Vitter: "I Disagree With the Premise" That Tax Cuts Should be Paid for
Saturday 30 October 2010
by: Pat Garofalo | ThinkProgress | Report
During a debate last night, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was asked what he would cut from the budget in order to offset the expense of extending the Bush tax cuts. Remember, a full extension would cost more than $4 trillion over ten years, while extending the cuts for just the richest two percent of Americans costs $830 billion. Rather than lay out where he would make cuts, Vitter rejected the premise of the question, scoffing at the very notion that tax cuts should be paid for:
VITTER: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise that in order to keep tax rates where they are and not increase taxes, somehow we need to pay for that. I think that’s Washington-speak, not Louisiana-speak. [...]
Q: It’s a misnomer to say this continuing, for the top rates, wouldn’t have to be paid for. You would have to pay that $750 billion because it was supposed to sunset. It’s not an increase, it’s a sunset.
VITTER: Just to be clear, the premise that I disagree with is that to avoid a tax increase, we somehow have to pay for it. It’s not the government’s money, it’s our money. That’s the point.
Watch it:
Vitter did eventually endorse some spending cuts — including rescinding unspent stimulus money, which would have the practical effect of raising taxes on the middle class — but they wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of just extending the tax cuts for the richest two percent. And it’s his complete dismissal of the very notion that tax cuts should be paid for that merits attention.
As The Wonk Room explained, under current law, which stipulates that the Bush tax cuts expire, the government will collect 21 percent of GDP in revenue in 2020. Extending the cuts means less revenue for the government and bigger deficits. But Vitter is hardly alone in failing to grasp this concept.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in August, “you’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, pay for?” “Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), when asked if Republicans planned to pay for extending tax cuts for the rich. “It’s not a cost. That’s where we are today. That’s the baseline. It doesn’t score anything to continue them,” insisted Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
If you're going to reduce
Sat, 10/30/2010 - 16:09 — Anonymous (not verified)If you're going to reduce revenue, you're going to have to, in effect, pay for it by reducing expenditures. What, are they stupid or something?
The Republican plan is to
Sat, 10/30/2010 - 16:57 — Anonymous (not verified)The Republican plan is to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy by taking Social Security away from the working class. They want to keep the payroll taxes rolling in, but make sure no one ever gets to collect by raising the age for benefits to 70.
I suppose it bears
Sat, 10/30/2010 - 22:18 — Scott A. Weir (not verified)I suppose it bears repeating, but it is not news that tyrants and demagogues have no use for reason, except to use an attractive mockery of it to persuade the gullible.
To give tyranny a particular brand name, as does today's BuzzFlash, and as some of us have been doing for nearly a decade (RFK Jr. said it publicly nearly 6 years ago), is sort of beside the point.
The people making all the noise are just that: Noisemakers, mouthpieces for something much larger that most of them do not understand. Those who do understand are hoping to continue in that capacity when the excrement really hits the ventilator.
But chaos, once unleashed, is seldom controllable. Those who stay light and flexible are likely to end up better off in the longer run than the Vitters, the Palins, and others who hope to ride the wave into the Rapture.
What a twisted take on
Sat, 10/30/2010 - 22:52 — Luis (not verified)What a twisted take on taxes. How do we run anything without taxes to begin with? How are wars paid for? Why is that they had no problems throwing away trillions of tax-payer money on wars? How about law enforcement? Domestic security? Government just grows the money on trees?
There are Americans out there that need have taxes explained to them. Taxes are part of the social and civil contract pillar to the building of civilization. Doing with away with it completely --which I doubt will ever happen-- or overtaxing the most needy in the population --which is what they usually get away with-- is unsustainable and suicidal.
Those who earn more should pay more; yet it's wealth that is seldom --or never at all-- laid at the feet of the alter of patriotism.
VITTER: Just to be clear,
Sat, 10/30/2010 - 23:57 — Anonymous (not verified)VITTER: Just to be clear, the premise that I disagree with is that to avoid a tax increase, we somehow have to pay for it. It’s not the government’s money, it’s our money. That’s the point.
How is it "our money" once we've paid it in taxes? If I work for GM, and GM pays me, can GM then claim it's still their money?