The Obama administration’s characterization of the tax debate is to talk about tax cuts as though extending the U.S. government’s current tax policies is cutting taxes. That’s insulting to thinking people. If the Pelosi-Reid Congress doesn’t extend the U.S. government’s current tax policies signed into law in 2001 and 2003, or if President Obama vetoes such a bill, the new policy should be called what it really is: the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Tax Increases.

The Heritage Foundation and the IHS Global Insight Macroeconmic Model have put together a study showing the impact that letting the Bush tax cuts would have on job creation. For instance, their study of Minnesota’s Sixth District would lose an average of 1,945 jobs annually and, per household, $6,473 in total disposable personal income between 2011-2020.

If that happens, the middle class will suffer while “the rich” just ride the policy out. Mr. Dayton says that he just wants “the rich” to pay their fair share in justifying his tax-the-rich scheme. Apparently, Mr. Dayton hasn’t figured it out that tax fairness doesn’t help the middle class.

Whether the taxes being increased are federal or state, the effect is the same. Reducing the profit margins of Minnesota’s job creators will cause them to reduce entrepreneurial activity, something that hurts everyone.

From a political standpoint, it’s totally foolish to not vote on the Bush tax cuts. Some DC pundits say that it just opens incumbent politicians to questioning whether they’ll vote to extend all of the tax cuts or just a portion of the current tax policy.

I’m not convinced of that. With voters questioning Democrats’ veracity, I wouldn’t be surprised if voters didn’t just assume that these incumbents wouldn’t vote for only part of the tax cuts. The only people who’d be spared would be the Democrats that signed the letter to President Obama stating that they favor keeping all of the current tax policies in place.

By not voting, Pelosi and Reid are giving voters a reason to vote against incumbent Democrats.

That’s without considering the fact that Democrats were so unserious that they didn’t debate extending the Bush tax policies or even bother writing legislation that could be debated.

By not even meeting that minimal threshold, they’re essentially telling the American people that they’re irresponsible and unwilling to even perform the most basic functions of governing.

At a time when unemployment is 9.6 percent and with the biggest tax increase in U.S. history looming, voters will question Democrats when they talk about jobs.

If Bush’s tax cuts expire, unemployment will jump, triggering the next recession. If that recession hits, Obama can forget about re-election. If there’s another recession, alot of Democrats will lose their Senate seats.

The bottom line is this: if President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid don’t extend Bush tax policies, they’re essentially throwing their incumbents under the bus.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Extending Current Tax Policy”

  • eric z says:

    I think the taxing rates and brackets we had back in the Eisenhower years worked to keep the nation strong, something that has slipped during the Bush-Cheney years, failed wars and all. Look back to what was prosperity, and ask, are times better now for the middle class, or were they better then. I believe most who know anything about prosperity in the 1950’s would consider them “golden years” and the taxation levels were the goose laying the golden eggs. Reagan and the Bush families killed that goose.

  • walter hanson says:


    When Ronald Reagan left office in 1989 we had a strong economy and a top rate of just 28%. Thanks to Bush caving on no new taxes and than Clinton that went up. And if you repeal Bush’s cuts along with the special increases that Obam put in it’s closer to 40% before you pay state taxes.

    We had a much strong economy in 1989 and should go back to those two rates.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

Leave a Reply