Bush Refuses To Increase Taxes To Pay For Hurricane Relief
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Economy, Hurricane KatrinaThis is completely expected, and completely sad.
Simply put, if the man and his advisors won’t even CONSIDER raising taxes (even for a brief time) so that important federal programs won’t get hit hard, then I’ve lost even more respect for this Administration.
One day after pledging to undertake one of history’s largest reconstruction efforts, President Bush served notice yesterday that rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast will require spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.Amid growing concern among congressional Republicans about the huge cost of the planned reconstruction effort, Bush said the federal government can foot the bill without resorting to a tax increase. “You bet it’s going to cost money. But I’m confident we can handle it,” Bush said. “It’s going to mean that we’re going to have to cut unnecessary spending.”
And this one about still being able to cut the deficit in half by 2009 is a beauty.
Bush pledged to find some spending cuts. But he offered no specifics, and his chief economic aide, Allan B. Hubbard, dismissed the rebuilding effort’s impact on the longer-term effort to reduce the budget deficit. “This in no way will adversely impact his commitment to cut the deficit in half by 2009,” he said.
Okay, so let’s see. We could be paying upwards of $200 billion for this relief effort, we’re going to have to cut federal spending to pay for it, we won’t raise taxes, we’re going to be giving the people of the Gulf region even MORE tax incentives (a good thing) and this will “in no way will adversely impact his commitment to cut the deficit in half by 2009.”
Forgive me if I’m a bit leary of a statement like that.
Now, should we raise taxes? I don’t know. But I certainly think the option should AT LEAST be on the table and discussed with the American people, in much the same way that Bush tried to sell Social Security reform, only this time it’s actually a discussion.
But as we’ve seen, Bush would never be able to handle a situation like that. His events are highly scripted, and he’s not very quick on his feet when faced with difficult questions that challenge his ideology.
UPDATE:
I’m not surprised that Bill Clinton agrees with me.
Say what you will about the man, but his presidency was marked by a moderate, common sense approach to our world and politics.
I wish we would see more of that now.
This entry was posted on Saturday, September 17th, 2005 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Economy, Hurricane Katrina. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 17th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
I’m fine with it so long as the answer is to reduce spending by cutting unnecessary expenditures ,ie pork. ((Notice a trend with me on this topic? :) ))
That’s been the problem with this administration from the beginning. I wholeheartedly endorsed the tax cuts he proposed leading up to, and got passed in, his first term. The problem with budgets and balancing is…there’s always 2 sides of that coin…income and spending. And Bush and Congress, not once, has addressed the spending side of the equation.
Tax revenue has increased despite ( or rather, because of…Laffer Curve and all that) the tax cut, but so has spending. I know my ideal of a lean, efficient government seems like a pipe-dream, but it doesn’t HAVE to be. There’s so much friggin waste and duplication of effort in this bloated federal government, it’s mind-boggling.
Every person (and family) has to deal with this reality when it comes time for budgeting, and it’s well past time the government started living within the reality its taxpayers have to on a daily basis. Subject to a new expense? Well, the taxpayer doesn’t just have the option of “raising more money.” They have to work within the realms of what they have available to them, do some reprioritizing, and cut out the “nice to haves” while maintaining the necessities.
It’s analogous to giving somebody some money so they can feed theirself and their child. But instead of buying food, that person goes out and buys beer and cigarettes. The person comes back and asks for some more money because they’re hungry, and they’re broke.
The giver says, “I already gave you money to eat on, what happened to that?”
“It’s gone already and now I don’t have any left, and I’m hungry!”
“But I already gave you money to eat, and you misused it, so you’re not getting anymore.”
“You want my child and me to starve!”
Silly analogy, but you know it’s applicable and dead-on.
And while it’s amazing that my opinion of Clinton has increased dramatically (thanks in no small part to the slate of losers the Donks have put forth since he left office), if you remember correctly, he was opposed to cutting taxes during the “good times” because we had plenty, we had it to spare, and we should take advantage of that time of plenty to keep higher tax rates to fund our programs.
So here we are in times where it’s not-aplenty, and it’s time to raise taxes again.
