Republicans in Wonderland
I have a serious question for the GOP.
In spite of Senate Republicans’ recent refusal to extend unemployment benefits for ordinary Americans struggling through a deep recession, Senator Jon Kyl recently told Fox News that deficits caused by tax cuts didn’t have to be paid for because they spur the economy.
WALLACE: We’re running out of time, so how are you going to pay $678 billion just on the tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year?
KYL: You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely congress has the authority and it would be right, if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.
When asked about this, Mitch McConnell backed up his colleague, going on to explain that he believes, in spite of CBO reports to the contrary, that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans actually increased federal revenue.
“That’s been the majority Republican view for some time,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. “That there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”
Here’s what I want to know. If “virtually every Republican” believes that tax cuts are the magic mushroom that makes federal revenue grow taller, then why don’t they support tax increases which would, by their reasoning, make government smaller?