×
I've got a new piece up over at ourfuture.org on Bush's statement of "principles" on President Bush's tax-cut stimulus plan ('cause that's what it stimulates, not the economy):
This brings us to the last and worst part of Bush's speech, his call to extend his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He claims that uncertainty over future tax burdens is hurting businesses and individuals. Except that the primary beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts were the wealthiest people in society, the exact people who have enough money to weather small variations in their income without much effect.This is another example of the point I made in my earlier post. Conservative leaders care more about giving money to rich people and businesses than they do about actually helping the economy. And that makes sense for them because for the most part they are fairly well of or identify with those who are. Well-off people, after all, aren't hurt in a visceral way when the economy is doing poorly. They'd rather pocket a tax cut and call it a day than actually try and stimulate the economy.So what would a good package look like? It wouldn't cut taxes on businesses or the well-off. It would include help for people who can't say afloat in the current economic storm. It would include increases in food stamps and a cut in the payroll tax. It might also include boosts to unemployment and other direct aid to the poor and unemployed.Also, the site now has a working RSS feed and feeds for individual bloggers are coming. Even if it does publish me, it's a good source of substantive commentary and well worth checking out.--Sam Boyd
