Veering left and right toward the fiscal cliff
|
|
|
( Baltimore Sun/KAL / November 11, 2012 ) |
E-mail
Twitter
Facebook
Home DeliveryCOMMENTING POLICY: Readers are encouraged to post comments that are germane to the article. We reserve the right to remove any user, and to delete comments that contain abusive language or personal threats, as well as those that are racist or demeaning. Readers may report comments by clicking "Report Abuse." Once a comment has been flagged, a Baltimore Sun staffer will investigate. Click here for more information on commenting.
The term fiscal cliff was coined to scare the middle/lower class into accepting compromises that are not needed. Ending Bush Tax Cuts places a higher tax rate on the top. Since a 70% rate at the top is needed to address wealth inequity, this would be the start. Having the rich paying the same will not do that. Letting Bush Tax Cuts to end for everyone will stop starving government, the cause of the decay of public infrastructure and loss of public services that give us a first world quality of life. The problem for middle/lower class Americans is that wages are lower than any time in US history so paying taxes is harder. The rich depend on that to keep taxes low. Higher wages which will come with politicians who really want to rebuild the middle-class. If you disagree about ending all tax cuts, remember that letting them all end and then coming back to reinstate middle/lower class cuts will augment those fears.
We want defense industry cuts as the military complex has taken over too large a chunk of the budget. Entitlements are not cut by rolling over the cliff.
The advantages democrats have in going over the cliff outweigh concerns. Food stamp and unemployment funding would be hit, but negotiations with Republicans for other issues would bring these back if these democrats want them to return. Payroll tax cuts need to end to stop defunding of entitlements and SS.