Washington has a clear choice: tax cuts for the richest Americans or create 12 million new jobs in this country, according to Heather McGee, director of Washington DC’s office of Demos (a nonpartisan public policy group). Demos will be releasing the results of a study on this very subject within weeks.
Republicans know how bad the unemployment news is in America, they caused most of the problems which led to massive outsourcing and rewarded those corporations with tax cuts to boot.
Now the Republicans are insisting that the election results last Tuesday means that Americans want tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
In an interview tonight on MSNBC’s Countdown (minus Keith Olbermann), McGee went on to disclose:
“I think it's a really strong move obviously for President Obama and the democrats to continue to push for the middle class tax cuts that were really their signature achievement in tax policy since Obama became President. Not that many people know this, actually President Obama gave the middle class the single largest tax cut in American history, during the recovery act.
Democrats really need to be pushing the Republicans to justify tax cuts for wealthiest Americans at a time of massive unemployment.”
The republicans keep saying they're willing to borrow $700 billion (this fiscal year alone) to lower taxes for the top 3% because it will create jobs. Once you're willing to borrow $700 billion aren't there more effective ways to use it to create jobs?
Demos and McGee seem to think so. “Absolutely. We know, in fact, tax cuts cost the U.S. more than they create in economic activity. We're going to be issuing a report in a few weeks (Demos is) that talks about what it would cost to directly put the American people, out of a job through no fault of their own, back to work. You can get 12 million people back to work in this country for the $700 billion a year that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would cost. I mean, if you frame it that way, I don't see how that's not a winning solution for the President and Democrats."
See the entire interview below.
It is really a no-brainer even thick headed Mitch McConnell and Mr. Boehner could figure out - if they would only abandon their unjustified dedication toward the RICH and actually do the right thing for America. What do you think?
Comments
Ms. King, while I agree that the priority should be on helping the unemployed, I don't think we should discard any ideas that will help. I also don't believe we should let any of our elected officials suggest that we can only do one or the other, since only by getting people back to taxpaying work will we ever rectify our budgetary problems. I hope Democrats, especially Senator Reid and Stabenow, both recognize that a willingness to negotiate tax cuts on their part gives them more leverage to get their bill, S.3706 The Americans Want to Work Act, passed as well.
Unemployment benefits, including those in S.3706, qualify as "emergency spending", because we need recipients to keep consumer demand viable during the quarter. Otherwise, we could still fall into a double dip recession, which benefits no one. I cannot fathom how our elected leaders miss this clear economic rationale for extending benefits! 70% of our 66% consumer driven economic activity happens from October 1st to December 31st, and we should all be cognizant of the perils of keeping 15,000,000-30,000,000 potential consumers on the sidelines.
And if most jobs are genuinely created in the small business sector, as Republicans suggest, extending tax cuts for some higher income brackets might help (since small business owners must essentially report their entire business income on their individual tax returns). Without the ability on legislators' part to discern between a "mom and pop" auto repair facility in a small town and Bill Gates, we would be better off if legislators erred on the side of caution to keep small businesses in a position where they can hire. If Republicans genuinely believe that extending tax cuts to some higher income brackets will enable or encourage some small business owners to hire a couple more employees, I'm on board with that. And the incentives in S.3706 to help the long term unemployed with employer hiring subsidies would unquestionably help. So I suppose I think we should be willing to try all of these things, as well as ensure that consumer spending remains viable through the all-important fourth quarter. If hiring does result, let them all share credit, but I believe summarily discounting any ideas outright will leave us in a position where we might wonder "what if" next year if Tea party victors block future action or stimulus. While millions need benefits, real jobs would be much more preferable.
Perhaps we should address the debt issue after the next Congress is seated, but for now, we must focus on getting aid to the millions out of work. Behind all of these legislative efforts are millions of our own potentially facing homelessness and starvation. There is no excuse for continuing to deny unemployment extensions in any state, and for any 99er who lost benefits this year-- at any time.
