The House just passed a billto extend tax cuts another 2 years, and extend unemployment for several more months. The press, president, and some in congress seem to be lauding this legislation as some great achievement. The Republicans wanted to extend tax cuts for the rich, and the Democrats wanted to extend unemployment benefits for the lazy and or unfortunate, and they both got what they wanted. The compromise makes sense at first look. However, with the debt as swollen as it is now, wouldn’t the best compromise have been the opposite?

Shouldn’t the Republicans be more concerned with cutting spending? Especially since a 2 year extension on tax cuts might not encourage mid-term and long-term business investment at all. Shouldn’t the Democrats be more concerned with bringing revenue into the government? In the big picture, the Dems could do much more with that revenue than they can do with an extension of benefits for the currently unemployed.

Class warfare is petty. I want the rich to get richer, as long as they are not breaking laws. And knowing some macro-economic theory and world history from a higher education, I know class warfare is a failure. However, with the debt as big as it is, and a real threat of the dollar collapsing, the reverse compromise might have been more prudent.  Just sounds like that in moving forward with a solution, we just added to the problem. (Insert overly emotional partisan arguments below…)

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: politics & government // 1 Comment »