The clear mandate of the 2012 elections was for a balanced approach to the nation’s fiscal problems, a “grand bargain” that includes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, some common-sense changes to Medicare and Social Security, cuts in unnecessary defense programs, and elimination of unproductive loopholes in the tax code. Taken together, these moves would not only cut the debt load being imposed on future generations, but they would also clear the way for targeted investments in education and infrastructure. The result would be a stronger nation better positioned to compete in the global marketplace.
Since the election, most Americans, and this editorial page, have refrained from making any programs into sacred cows, or asserting any rigid demands, in the belief that all options must be on the table — that a balanced agreement, acceptable to most Republicans and Democrats, would naturally flow from the results of the election. The “fiscal cliff” of expiring tax cuts and mandatory spending cuts set to take effect on Jan. 1 would serve as a prod, making the end of 2012 a meaningful deadline for such a deal. Then, with a fixed set of tax rules and spending plans in place, businesses could begin the new year with a more predictable landscape and the confidence to hire more workers.
Comments
As began to read this editorial, I knew in my gut that it would conclude with the standard liberal boiler plate declaration of Republican intransigence, which was stopping a "balanced" approach. This is the kind of thing the Globe has been good at-repeating the MSNBC-NY Times talking points, and acting like it is an intellectual argument that came from the highly esteemed Globe editorial board. NEW PARAGRAPH: What makes this approach so silly is that these liberal blow hards never use this kind of language to describe the Democrat's refusal to offer any spending cuts or entitlement reforms. This is what the GOP has been holding out for. Acting out of principle, they are refusing to let President simply raise tax rates without offering any cuts to spending. This is not intransigence or radicalism, it is statesmanship. The President has acted like a dictator, in expecting the GOP to cave to his demands. NEW PARAGRAPH: Also missing from the editorial is a discussion of the economics. The tax hike the President is seeking will create nothing more than crumbs in new tax revenue. It will do NOTHING to reduce the deficit. But as we continue to print money, and spend more than we take in by 40%, our march to Greek style bankruptcy continues unabated. The tax hike was thus nothing more than a class warfare rallying cry. It was a self absorbed president spiking the football for having won the election, and raising tax rates on the hated high earners. NEW PARAGRAPH: But our national decline continues, and all the Globe can do is attack the GOP.
Nicely said, Richmond. Happy new year to one and all.
Democrats are not the ones who signed a pledge never to negotiate unless they got what they wanted.
Deficits never matter to Democrats, who would gladly spend us into bankruptcy. While deficits certainly are a bipartisan problem, it is a problem that only the GOP wishes to solve. Raising marginal tax rates will not bring down the deficit. It will serve to be the president's victory lap, his rubbing it in the face of all those evil high earners, whom he finally got the last laugh on. But our slide into bankruptcy will probably accelerate, even with that extra $80 billion (static scoring) of new revenue. Our deficit exceeds $1 Trillion, so this move is a very bad joke.
Richmond, when was the last time the US had a balanced budget? I think you know... Wasn't it under .... It's just on the tip of my tongue....wasn't it ...ah yes, it was under President Clinton. 1998, 1999, 2000 and hand it off the George Bush. How long did it take him to tank it? About a year. Hmmm. No. But Democrats don't care about deficits.
George Bush What is this crap that only democrats spend money? ridiculous