The time for action is now, and I believe Republicans and Democrats both recognize the importance of the lame duck session! And the pressure is on the Republicans, since they know that to apply to 2010, tax cut extensions must be passed before December 31st. What we need is for S.3706 cosponsors (including Senator Reid), all of whom retained their jobs, to insist upon standing up for their own bill! Not a single Tea Party or Republican victor, with the exception of the more moderate Mark Kirk of IL, will be seated before the New Year.
If anyone in our government is borrowing 700 billion to give the rich more, they need there head examined. Give it to the hard working American's who can barely make it, the rich are doing pretty good, and I'm pretty sure they don't need any help. So why in the h--- are we helping them and not the middle class and the poor. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize this. Come on America wake up. The lies and big business's are tearing us apart. I think we need to all go Independent and make them work for our votes, Hillary would be a good Independent candidate.
Its $700 billion over ten years, so $70 billion a year. This year we will spend $1 trillion more than we have, so its not that big of a deal. The economic recovery is still very fragile, why take the risk of a double dip recession? And I am certainly not for take from the rich and give to the poor as you suggest. If you said take the money and reduce the deficit, I would say that could make some sense. But to take from those are key to economic growth and give it to those who didn't earn it sends the wrong message.
@Rob, either you get paid by them or you are one of them, you are leftover from the troll campaign for GOP votes! You will not make many if any friends and alliances here! I suggest you go back to your nest (GOP) and hide, time is coming and you are sorrounded from the left and from the new right (t-party)!!!
Hah! I say Hah! again.
Mitch is too tied up in his endless power obsession to care about doing the right thing. (He must have thrown the tantrum to end all tantrums Tuesday night when it became clear that the Dems were going to retain control of the Senate and he wouldn't be Senate majority leader.) He's made it clear, he has only one goal - to put President Obama out of office.
And Boehner (from nearby Ohio) will not risk ruining his tan OR his golf game (both paid for by corporations and other special interests) by abandoning the special interest paychecks that he likes to hand out on the House floor.
Things were never going to get any better than they were last Monday. After Tuesday, things were either going to stay the same, or get worse.
We paid for Boehner's tan. He missed 6 months of work to consume alcohol beverages while playing in the sun.
Can you imagine the outrage if Nancy Pelosi hung out on a golf course for 6 months of this year?
Don't scoff. A lot of jobs are created in the golf and bar/supply businesses.
If the rich didn't work for their wealth I can see the problem; What they do with their money is not anyones business.But being wealthy and successful brings the press. Giving to the middle class and poorer people sounds good. But why are they poor? Everyone has a chance to make money and climb the ladder of success.We are all over taxed now. Some of the richest people came from nowhere.
No. like Rease said he made his money the old fashion way, HE INHERITED IT!!! They didn't work for their wealth, most stole it and achieved it by greed, corruption and manipulation! They also got rich from childhood sports that they developed into professional, good looks, being able to read a script or writing a song but most of us do not consider that work, its more like the luck of the lottery! Its not like they cured cancer or did something other than entertain! Entertainment is enjoyable but not a neccessity, these people are just flat out spoiled and kept the country running good during Clinton and I didnt here them complaining then, but thanks to the bush agenda its all f-ed up!!!!
Are you telling us that a Hedge Fund manager or a Banker works harder than a construction worker or mid-level engineer? Most of the 3% Oligarchy inherited their fortunes (along w/ all the lawyers, political connections and accountants). If the country lost it's Oligarch 3%ers tomorrow, it would be able to get along quite well - but without the MIDDLE CLASS and the mobility it provides, America would be like some the Central South American banana republic: a bunch of fat turds on top and the rest as a permanently-poor working class.
The middle class is essential to America, the Oligarchy is not. Once you ascend to the top 3%, you're mostly concerned with keeping yours and nothing else.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!