John V A Holmes: Stimulus: Go for more expansive approach
Breckenridge, CO Colorado
While the Bush tax cuts did reduce revenue from some, they may have increased revenue from others. In any event, I don’t think they caused the collapse of our economy. It’s a mistake to reject tax cuts as failed Republican way to stimulate the economy. That’s why there were significant tax cuts in the original House bill drafted by the Democrats. What I heard from Obama was something like “Our circumstances are such that while further tax cuts are in order we also need to include significant spending in our efforts to bring our economy back to life.”
Some reject the proposed economic recovery package because they think we ought to focus on the restoration of the banking system. Others reject it because they think we ought to deal with the foreclosure crisis first. These are not criticisms of the economic recovery package as such. They simply favor other priorities. As I listen to the discussion of the package itself I hear some saying it goes way beyond stimulation designed to create jobs, so it’s wasteful. The assumption behind this position is that the only purpose of the package should be the immediate creation of jobs in the private sector. I hear others saying “We do need to save existing jobs and create new ones in the private sector. That’s what the tax cuts are for. But we also need to save and create jobs in the public sector. We do this by helping state and local governments maintain existing service and by investing heavily in the building of a national infrastructure for the future. That will put millions of people to work in both the public and private sector.”
This is a plan with both short- and long-terms ambitions. I favor this more expansive approach.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.