coalition
Unfortunately, for them, anyone that can do math, and has seen their "Six for 06", the six items they claim they will do right away, the only way to pay for them is with a tax hike.
They are proposing somewhere in the area of $200 billion in new spending over the next four years or so. However, most of it is concentrated in the 'discretionary spending' portion of the budget, which is where paygo makes all of it's cuts.
So, to increase discretionary spending by $200 billion, under the plan Speaker-wannabe-Pelosi has proposed they have two choice, cut discretionary spending by that same amount, or raise taxes to cover it.
Don't just think it's us "right wing reactionaries" who believe they can't do what they are claiming (from the Washington Post):
"There's a trade-off that's being left unspoken here," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan opponent of deficits. "To pay for their new spending, they would have to cut programs, raise taxes or be unable to do what they want."
I have a soft spot for the Concord Coalition folks, it was the founding of that group that really got me into politics; and for years they've spoken the truth about our budgets, even though too few people listen to them.
In this case it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which option they'll use. Cutting the spending they are increasing doesn't make much sense. They've covered every big "discretionary" item with their Six for 06, meaning that the only place to come up with the money for the programs is our wallets.
So, if you are one of those conservatives who's pissed at Bush, etc. for their spending, just keep in mind that voting for the alternative is probably voting for a tax increase on yourself. Yeah, that's the way to show them!
Technorati Tags: Six for 06, taxes, Democrats, Concord Coalition
posted by Crazy Politico at 9:49 PM
3Comments:
All the Democrats need to raise taxes is an opportunity. They don't even need an excuse.
Shoprat,
So you are okay with deficit spending? You do remember what a balanced budget is, right? Do you know what "blowback" is?
Jimmy, most of us aren't old enough to remember a balanced budget, since there hasn't been one in truth since the early 1950's.
Clinton's "balanced budgets" we gotten by counting the $500 billion a year of social security surplus as general revenue, as we have since the 1960's.
The truth about budgets and taxes, though are pretty simple. Every time we raise taxes we collect less than we claim the raise will get us, but spend based on that flawed assumption that everyone will pay what we thought.
Every time we've cut taxes within two years revenue is growing faster than with the old tax rate.
Now, if we could just get folks to not spend, we'd be fine. But the party that doesn't spend doesn't exist in American politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home