It’s amazing that those with a capital-L Left leaning mentality see good times as a time to keep taxes higher, because we have so much to spare….yet when times aren’t so good, it’s ALSO time to raise them rates, because we need it more. Is there EVER a time when Leftists are FOR lowering rates?
It seems to me that the Friends of Taxation Crowd ALWAYS find an excuse (err, sorry, must use the proper term…”need”) to tax just a little bit more. It’s a Time of Plenty? We have it to spare, so let’s not lower taxes. It’s a Time of Not-So-Plenty? Well, then, let’s raise some rates and get some more!
No. So long as there’s a Bridge to Nowhere being built with what I’m already paying, I’m unwilling to pay one damn more red cent than I am now.
It’s time to spend the money I’m already paying a little more wisely and efficiently. If we still come up short, I’m game for talking about coughing up a little more. Until then, though, no.
September 17th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Jeez, you’d think I was talking off of talking points here or something. Just as I left here and went over to Instapundit on my rounds (yeah, I hit you guys before him….you’re THAT GOOD! :) ), I found this link on the same topic:
http://instapundit.com/archives/025603.php
September 17th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
Hmmm…why do I keep hearing a ghostly voice, saying “Read my lips….”
I forsee some big financial troubles for the country in the near future. The man has yet to meet a spending bill he didn’t like.
September 17th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
godamn your god damn negativity and partisan politics during a crisis.
September 18th, 2005 at 12:29 am
Mare Johnson. You’re banned.
September 18th, 2005 at 2:24 am
If polled in the middle of the Clinton administration, the average American said he was happy to pay more taxes if it meant a better world. The economy was good. My problem with that admiinistration was that it did not fulfill one of its original campaing promises, to invest strongly in infrastructure. Had that been done, engineers now say $2 1/2 billion well-spent on New Orleans levees would have saved a current need for $250 billion.
My greater concern is that these same CEO Republicans who’ve already lost a reported $9 billion in Iraq, these Senator’s sons, these fortunate-born, these non-military joining, recent ivy-league bottom-of-the-class graduating Dennis Brown wannabees, will be given the job of allocating and accounting for funds in the Katrina reconstruction. There will be plenty of small, historically crumby Southern college graduates who’ve signed off and on whom they can squarely lay the blame. We’re slower and less sophisticated. It’s hot; we’re trying to survive down here.
So come on down and rape us again. Pay us less than the average wage in the region, the lowest in the country to rebuild in the funk-laiden wastes. Some Bechtel-loving Senator from Colorado already signed bush on to the royal edict that has let that fly, because, of course, Bechtel has been too burdened by outrageous taxation, despite all the no-bid contracts.
And, of course, don’t raise taxes. There’ll be plenty of money once we get those Iraqi wells REALLY producing and put all the old folks from the nursing homes out on the streets. Or we could just situate a great big St. Rita’s…
September 18th, 2005 at 3:02 am
In Clinton’s defense, I must say the money misallocated from investment in infrastructure was spent to reduce the deficit (which went nicely), not to fund some 3rd generation-from-nows bottom-of-the-class ivy league education like the bush administration’s inclination has been.
September 18th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
I do believe that money was earmarked for these projects and then simply not used by local and state officials, but this is still a valid point, hindsight being 20/20 and all…
September 19th, 2005 at 9:08 am
No, I did not mean that at all. No money was ever earmarked for infrastructure, I think. The ‘92 campaign was the last I ever heard of the need for infrastructure repair. But I remember Clinton saying 1/3 of the bridges in this country weren’t safe, needed replacement. I’m sure the statistic is still close. Who’s to say against that whether the levees would have been a high priority? But it was moot. The Lonely Federalist should be happy the deficit was paid off, but it’s still crumbling around us, ya’ll. The infrastructure, that is.
September 19th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
I would much rather the Congress revisit the budget and start cutting all of the pork that was just passed starting with the highway bill, farm bill, energy bill, etc.
Cutting taxes really does spur the economy and it does increase the revenue that gets paid to the government in taxes…
I am against raising taxes because it has the opposite effect, it slows the economy which then will lower revenue paid to the government. This isn’t the time to reduce income to the government, on the other hand if they can get tough and agree to cut out all of the pork in the budget it will take care of itself.