Oh, The Hypocrisy
From
Michael Hiltzik writing for the Los Angeles Times:
One would have thought that after saddling the U.S. economy with a tax cut costing $1.5 trillion over 10 years, conservatives and their patrons in corporate America would soft-pedal the usual attacks on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
One would be wrong.
Recently, the drumbeats for cuts in social insurance benefits have been sounding louder. As is traditional, the call for cutbacks is placed in the context of concern about rising federal deficits. ...
The politicians unsheathing their paring knives for Social Security and Medicare undoubtedly are hoping that Americans' memories are short — that when they claim that it's social programs like these that are driving the deficit, no one will recall that the single biggest driver of red ink is that tax cut delivered to the very members of society who needed help the least.
If you had to rate what the greatest threat was to the health and well-being of America's elderly and disabled, what would it be? I think Mr. Hitzik found the #1 answer.
ReplyDeleteArticle seem correct to me.
ReplyDeleteWell the premise that a tax cut (that's allowing workers to KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY) "costs" anything is flawed. So it seems MR. Hitzik doesn't understand that the "government" does not have any money that they don't forcibly take from its citizens in the form of taxes and fees. So having said that, a tax cut doesn't "cost" the government anything because it was never theirs in the first place. The government consistently collects record tax revenue which is insufficient for its appetite. Government needs to limit its voracious appetite of spending money (it does not have on unnecessary things (i.e. benefits to people here illegally in the country, paying people NOT to work, buying extravagant items for those people (cell phones, I-pads, scooters, narcotic drugs, SNAP + free school lunch, etc just to name a few) to limit how much money it needs to forcibly take from its citizens. Perhaps then it would not have to "borrow" money from SS trust fund (as if such a thing exists). So it's overspending, not insufficient taxation that threatens such programs as SS.
ReplyDelete@2:40
ReplyDeleteWhether something costs you something is not contingent on ownership of currency.
If Walmart raised the price of a loaf of bread 1$, would it be inappropriate to refer to this as costing you 1$ extra per loaf of bread? You don't own the bread.
In regard to your complaint that the government spends money on "unnecessary things," nothing prevented Congress from addressing your concerns at the same time they cut taxes. They chose not to. Not that I am agreeing these items cost the government enough to supplant the reduction in tax revenue, or even a significant amount of money.
(1) Guns or butter. There is no "war" unless you can pay for it through taxes or oil benefits or balance of trade. There is no social security "problem" if you believe in a Social Security defined benefits contract and fund the program. There is no deficit "problem" if you believe that your taxes should cover expenses and you collect enough to do that. Clinton balanced the budget with a surplus. GWB gave the money back saying that he was simply returning the money to those that paid it. People say there is not enough money in the budget for SSA, Raise the FICA ceiling on taxable adults or raise the FICA tax.
ReplyDelete(2) The illusion of the US government being a cash-based funded entity violates the concept of matching income and expenses. The government failure to invest in government real estate instead of savings bonds is a hoax. It is like the story of people who saved money leaving their cars home by taking the bus ($5 a day) vs people who road to work on bicycles behind the bus ($10 a day) vs the people who road to work on bicycles behind taxis ($25 a day). GSA and the US Post Office own lots of property which was purchased with government funds over a period of time... If the investment portfolio of SSA were in those assets and the capital gain attributed to SSA there could well be better return than 1-2.6% over the long-term. Those that want SSA have solutions. Those that don't want SSA have cut-backs.
We all hate taxes, but that's the price of America. Repeal the tax cuts, and go after the tax cheats (and too bad if most of them think that they are job creators).
ReplyDeleteA2:40, taxes are the price we all pay to live in a civilized, safe society with Interstates and other roads; with military and police to protect us; with clean water and clean air; with commerce able to flow because of all these things. Yes, there is waste -- let's start by "throwing the bums out" who are supposed to serve us as public servants but instead use the US Treasury as an ATM (commandeering military jets to the tune of $1 million costs; $31,000 dining room tables; $50 per night room rentals, to name a few). Those people not only steal from the taxpayers, but abuse the public trust.
ReplyDelete@2:05 PM
ReplyDeleteI agree with your reply to 2:40. He cannot imagine places like Denmark where citizens pay some of the highest taxes in the world but are also among the happiest people in the world. With universal health care, free public education, including college, and generous unemployment benefits, they don't have the stress in their lives that Americans endure. @2:40 will never understand that part of everyone's wealth is the quality of the society they live in.
It seems that everyone forgets the population of Denmark is 5.3 million people, just the city of LA is 3.9 million without the county and NY is 5.73. So you are comparing a grain of sand to a softball.
ReplyDelete@9:17
ReplyDeleteGiven economy of scale, a larger population would be more cost-effectively served, not less.