Why You Can Blame Bush For The Fact That His Tax Cuts Are Expiring In The First Place
by ilene - August 2nd, 2010 2:05 am
Why You Can Blame Bush For The Fact That His Tax Cuts Are Expiring In The First Place
Courtesy of Joe Weisenthal at Clusterstock

Here’s a question you’ve probably had: Why are the Bush tax cuts expiring in the first place?
Clive Crook at the FT has the answer:
What a commentary on the US approach to tax policy. The tax cuts are due to expire in the first place only because the Bush administration was cooking the books. The idea was to disguise the cuts’ long-term cost, which is colossal. Making them permanent would cost nearly $4,000bn over 10 years. The Republicans always wanted the changes to be permanent. The sunset provision was just a feint to make them look affordable.
Democrats are no better at playing budget games, notes Crook:
Democrats deplored the tax cuts as reckless – which they were – yet want mostly to preserve them. The middle-class part of the tax cuts, which they like, account for roughly three-quarters of the forgone revenue. Talk about having it both ways. Barack Obama organised his election campaign around this position. He complained of fiscal irresponsibility with one breath, then promised even lower taxes for most Americans – households making less than $250,000 a year, some 97 per cent of the total – with the next.
A similar contradiction might be seen with the healthcare bill, and the Democrats’ promise that it would be a budget reducer, a goal accomplished by pushing other decisions down the road.
Image: Wikimedia
Massachusetts Upset In Making – Scott Brown Pulls Ahead of Martha Coakley
by ilene - January 16th, 2010 2:01 pm
Word on politics – I agree with Mish’s summation at the end, complaining about the democrats is NOT an endorsement of the Republican party. Both parties have been "captured" and the biggest difference, in my mind, is the proportions of interests owning them. The Libertarian party could be improved by softening up some of its hard core principles, but it is the only party (or well-known party, there may be others) which has a platform that is inconsistent with continued over-the-top conflicts of interest and out-and-out corruption. – Ilene
Massachusetts Upset In Making – Scott Brown Pulls Ahead of Martha Coakley
Courtesy of Mish
In a move that could potentially decide the fate of the health care bill, and will certainly affect the balance of the Senate, Republican Scott Brown given not chance to win the election a few weeks ago has now moved into the lead.
Washington Examiner: ‘Bottom has fallen out’ of Coakley’s polls; Dems prepare to explain defeat, protect Obama
01/15/10 7:10 AM EST
Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she’s not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."
With the election still four days away, Democrats are still hoping that "something could happen" to change the dynamics of the race. But until that thing happens, the situation as it exists today explains Barack Obama’s decision not to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. "If the White House thinks she can win, Obama will be there," the Democrat says. "If they don’t think she can win, he won’t be there." For national Democrats, the task is now to insulate Obama against any suggestion that a Coakley defeat would be a judgment on the president’s agenda and performance in office.
The private talk among Democrats is also reflected in some public polling on the race. Late Thursday, we learned the results of