What America is Saying… About Bush's Tax Cuts
August 19, 2004
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's recent report, President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the wealthy and have shifted the federal tax burden to the middle class. The report estimates that one third of the benefits of the tax cuts are allotted to those households in the top one percent, who have household incomes of over $1.1 million dollars annually. This unequal distribution of benefits, combined with an estimated $422 billion federal budget deficit, has sparked feelings of alarm in many Americans. Here is a sample of what Americans are saying about Bush's tax cuts.
Chattanooga, Tenn. – Chattanooga Times Free PressAugust 17, 2004– Editorial - link unavailable
"The CBO report, issued last Friday, should fuel the tax-fairness debate. It also should compel straight answers about how the enormous run-up in federal budget deficits that result from the tax cuts will be addressed in the future. That goes to the core of the argument against the wisdom, fairness and efficacy of the Bush tax cuts.
"The tax cuts are largely responsible for the swing under the Bush administration from the rare and growing budget surplus he inherited in 2001 to what quickly became record budget deficits. Mr. Bush's budget deficits have swelled enormously each year, and the deficits generated by his tax cuts are projected to keep accumulating as far as the eye can see. This year's deficit, at roughly $435 billion, will be the largest ever in this chain of growing deficits…
"The overall Bush swing from surplus to deficit, a gap of some $700 billion this year, and the accumulating deficits spell big trouble. In the very near future, after the election, Congress will have to decide how much to cut from projected Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending to rein in the tax-cut-induced deficits.
"Beyond that, it should be patently clear that the Bush tax cuts have largely failed to produce the ripple effect in investment and purchasing power, contrary to Mr. Bush's excuse for the tax cuts. That's because it is the spending of middle-class Americans, who have received so little benefit from tax cuts, that fuels the economy."
New York, N.Y.— NewsdayAugust 17, 2004 – Op-Ed
"President George W. Bush spouted…: "If you pay tax, you ought to get relief - it seems like to be the fair way to do things instead of trying to pick winners and losers," he said. But pick them or not, with the Bush tax cuts, there are winners and there are losers.
"Since 2001, tax cuts have shifted the federal tax burden away from the wealthiest Americans (the winners) and to the middle class (the losers).
"According to a CBO report released Friday, the top 1 percent of earners - average annual income $1.1 million - saw their combined share of federal tax payments fall to 20.1 percent this year, from 22.7 percent in 2001. For the top 20 percent of earners – average annual income $182,700 - the decrease was to 63.5 percent this year from 65.3 percent in 2001.
"At the same time, middle America - average annual income $75,600 - saw its share of the federal tax burden increase from 18.5 percent to 19.5 percent.
"That's fundamentally unfair. Shifting the burden in that manner wasn't the best way to structure tax cuts to stimulate a sluggish economy. And the tax cuts ballooned federal deficits that have added hundreds of billions of dollars to a malignant national debt that will burden future generations of taxpayers."
Lancaster, Pa. – Sunday NewsAugust 15, 2004 – Letter to the Editor - link unavailable
"It is every citizen's right to question his or her leadership and express his or her opinion. We elected our leaders and we pay their salaries. "So, as a patriot, taxpayer and registered voter, I ask:
"Who will pay for this massive federal deficit?"Fort Pierce, Calif. – FresnoBee August 13, 2004– Letter to the Editor
"When the White House cuts taxes for the wealthiest without proportionately cutting spending, it is not lowering the tax burden on the country at all. It is just, very selfishly, avoiding the responsibility of paying for its spending increases by pushing the burden of payment on future generations and leaders.
"When the administration reduces taxes at a time when spending has blown a $5.6 trillion surplus and is heading for a $4 trillion deficit, it is nothing but irresponsible, even if you believe that the enormous spending programs are necessary.
"Corporate welfare is alive and well in the form of subsidies, loan guarantees and many sweet deals. But social programs that have served us so well for so long, such as Social Security and Medicare, are in serious jeopardy."
Chattanooga, Tenn. - ChattanoogaTimes Free PressAugust 14, 2004– Editorial - link unavailable
"…Bush abruptly stopped pushing false optimism this week when the latest grim job figures came out. Presiding over 1.1 million jobs fewer than when he took office, Bush is about to join Hoover as only the second president in history to have a net job loss during his administration.
