The fiscal cliff 'deal': They're kidding, right?
Once again, Republicans have mistaken capitulation for “compromise.” Those who voted for the “deal” to avert the “fiscal cliff” of the Washington magicians' making — $1 in tax cuts for every $41 in tax increases — should be run out of Washington on a rail.
And if folks like Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., honestly believe “this legislation is the best we could do for taxpayers and job seekers,” well, he'd better have that hole in his head treated and stat.
Seventy-seven percent of all American households will pay higher taxes under this “deal” to “save” the middle class from the “evil rich”; more than 80 percent of households with incomes of $50,000 or higher will, too.
The top personal income-tax rate goes from 35 percent to 41 percent (when deduction “reform” is included). The death tax goes from 35 percent to 40 percent. The capital gains tax rises from 15 percent to 23.8 percent (as does the tax on dividends).
And for small business, the backbone of the American economy, the shaft is particularly large, painful and splintery. As The Wall Street Journal calculates it, “the real marginal tax rate on a dollar of investment income from bank savings or money-market accounts will be about 46 percent” (and more like 55 percent or higher when state taxes are figured in).
When combined with the spending plans of the “progressive” lunatics now winning the day in Washington — and we've not even mentioned the lunacy of the deal's multibillion-dollar sops to the administration's cronies — the fiscal cliff “deal” will add nearly $4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.
Real spending cuts and “reform” will come later, Republicans insist.
Idiots that they are, they really believe it.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- Sunday pops
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- The Thursday wrap
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- An NLRB ambush
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general