Republican’s Extension of Bush Tax Cuts Will Add $3.4 Trillion to the Deficit

[Danny]

http://bluewavenews.com/2010/07/21/republicans-extension-of-bush-tax-cuts-will-add-3-4-trillion-to-the-deficit/

This is the secret that Republicans don’t want to talk about – their economic policies created a huge deficit and now they want to shake off responsibility for that deficit. The figure to the right has become very popular lately, it comes from a report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Republicans have been complaining about Democrats increasing spending, but the reality of who increased spending is very clear in this graph. The Affordable Care Act, while costly, is actually projected to cut the deficit by $127 billion.

While Republicans speak out of one side of their mouths about their concern for the deficit and for our collective grandchildren, they speak out of the other side about their desire to extend the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts that will increase the deficit another $3.4 trillion. That’s trillion with a ‘T’ – a very large one. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains:

    Bush-era tax cuts — Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001. Those estimates were based on the economic and technical assumptions used when CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) originally “scored” the legislation, but the numbers would not change materially using up-to-date assumptions. Most of the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire after December 2010 (partway through fiscal 2011). We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT.[23] (We did not assume extension of the temporary tax provisions enacted in ARRA.) Together, the tax cuts account for $1.7 trillion in extra deficits in 2001 through 2008, and $3.4 trillion over the 2009-2019 period. Finally, we added the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, amounting to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period — over $330 billion in 2019 alone.

When Republicans like Marco Rubio say that they don’t know how they would pay for tax cuts, it’s because they haven’t even considered paying for tax cuts. They don’t believe they have to pay for tax cuts. The Republicans believe that they will win majorities in November and that they will be able to extend the Bush tax cuts to their richest friends and that they will never ever have to pay for them.

Republicans care so much about the deficit that they are going to ask people to go to the polls in November and vote for $3.4 trillion more in deficits, a repeal of health care reform, no help for the unemployed, and a repeal of Wall Street reform so the banks can have free rein.

[tonymctones]

LOL another smoke and mirrors bull shit oped piece...

first of all trying to figure out how much money the tax cuts will produce in extra revenue is like trying to ascertain how many jobs were saved by the stimulus...

as already pointed out to you many times tax cuts should be used inconjunction with reduced spending...

notice the jump in expected deficit addition to what happend under bush...guess what thats from?

[Coach is Back!]

Is this what you were trying to say Danny?


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2010140720100721

[GigantorX]

The Bush tax cuts covered many things including just about every tax bracket. Saying that they were exclusively "tax cuts for the rich" is just stupid.

And tax cuts don't "add" to the deficit. Insane and unstoppable levels of spending do.

And how do you "pay" for a tax cut? It doesn't make any sense. It sounds good in articles and on TV when certain groups are trying to sway certain groups of voters but that's about it.

As Dario73 pointed out in another thread (rather well I might add) overall tax revenue never really deviates from a certain historical mean regardless of tax hikes or tax cuts. So in the end....both parties,and especially this current Admin, insane spending levels have "ADDED" to the deficit and overall debt.

[Bindare_Dundat]

The Bush tax cuts covered many things including just about every tax bracket. Saying that they were exclusively "tax cuts for the rich" is just stupid.

And tax cuts don't "add" to the deficit. Insane and unstoppable levels of spending do.

And how do you "pay" for a tax cut? It doesn't make any sense. It sounds good in articles and on TV when certain groups are trying to sway certain groups of voters but that's about it.

As Dario73 pointed out in another thread (rather well I might add) overall tax revenue never really deviates from a certain historical mean regardless of tax hikes or tax cuts. So in the end....both parties,and especially this current Admin, insane spending levels have "ADDED" to the deficit and overall debt.

Do not question bluewave"news"!   

[BM OUT]

How can tax cuts cost money.ITS OUR FUCKING MONEY NOT BARACK HUSSEIN obamas money!!!CUT THE FUCKING SPENDING!!

[GigantorX]

Do not question bluewave"news"!   

Sorry! Won't happen again!

Listen, if you want to discuss tax policy, than discuss tax policy. Don't start out by posting useless, one sided, partisan articles that are short on facts and deep in hyperbole.

Low Taxes,Low Regulation =/=Good Economies and High Taxes, High Regulations =/= Good Economies and vice a versa.

[Dos Equis]

Democrats Dissent on Bush Cuts
By MARTIN VAUGHAN And JOHN D. MCKINNON

Two more Senate Democrats called for extending tax cuts for all earners—including those with the highest incomes—in what appears to be a breakdown of the party's consensus on the how to handle the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said in an interview Wednesday that Congress shouldn't allow taxes on the wealthy to rise until the economy is on a sounder footing.

 Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the Obama administration will allow tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire despite calls from a small group of Democrats to delay tax increases. Kelly Evans talks to John McKinnon in Washington.
.View Full Image

European Pressphoto Agency
 
Sens. Ben Nelson, above, and Kent Conrad back extending Bush tax cuts.
.View Full Image

Associated Press
 ..Journal Community
..Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said through a spokesman that he also supported extending all the expiring tax cuts for now, adding that he wanted to offset the impact on federal deficits as much as possible.

They are the second and third Senate Democrats to come out publicly in recent days in favor of extending all the tax breaks for the time being. Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) made similar comments last week.

"As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Mr. Conrad said. "We know that very soon we've got to pivot and focus on the deficit. But it probably is too soon to cut spending or raise taxes."

The comments from the senators represent a departure from what appeared to be an emerging unified Democratic stance on the Bush tax cuts, which held that those for the wealthiest Americans should be allowed to expire.

President Barack Obama and most Democrats want to extend only the breaks benefiting taxpayers who make $250,000 or less.

More
U.S. to Let Tax Cuts for Wealthy to Expire
More from Washington Wire
.Allowing breaks for higher earners to expire would push the top individual tax rate to 39.6% from 35%, and would raise rates on capital gains and dividends, too.

The breaks enacted in 2001 and 2003, which affect taxpayers of all income levels, expire at the end of this year.

Republicans and many business groups favor extending all the breaks, contending that increasing tax rates will hit small businesses hard. With U.S. employment still weak, some centrist Democrats are agreeing, prompted to change their stance by the still-ugly economic picture.

In addition to Messrs. Conrad, Nelson and Bayh, at least half a dozen House Democrats also have come out publicly in favor of postponing tax increases for higher earners.

"We're not creating jobs, and raising taxes now would not be a great idea," Rep. Michael McMahon, a New York Democrat, said this week.

Journal Communitydiscuss..“ Voting for tax cuts takes no political courage. It's irresponsible in times like these.
”
.—Elba Fordyce.
 Democrats can't afford to lose many of their own members on the issue. At a minimum, the internal party debate increases the odds that Democrats won't tackle the question of extending the tax cuts until after the November election.

Further delays will expose Democrats to Republican charges that they want to allow all the tax cuts to expire, which the Democrats deny. It is possible that any extension would be only temporary.

Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said Wednesday that no decisions had been made on when to take up the tax cuts in the House, but he said the Senate "needs to act first."

Republicans are hoping the expiring Bush tax cuts become a bigger issue in the August recess, when lawmakers go home to talk with constituents. Already, House Republicans have begun pointing to the "ticking tax bomb" that will go off at year's end absent congressional action.

The GOP, for its part, runs some risks pushing for an extension of all the tax cuts, given the nation's sharpening focus on the budget deficit.

A one-year extension would cost at least $115 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans have been pushing Congress to pay for any new spending to avoid increasing the deficit, but they argue tax cuts shouldn't be paid for.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954804575381501862552246.html