And no it’s not the one that’s the result of a gap between revenues and expenditures. It’s the common sense when talking about the deficit, deficit.
If the deficit is an impediment to economic growth, then the answer is to close the deficit. There are only two ways known to mortal man to accomplish this: cut spending or raise taxes. Have the Democrats proposed either of these solutions? No. Rubinism revealed for what it is: a tactic to block tax cuts with fear mongering about scary deficits. (Is it possible that in the year 2020 our kids will scare our grandchildren by saying, "If you don’t go to be now, the DEFICIT is gonna get you."?
Any tax program that leaves MORE money in the hands of the people who earn it is a good thing.
If Clinton’s tax increases gave us above trend growth in the 90s, then why aren’t the Democrats proposing more tax increases? It worked before, didn’t it?
Just how much money does one have to make to be defined by the Democrats as rich. The back of my envelope says that a family of two with an annual income of $80,000 are rich. Somebody needs to tell a bunch of fire fighters, teachers and auto workers, "Welcome to the Upper Class".
The estate tax is only supposed to apply to "the rich". Here’s an example of how it applies to "the rich". Mary, an 67 year old widow inherits the family farm from her mother.
Mary has an IRA worth $125,000 and annual income from Social Security of $13,000. The farm is worth $900,000. After excluding the $700,000 exemption, Mary owes federal inheritance tax on the "value" of $200,000. How does she pay it? Sell the farm? Dip into her IRA (and pay a penalty!). Yup, you guessed it. Mary is screwed. And of course we can deduce from this that Mary is obviously "rich". If the purpose of the estate tax is to catch those wealthy evil doers like Ken Lay and Bill Gates, why isn’t the exemption say $10,000,000. You know the answer, those guys can spend $10,000,000 to avoid estate taxes.