"A new Time Magazine poll shows that 27 percent of voters now say that the economy is their main concern, ahead of terrorism at 19 percent.
"…[Bush] remains trapped by his earlier decisions to allow huge federal deficits, to spend uncounted billions on the war in Iraq and to push through huge tax cuts targeted to the rich that overlook the rest of us. These policies leave him few options as far as fixing the economy goes."
San Gabriel Valley, Calif.– San Gabriel ValleyTribuneAugust 15, 2004– Op-Ed
"The GOP let go of its final, lingering pretensions as the party of fiscal responsibility when the White House recently predicted a record $445 billion budget deficit and hailed it as 'good news.'"How so? Let Joshua Bolten, White House budget director, explain:"The good news is that it is much lower
than we projected, [than] we or any of the other forecasters projected just six months ago.'"Talk about setting a low bar for yourself. Does this mean that if the administration had made an even less accurate prediction half a year ago, this year's massive deficit would be even better news? Perhaps even 'great news'?"During the 2000 campaign, Bush assured the country over and over again that the government had such large surpluses that he could easily increase spending on defense, improve Social Security and Medicare, tackle some other new priorities and that there would still be plenty 'left over' for large tax cuts."No sooner had Bush settled into the Oval Office than he moved the tax cuts, aimed mostly at the wealthy, to the top of his priority list. "His conservative cheerleaders in the press advised that deficits didn't matter, as if taxpayers weren't paying billions upon billions of dollars in interest every year on the federal debt. Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly joined in the chorus, holding up the Reagan administration's deficits still unpaid, incidentally, as an example to follow."As the Bush deficits began to roll in, the president simply adjusted his rhetoric. He acknowledged that he was well into the red but offered various excuses and promised to do better. His deficits, he declared, would be small and short-lived."Now they are larger than ever and, even under the administration's optimistic projections, stretch many years into the future."Bush and his defenders argue that the raw deficit numbers aren't as bad when put in the proper perspective. When federal deficits are considered as a percentage of gross domestic product, Bolten claims, Bush's deficits are 'well within historical range.'"It's not clear what historical range he has in mind. Certainly Bush's record is terrible compared with the preceding eight years under President Clinton, even using the calculations Bolten wants to use."
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's recent report, President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the wealthy and have shifted the federal tax burden to the middle class. The report estimates that one third of the benefits of the tax cuts are allotted to those households in the top one percent, who have household incomes of over $1.1 million dollars annually. This unequal distribution of benefits, combined with an estimated $422 billion federal budget deficit, has sparked feelings of alarm in many Americans. Here is a sample of what Americans are saying about Bush's tax cuts.
Chattanooga, Tenn. – Chattanooga Times Free PressAugust 17, 2004– Editorial - link unavailable
"The CBO report, issued last Friday, should fuel the tax-fairness debate. It also should compel straight answers about how the enormous run-up in federal budget deficits that result from the tax cuts will be addressed in the future. That goes to the core of the argument against the wisdom, fairness and efficacy of the Bush tax cuts.
"The tax cuts are largely responsible for the swing under the Bush administration from the rare and growing budget surplus he inherited in 2001 to what quickly became record budget deficits. Mr. Bush's budget deficits have swelled enormously each year, and the deficits generated by his tax cuts are projected to keep accumulating as far as the eye can see. This year's deficit, at roughly $435 billion, will be the largest ever in this chain of growing deficits…
"The overall Bush swing from surplus to deficit, a gap of some $700 billion this year, and the accumulating deficits spell big trouble. In the very near future, after the election, Congress will have to decide how much to cut from projected Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending to rein in the tax-cut-induced deficits.
"Beyond that, it should be patently clear that the Bush tax cuts have largely failed to produce the ripple effect in investment and purchasing power, contrary to Mr. Bush's excuse for the tax cuts. That's because it is the spending of middle-class Americans, who have received so little benefit from tax cuts, that fuels the economy."
New York, N.Y.— NewsdayAugust 17, 2004 – Op-Ed
"President George W. Bush spouted…: "If you pay tax, you ought to get relief - it seems like to be the fair way to do things instead of trying to pick winners and losers," he said. But pick them or not, with the Bush tax cuts, there are winners and there are losers.
"Since 2001, tax cuts have shifted the federal tax burden away from the wealthiest Americans (the winners) and to the middle class (the losers).
