Seems that Beloved Leader wants to keep the hardline republican economic stuff ticking...he's got to pay for those tax cuts somewhere, and where better than on the backs of those who can least afford it?
The Bush administration has begun sounding out lawmakers and other key figures about mounting a new bipartisan effort to rein in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security after the midterm elections, according to officials in the administration and on Capitol Hill.
...
The new Treasury secretary, former Goldman Sachs chief Henry M. Paulson Jr., has made it clear that a major reason he took the job is to tackle the rising cost of government health and Social Security spending, which he described last week as "the biggest economic issue facing our country."
I'd have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Paulson that the government taking care of it's citizens is the "biggest economic issue" facing us. If I had to make an uneducated guess, I'd say it's those billions of dollars being poured into Iraq.
The hard choice is whether to stop hemorraging money in Iraq, or begin to counter all that waste by raising revenues. I suspect that support for the war would fall even lower if it were presented to the average American as a pay-as-you-go option. To date, the 1600 Crew has largely financed it off the national credit card...and they have shown no willingness to responsibly change revenue generation without hurting the most-vulnerable citizens of our nation.
If there is a shift in Washington, this will probably become a non-issue, I doubt that too many Democrats are going to sign onto any of the fake "bi-partisan" legislation that comes out of the Oval Office. We're not all Joe Lieberman (or Ken Salazar), after all.
posted by Jo Fish on 08.11.06 at 09:25 AM
Comments:
...and don't forget subsidies for the wealthy, like the oil companies. Or weapon systems that are overkill. Or getting rid of the cost of maintaining our nuclear arsenal. Or congressional pay raises. Or political jaunts by politicoes that involve fundraising at taxpayer expense. Or giving congress and federal executives free medical care (they can afford health insurance), and let the government bill the HMO. And let's make EVERYONE pay their fair share. You want to impress a business client with a fancy meal? Fine, but do it without a tax deduction. NO entertainment should rate a tax deduction. Well, you get the picture. Also check out, http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20newsflashes%20AUG%2006/newsflash08-03-2006-1.htm
to see where else the Republicans have been cutting back.
I must add to my comments above. I feel it is time (past time) to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to invest in this nation's infrastructure. I base the rest of my argument on the fact that their wealth was created through a cooperative effort of the wealthy providing the structure and the worker providing the labor. Of course we need to provide for the common defense (that power should be removed from the executive). But we also need to rebuild our public institutions of learning, to protect our wildlands and rivers, to improve the health of the nation's people. Our libraries should overflow with books, our roads and bridges should be in first-class shape, our city-county-state-federal park systems second to none! The current federal government has shown that it has no problem spending the taxes of the middle and poorer classes for the benefit of 'the few,' the military-industrial-energy comlex and privateers, but will deliberately cut extensively into programs that benefit the many. I do remember a time when our nation was willing to spend what was needed to improve the lives of its citizens. And it was true that some took advantage of that system in a one-way 'take but not give.' It needs to be done smarter, sure. But it can be done. Call me a tax-and-spend liberal if you must... if it benefits our nation's people so be it.
