Redundancy is not always bad:

Senator Obama, when he was running to represent the Democratic Party in its quest to win the 2008 Presidency, was very aggressive in his call for the elimination of the ‘so-called’ Bush tax cuts for those with taxable incomes (T.I.’s) in excess of $250,000.

Subsequent to becoming President, Mr. Obama said that he would let the ‘so-called’ Bush tax cuts for those with T.I.’s in excess of $250,000 expire at the end of 2010, according to the ‘sunset’ provisions. The ‘popular’ rationale was that it might damage the fragile economy if that portion of the Bush tax cuts were eliminated.

Prior to the 2010 national elections, Congress did not address the continuation of the ‘so-called’ Bush tax cuts. It seems to me that it would have been great politics for the Democrats to pass an extension of the so-called Bush tax cuts for those with T.I.’s under $250,000 prior to the 2010 elections. That was not done. Why?

What was the reason that this was not done, given that this was the stated desire of the Democrats and President Obama? It would have been the correct action to take and great politics preceding the 2010 elections.

The most rational and logical answer is that there never was any intention to allow those ‘tax errors’ to expire.

Please note that I have re-characterized ‘so-called Bush tax cuts’ as ‘tax errors’.

Alan Greenspan, on January 25, 2001, testified before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, regarding the ‘outlook for the federal budget and implications for fiscal policy’.
His testimony reflected that his biggest concern was the disposition of federal receipts once the national debt was paid off due to the ‘burgeoning federal surpluses’, which had been projected. His full testimony can be read @ federalreserve.gov

Thus, it appears that Mr. Greenspan lobbed a softball to Mr. Bush for the major tax ‘cut’ of 2001. It was passed in an effort to mitigate the potential damages, as outlined by Mr. Greenspan, due to the projected ‘burgeoning federal surpluses’.

How many of our Senators and Representatives suggested that much, if not most, of these ‘projected’ excess collections could be used to fill the shortfalls in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

Further, with some of those funds, we might have thought about repairing our bridges and roads, rather than to include such expenditures in a ‘stimulus’ program.

The Fourth Estate should be posing the question to all who voted for this legislation: ‘Had you known then what you know, now, would you have voted in favor of that legislation?’

Thus, my conclusion that ‘tax cuts’ be re-characterized as ‘tax errors’.

NOTES:
1. Our Senators and Representatives have ‘constituents’ and ‘clients’.
2. Could it be that President Obama is a pawn?
3. Could President Obama be an example of the Peter Principle?
4. Is Nancy Pelosi’s protesting of the extension of the Bush tax ‘errors’ a façade, since she did not bring this up for a vote, prior to the 2010 elections?
5. There is, absolutely, no rationale for the Democrats not to take the appropriate action without any Republican votes.
6. Errors, problems, pain, etc., are facts of life, but once these are recognized, efforts should be put forth to eliminate or mitigate.

CONCLUSION: Anyone who votes to extend the Bush tax errors regarding T.I.’s in excess of $250,000, whether temporarily or permanently, should be Impeached and ousted.

As always, comments will be appreciated.


mz
November 12, 2010