"According to a CBO report released Friday, the top 1 percent of earners - average annual income $1.1 million - saw their combined share of federal tax payments fall to 20.1 percent this year, from 22.7 percent in 2001. For the top 20 percent of earners – average annual income $182,700 - the decrease was to 63.5 percent this year from 65.3 percent in 2001.
"At the same time, middle America - average annual income $75,600 - saw its share of the federal tax burden increase from 18.5 percent to 19.5 percent.
"That's fundamentally unfair. Shifting the burden in that manner wasn't the best way to structure tax cuts to stimulate a sluggish economy. And the tax cuts ballooned federal deficits that have added hundreds of billions of dollars to a malignant national debt that will burden future generations of taxpayers."
Lancaster, Pa. – Sunday NewsAugust 15, 2004 – Letter to the Editor - link unavailable
"It is every citizen's right to question his or her leadership and express his or her opinion. We elected our leaders and we pay their salaries. "So, as a patriot, taxpayer and registered voter, I ask:
"Who will pay for this massive federal deficit?"Fort Pierce, Calif. – FresnoBee August 13, 2004– Letter to the Editor
"When the White House cuts taxes for the wealthiest without proportionately cutting spending, it is not lowering the tax burden on the country at all. It is just, very selfishly, avoiding the responsibility of paying for its spending increases by pushing the burden of payment on future generations and leaders.
"When the administration reduces taxes at a time when spending has blown a $5.6 trillion surplus and is heading for a $4 trillion deficit, it is nothing but irresponsible, even if you believe that the enormous spending programs are necessary.
"Corporate welfare is alive and well in the form of subsidies, loan guarantees and many sweet deals. But social programs that have served us so well for so long, such as Social Security and Medicare, are in serious jeopardy."
Chattanooga, Tenn. - ChattanoogaTimes Free PressAugust 14, 2004– Editorial - link unavailable
"…Bush abruptly stopped pushing false optimism this week when the latest grim job figures came out. Presiding over 1.1 million jobs fewer than when he took office, Bush is about to join Hoover as only the second president in history to have a net job loss during his administration.
"A new Time Magazine poll shows that 27 percent of voters now say that the economy is their main concern, ahead of terrorism at 19 percent.
"…[Bush] remains trapped by his earlier decisions to allow huge federal deficits, to spend uncounted billions on the war in Iraq and to push through huge tax cuts targeted to the rich that overlook the rest of us. These policies leave him few options as far as fixing the economy goes."
San Gabriel Valley, Calif.– San Gabriel ValleyTribuneAugust 15, 2004– Op-Ed
"The GOP let go of its final, lingering pretensions as the party of fiscal responsibility when the White House recently predicted a record $445 billion budget deficit and hailed it as 'good news.'"How so? Let Joshua Bolten, White House budget director, explain:"The good news is that it is much lower
than we projected, [than] we or any of the other forecasters projected just six months ago.'"Talk about setting a low bar for yourself. Does this mean that if the administration had made an even less accurate prediction half a year ago, this year's massive deficit would be even better news? Perhaps even 'great news'?"During the 2000 campaign, Bush assured the country over and over again that the government had such large surpluses that he could easily increase spending on defense, improve Social Security and Medicare, tackle some other new priorities and that there would still be plenty 'left over' for large tax cuts."No sooner had Bush settled into the Oval Office than he moved the tax cuts, aimed mostly at the wealthy, to the top of his priority list. "His conservative cheerleaders in the press advised that deficits didn't matter, as if taxpayers weren't paying billions upon billions of dollars in interest every year on the federal debt. Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly joined in the chorus, holding up the Reagan administration's deficits still unpaid, incidentally, as an example to follow."As the Bush deficits began to roll in, the president simply adjusted his rhetoric. He acknowledged that he was well into the red but offered various excuses and promised to do better. His deficits, he declared, would be small and short-lived."Now they are larger than ever and, even under the administration's optimistic projections, stretch many years into the future."Bush and his defenders argue that the raw deficit numbers aren't as bad when put in the proper perspective. When federal deficits are considered as a percentage of gross domestic product, Bolten claims, Bush's deficits are 'well within historical range.'"It's not clear what historical range he has in mind. Certainly Bush's record is terrible compared with the preceding eight years under President Clinton, even using the calculations Bolten wants to use."
posted by BLONDIE at 12:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home