Is it the party that has become more ideological, or the leadership of the party? The question suggests, I think it is the leadership. "Corporate welfare", is one of those phrases created by the ideologues I think.
The American people are odd, if I'm in New York then I want my fair share of Federal funds and I want my Senator or House member to represent my interests....if I'm in New Jersey....that stuff in New York is "pork". Replace, New York and New Jersey with any two states of choice. The tax code is also used to "manage" the economy, stimulate housing, oil production, whatever. Right or wrong, it's done by both sides and is the root of the complexity of the code I suspect.
The tax code, written by Congress, either party, is signed by the President, either party. If I consider, for example, the tax code during the Reagan administration when House and Senate were controlled by the Democrats, everyone put their "signature" to the tax code. Consequently, I don't know how one can correctly assign "fault" or "success" to either party. Perhaps the only way one can claim sole authorship is in the case when one party controls both houses and overrides a veto. [Or when all three are controlled by the same party, which is a pretty rare event]
On the basis of the pro-business attitude, it was cited that the proposed Bush tax cut was anti-business. The argument was that if the tax cut was implemented the Fed would have to raise interest rates to compensate for the increased growth; on the balance, it was thought to be anti-business.
Regards,
jttmab |
