Not Really.
But that would be one way out, wouldn't it?
I watched the presidential address this week and Boehner's response to it. They both were nauseating, for completely different reasons.
Obama's portrayal of "fairness" and wealthy Americans paying their "fair share" falls flat for me. Wealthy Americans already pay most of the taxes in this country at a rate of 35% in comparison to the 15% that represents "average" household incomes.
Those percentages are on taxable incomes which are usually much lower than actual incomes by the time that most people take even standard deductions.
The whole "fair share" argument is a non-starter. Wealthy Americans already pay their fair share.
On the other hand, tax rates need to rise. It's simply unavoidable. We are too far into this mess to not suck it up and face facts. Cutting spending sounds great when you think it's all wasteful, but last time I checked we drive on federally funded roads, learn at federally funded schools, and our older population depends on federally funded health care.
We can make cuts in those areas, but we need to be conscious of the fact that when we say "cuts" we are also meaning that individuals will have to pick up the tab for these things on their own, which in certain areas will be nearly impossible, especially in a down economy with so many people out of work.
We need tax rates to rise in all brackets, even if it is only by 1% for each bracket. Working Class, Middle Class and Lower Class people need to contribute to maintaining all of the services that a federal government provides. We all use those services everyday and we all should have a hand in maintaining those public spaces and services.
This requires speaking the truth and explaining to all of us Less Than Wealthy Americans how little we contribute to the Budget compared to all those Wealthy Americans and Bad Corporations.
Boehner came across as an angry, defiant man in his rebuttal. I shook my head and thought, "Nothing good can come from this."
So far his plan is a drop in the bucket of what needs to be done, offering 1 trillion in deficit reduction instead of the 3-4 trillion previously offered.
I keep hoping to read the news and hear that both sides have compromised and finally settled on a plan, but so far it seems like we're watching a game of Chicken in which no one wants to blink.
5 comments:
I like the rapture line-- that's pretty funny.
I don't think I'd have any problem paying more in taxes, if they could promise that they'd use it to get out of debt. To me, government is like a kid with an allowance. Few of them realize that they should be saving their money for "a rainy day" and most of them let the money "burn a hole in their pocket."
When you look through the projects that are federally funded, the studies, and the wars-- there are a lot of places to cut.
Also, those roads, schools and health care (up until Obamacare on the last one I guess) aren't federally funded. The road repair is paid by states, cities and counties. The schools are payed by school property tax. States pay medicaid and medicare, though some of that's reimbursed.
If government could prove that it could stop spending, I'd be more than willing to contribute more, for a limited time, to get out of debt.
Min,
Yes and no about federal funding.
Yes that states and localities bear the brunt of education, but federal funding is still used to supplement k-12 education, never mind programs like Head Start, which is a federal program, or the various State University systems which rely on federal grants and federally funded student loans from the many of their students. (which causes a lot if problems)
The same goes for interstate highways...the states pay a portion, but the federal government pays for the lions's share of interstate costs
Medicaid ....the states contribute, but the federal government usually pays a matching rate varying from state to state. The federal government usually, at least, matches the state funding....making it 50-50...but frequently the federal "matching" is more than the state's portion.....sometimes more like a 60-40%, or 70-30% cost split.
Medicare is funded largely through payroll taxes, not through state funds....or even income taxes...which is also true of Social Security.
This is the reason why state senators and governors have such a difficult time really making cuts to the budget. They are so intertwined, for good or bad, with federal funding that they realize that those cuts are going to show up in very real ways in their own constituencies.
I absolutely agree. Breath held. Monday, Aug 2nd.
We were almost thinking the rapture might be a good idea since most of our income is tied to governmental fiscal soundness...*: \
Now back to enjoying 106+temps and lack of rain...
The Rapture idea might work, especially if the rich are evil and unworthy, and the poor are good and worthy. That is surely how the current Admin sees things. A quick way to do away with the need for massive social programs.
But what if that isn't the way it is? What if it's just the opposite? What if the folks that carry the burden of taxation all disappear? Bad news!
Even if the good and bad are distributed evenly through the population, having a similar but smaller economy , but saddled with the same debt and interest payments, will put us in worse shape.
Post a Comment