In light of skyrocketing deficits, is it time to raise taxes?
(PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Bush tax cuts are an 800 pound gorilla – set to expire January 1st. If Congress does nothing, everyone's taxes will go up. And so far, that's what Congress is doing. Nothing. Some of this nation's best economic minds say it's time to bite the bullet and raise taxes. Economically speaking, this country is going down the toilet.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan initially supported the Bush tax cuts, but now says that they ought to be allowed to expire.
Greenspan thinks higher taxes might mean slower economic growth, but he says it's more important to pay down our massive debt.
That debt has topped $13 trillion, and our annual deficits are sky high, expected to top $1.4 trillion this year.
David Stockman, the former budget director for Pres. Reagan, along with Former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Paul O'Neill all agree with Greenspan about higher taxes to some degree.
Pres. Obama only wants the tax cuts to expire for individuals making more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000.
But most Republicans are opposed; they want to extend all the tax cuts. And some moderate Democrats agree with them; they're concerned that even Pres. Obama's limited tax increase could hurt the weak economic recovery.
Opinions are all over the place on what should happen, but doing nothing is not a good option – unless the government does something about its runaway spending. Don't hold your breath.
Here’s my question to you: In light of skyrocketing deficits, is it time to raise taxes?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is this year's anti-incumbent fever for real?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/11/art.bennet.buck.2shot.cf1.gi.jpg caption ="In Colorado, Republican Ken Buck is challenging incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
After months of taking a beating, the Democratic party finally got some much-needed good news in yesterday's primaries.
The biggest victory came in Colorado, where Michael Bennet, the candidate backed by President Obama and the party establishment, won handily. After backing several candidates who went on to lose this primary season, the president may have needed this win more than anyone.
Yet, as Politico reports, the best news for the Democrats may have actually come from the Republicans' results – with the GOP nominating candidates who are either vulnerable or plagued by gaffes and scandal.
Take for example, Ken Buck who will face off against Bennet in Colorado. He was backed by the Tea Party but opposed by much of the national GOP leadership. Running against a woman, he was caught on tape saying he should be elected because he doesn't wear high heels. Moron.
In Connecticut, Republicans nominated Linda McMahon for the senate race whose main claim to fame is a big bank account and a past association with professional wrestling.
In Minnesota, Republicans chose Tom Emmer, who is off to a rocky start after suggesting the minimum wage be altered to take tips into account.
And in Nevada, Harry Reid has actually pulled ahead in the polls after his Republican opponent has repeatedly shot herself in the foot by saying one stupid thing after another.
Yesterday's primaries also raise questions about whether the whole narrative of the 2010 elections is true. The anti-incumbent, angry electorate ready to dump insiders may not be the case after all.
While Congress' approval rating remains in the toilet – 19 percent according to Gallup's latest poll – the people who make up that Congress continue to be re-nominated.
Here’s my question to you: Is this year's anti-incumbent fever for real?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments