|
|
Enron Mail |
From the 12/11/01 New Dem Daily. Please let the Colorado DLC know what you think. This week the long, windy debate in Washington over a so-called economic stimulus package will likely be resolved one way or another. Putting aside all the partisan finger-pointing as to who is responsible for this or that twist or turn in the process, the bottom line is very clear: Republicans are unwilling to support any stimulus package that does not include significant new cuts in tax rates for wealthy individuals and corporations. We think that's too high a price to pay for the modest relief efforts for the unemployed that should be the focus of this legislation. The overall economy is not in as bad a shape as many feared at the beginning of this debate. Fiscal stimulus is already being supplied by new federal spending related to the war on terrorism and homeland defense. The tax rate cuts Republicans demand will in any event have no positive short-term impact on the economy, and could damage its long-range prospects by boosting future federal budget deficits. In effect, the GOP is holding unemployment relief hostage to yet another installment in its relentless drive for tax cuts targeted to high earners. It's time for Democrats to call the whole thing off, and call the Republicans' bluff on unemployment relief by decoupling it from tax rate cuts. Congress should be debating whether to cancel some of the high-end tax cuts enacted earlier this year, in order to pay for the war on terrorism. Instead, Congressional Republicans have spent months talking about new demands on public funds for the Americans who are least vulnerable in the economic slowdown, and least likely to make personal sacrifices in the war effort at home or abroad. If fiscal discipline means anything at all, it means a willingness to resist these sorts of demands. New Democrats favor bipartisan compromises in the pursuit of the national interest, but not in the pursuit of special interests. A deal with Republicans to secure new tax rate cuts would not be a compromise between "Left" and "Right," but between right and wrong.
|