Tax cuts don't have a cost. Spending does. (Although the Republicans certainly have a history of ignoring the cost of spending, including spending they bring about, so "Republican's ignore costs" is often an accurate statement anyway.)
Ever since President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress took power in January 2009, the Republican congressional leadership has had two major complaints: 1) the national debt is too high and growing higher; and 2) the stimulus (which, by the way, was one-third tax cuts) created zero jobs.
They had more than two. Another one was that the tax rates Obama wants are too high, and that doesn't exhaust the list. As for the ones Nutting mentions, 2 is inaccurately stated. Few where highly specific about their estimates of the stimulus' impact, and of those that where the answer wasn't always zero. Some would say negative, others would give a number that's very low compared to the amount spent.
Tax rates for the rich must not increase, regardless of the debt it would create, the Republicans now say. Furthermore, they argue, raising taxes now would be madness because it would suck money out of an economy that needs all the stimulation it can get.
The spending is what caused the deficits, and what is out of control. Any way of financing the spending is harmful. It needs to be reigned in.
Arguing against tax increases becuase of its short term effect on demand is arguing against anti-stimulus. That's similar to arguing for stimulus, but its not the same. Also avoiding anti-stimulus is far from the only reason, to avoid tax increases, and far from the only reason believed in or mentioned by Republicans. Other reasons include the supply side effects of taxes, and the belief that the tax increases would put taxes to such a rate that it would be unreasonable, unfair, or immoral to impose such a tax burden on people. |
