Maybe my eyes are playing tricks, but nowhere in the article do I see the words "outcome based economics." Now, granted that the way that Obama has mismanaged the economy is a cryin' shame. Other articles I sent today ( and some other days recently ) have blasted BHO's economic policy failings. So, there is no argument from me about that, nor about the way that the stimulus mostly rewarded Democrats and states that vote Democratic. I will grant that also, merely because it happens to be true. Your criticisms may be valid, in other words, but I'm having a real hard time in seeing the relevance to the editorial. I mean, RC is not defined as something like "Republican Party Lite." My objective is usually, theoretically always but "usually" in actual practice, to send around a balance of conservative and liberal ideas to the group. Today was no exception. Actually, given how badly Obama has screwed up a lot of things, not only economics, my criticisms and what I select to send, tilts Right this year. That is doubtless obvious to just about everyone. Last time I tilted Left was 2006. I suspect I will tilt Left again should Romney be elected since it is the nature of politics that people in office do not govern nearly as well as they talk when they are candidates. Anyway, even this year, I try to achieve at least some kind of balance, and the Times article seemed to me to be reasonable and also seemed to me to include some useful criticisms of GOP economic policy. Billy 4/15/2012 6:32:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Outcome based economics?? And I'm really somewhat serious here. The only tax benefits that seem to be extended are those that favor Obama supporters, like the environmentalists in the solar industry, even when they go bankrupt on the taxpayers dime. But as long as they contribute to Obama, it's OK. David _ "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."—Neal Boortz On 4/15/2012 10:41 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: EDITORIAL NY Times More Help for the Wealthy Published: April 14, 2012 Taxes are never popular, especially in April of an election year. But the Republicans’ latest effort to tilt the tax code in favor of the wealthy, and starve the government of needed revenue, is particularly cynical. This week, the House Republican leadership is expected to bring up the “ _Small Business Tax Cut Act_ (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr9) ,” a bill to let most business owners deduct up to 20 percent of their business income in 2012 — a $46 billion tax cut. Despite the Mom-and-Pop label, it is designed so that nearly half of the tax cut would go to people with annual income over $1 million, and more than four-fifths would go to those making over $200,000, _according to the Tax Policy Center_ (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3342&DocTypeID=1) . The bill’s proponents, led by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, say that lower taxes would lead to more hiring. But the economic reality is that employers, big and small, are hesitant to hire because of slow or uncertain demand for their products and services, not because of their tax burden. And companies would receive the tax cut even if they did not hire new workers — making it a windfall, not an incentive. The bill is predicated on an overly broad definition of “small business” — one with fewer than 500 employees, which can include multimillion-dollar partnerships and corporations. It is also based on a willful denial of the reality that _small businesses_ (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/OTA-T2011-04-Small-Business-Methodology-Aug-8- 2011.pdf) are _not the big job creators_ (http://www.nber.org/papers/w16300) politicians often say they are. If “small” were set at 50 employees, small businesses would be credited with creating less than a third of the new jobs over the last 20 years. And many such jobs are soon lost as small businesses struggle or fail. The best way to encourage their success is with continued government spending to support demand and by building a well-regulated banking system that is not prone to the busts that devastate small businesses. As for the broader economy, the Congressional Budget Office _analyzed_ (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-15-Outlook_Stimu lus_Testimony.pdf) 13 policies last year for their potential impact on economic growth and job creation in 2012 and 2013. The option of a business tax cut along the lines of the Cantor bill ranked next to last in bang for the buck. More effective options include fiscal aid to states and increased safety net spending, which create jobs by bolstering consumer demand — and which Republicans fiercely oppose. Another immediate step Congress could take to create demand and jobs would be for House Republicans to drop their objections and reauthorize the highway bill, at least for two years, as the Senate has done. That would help private-sector contractors and suppliers, as well as government workers, boosting local businesses in areas where jobs are created. Extending the research and development tax credit would also help some businesses, but Senate Republicans _have blocked_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/business/with-bank-teetering-a-bet-on-the-gop-backfires.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=Business%20Bets% 20on%20the%20G.O.P.%20May%20Be%20Backfiring&st=cse) that. The business tax cut for not-so-small businesses will almost certainly pass the House. Senate Democrats have introduced a tax relief _bill_ (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2237) that is linked specifically to companies hiring new employees. They should stick with that. This doesn’t mean that the tax system doesn’t need fixing. It does. In the Senate this week, the Democratic leadership will make an argument for more fairness, by calling for a vote on the Buffett Rule. It would require the wealthiest taxpayers to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes and, in the process, raise some $47 billion over 10 years. Republican senators are expected to block the vote. When you mail your taxes this week, think about that. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community _<[email protected]>_ (mailto:[email protected]) Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
