An open question to my liberal friends:
Why do most of the “Bush Tax Cuts” need to be extended?
Almost as perplexing as the hubbub about the 2012 end of the Mayan calendar is the sudden concern of left-leaning folks about the “fiscal cliff”.
For a decade, we’ve been told the broad-based tax cuts enacted in the Bush Presidency “didn’t work”. That economic sage Nancy Pelosi even said the 2008 financial crisis was caused by the full package of Bush-era tax cuts, leading to a “near depression”  To think some thought too many subprime mortgages and ultra-low interest rates led to the financial meltdown.
Treasury Secretary Geithner said Bush tax cuts didn’t work.  Loony writers like Annie Lowrey of Salon, wrote, “The cuts were a colossal failure.”  Some actually argue raising taxes, at least on wealthy, is somehow good for the economy. Call it anti-Keynesianism. If they believe that, they should applaud the fiscal cliff: end those pesky tax cuts once and for all!
But wait, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts a return to a recession.  Everyone from Obama down to the lowliest Lefty blogger says the Bush tax cuts, at least most of them, better get extended or the world will end. Which is odd, if those same tax cuts were a “colossal failure.”
The Lefties try to parse the cuts, they were great, it turns out, no colossal failure at all, for the bulk of the people earning less than $200,000.
That’s right! The corporate manager who earns $199,000 needs a tax cut, she’s a good human being. A tax cut for her is a positive to the economy. Just don’t give her a pay raise to $201,000; then, she shouldn’t get a tax cut. Crossing the magic $200,000 threshold, she’s become a freeloader now, a bad person not paying her fair share. Increase her taxes and it won’t hurt the economy at all. Understand?
Perhaps the liberals and Obama have, belatedly, figured something out: Eighty-five percent of the cost of extending the Bush tax cut costs in 2010 were for people earning less than $250,000 per year. Meaning many of them have been lying the past decade when they said the Bush tax cuts were “for the rich.”