But if we decide collectively (through very poor election choices and pitiful levels of representation) that government needs more money, it just seems wrong to take all the money from only 2 percent of the people. That doesn’t even resemble fair or equal treatment.
I’m the equal of any man or woman, regardless of income, and therefore, I prefer we all stand together. Either all our income tax rates remain as is or all of us go back to the old, higher rates.
As for spending cuts, like so many others, Drake Bennett writes in Bloomberg Businessweek that these cuts have “the likely side-effect of throwing the country back into recession.”
Yet, the required cuts under sequester are paltry. The total $1.2 trillion is over ten years. In 2013, the federal government would reduce spending by just $55 billion in defense and $55 billion outside of defense. That’s only roughly ten percent of the annual trillion-dollar-plus deficits being racked up in past years and into the future.
If such a small trimming brings on recession, how are we ever going to make the much bigger cuts needed for long-term sustainability?
Step back and consider: while the overwhelming majority of Americans, no matter how financially uneducated, manage to go about their daily lives without cratering the economy or endangering the security of unborn generations, those who represent us in the federal government have made such cataclysmic possibilities a full-time occupation . . . with round the clock television coverage.
Who needs long-dead Mayans for prophets of doom when we’ve got real-time doom-doers on salary . . . with pensions and everything?
And, believe me, the precipice they’re pushing us towards after the much-feared near-term double-whammy will make the horrors of this “fiscal cliff” look like a curb-side toe stub.
Rand Paul on NSA: “I Believe What You Do on Your Cell Phone is None of Their Damn Business” | Daniel Doherty
Devastating: 90 Percent of Uninsured Haven't Signed Up For Obamacare, Most Cite High Costs | Guy Benson