Tax Cuts

Knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue can have good arguments about whether making the 2001 and 2003 federal income tax cuts permanent makes good economic sense. It’s estimated that if Congress votes to permanently extend the cuts, which expire at the end of this year, it will cost $4 trillion in more debt over 10 years. Even if the tax cuts are extended for the bottom 98 percent of income earners, but not the 2 percent in the top bracket (individuals earning more than $200,000 a year or couples earning more than $250,000)

Dear Editor Do you make $1 million a year? Or half a million? Or a quarter million? Like 98 percent of the people in the United States, I don’t. For this vast majority, President Obama has proposed an extension of the Bush tax cuts, otherwise scheduled to expire automatically on Dec. 31. But for the top 2 percent, those making $250,000 or more, the administration proposes letting the Bush tax cuts expire. These top earners will still get the tax break on their first $250,000.

This month marks the 10th anniversary of the first of the two tax cuts sought by former President George W. Bush. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act was enacted in 2001 to be followed, in 2003, by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Ten years later, it is time we assess the actual results of these tax cuts, looking at economic performance rather than political promises. The results have been a disaster for the U.S. economy and for almost all of the American people.

The Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of this year unless Congress does something. President Obama wants to extend the cuts for all families with adjusted gross incomes below $250,000 and singles below $200,000. His proposal would apply to 98 percent of all taxpayers. Republicans threaten a filibuster unless tax cuts are also extended for the wealthiest 2 percent. Mitch McConnell is, in effect, holding the middle class hostage. He’s willing to have financially stressed families pay hundreds or thousands more in taxes unless he gets his way. There are powerful reasons for extending, at least temporarily, the tax cuts for middle-class families who are struggling to make ends meet in a very weak economy.

Dear Editor: In reading a letter from Brian Cooney that was published recently, I feel compelled to rebut the cynicism and myopia he expressed. Mr. Cooney suggests in his message that tax cuts will go disproportionately to the people making the most money. He simply doesn't get it. Who does he think paid the taxes in the first place? He quotes figures (that may be in the ballpark) relative to rebates and states that "the bottom 60 percent will get 8 percent" of tax rebates.

Dear Editor: As we look at the future, there are many issues that will be negatively affecting Kentucky families if more positive attention is not given to them right away. Alice Forgy Kerr, as a state senator, helped central Kentucky businesses create good jobs. As a member of Congress in Washington, she has pledged to continue this by supporting President Bush's approach to growing the economy and creating jobs. She also supports the president's tax cuts and will vote to make them permanent.

They tell me that we’re all going to get a tax cut for Christmas — which is fine, I suppose. If it goes the way of other tax cuts, we’ll get an extra $6 per pay period — and then no one will be able to figure out why this didn’t spur an economic recovery. It’s a fact that for all the talk about tax cuts, we never seem to notice when we get them. In his first two years, Obama cut taxes, but polls show that a full third of the nation believes that he actually raised them.

The Bush administration has spawned so many disasters lately that it is hard to keep track of them all. The continuing carnage in "liberated" Iraq, deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan, fresh revelations of Bush's fraudulent use of intelligence to justify war, illegal domestic wire-tapping, unchecked illegal immigration, unprotected ports, the Abramoff scandal, the DeLay resignation, and the spreading stain from the prosecution of Scooter Libby,...

The Lancaster City Council unanimously approved an approximately $3.6 million budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year at a special called meeting Monday night. The budget comes with a $126,309 general fund surplus, which the city will use to give employee raises for the first time in three years, increase the allocation for community grants and potentially propose tax cuts, Councilwoman Maggie Morris Mick said when she described the budget earlier this month. At the meeting, the council also had an hour-long executive session regarding personnel but took no action.

Dear Editor: I find it interesting that Ben Chandler is against so many of the things that our president is doing to improve our lives. I will not discuss the obvious national security measures that he doesn't think are necessary. I am more concerned about his inability to work with others and in particular that he has come out against president Bush's tax cuts. Once again we have a career politician who thinks he knows how to spend my money better than I do. I believe the government exists to do for its citizens what they cannot do for themselves.

A few days after the election, my husband and I were driving in a rural area of Kentucky when we passed a young woman standing in her front yard holding a Romney/Ryan sign. The house was small and needed a coat of paint. The yard was bare of landscaping and the car in the front was pretty beat up. This was not a wealthy family.   The look on the face of the woman was a mixture of disgust, sadness and disbelief. “How could this happen?,” it seemed to say. After all, she had been told that Romney couldn't lose.  As an Obama supporter, my first reaction was to laugh, but then I realized how poignant this sight was, how completely this woman had been duped.

A study that assigned 26,000 uninsured to Medicaid shows average health care costs per person dropped yearly 50 percent. How? Uninsured went to emergency rooms for even “smaller” illnesses, but on Medicaid they each had a physician, reducing their need to go to the emergency room. Under Obamacare, in 2014 up to 17 million uninsured will be placed on Medicaid. Obamacare provides free screenings and immunizations. Because these programs can prevent diseases as well as allow for early, thus less costly intervention, they reduce hospitalizations and length of stay.

One of your letters to the editor blamed President Obama for the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). He obviously didn't realize that TARP passed on Oct. 3, 2008, under the administration of G.W. Bush. Since President Obama wasn't even elected until November of that same year, wouldn't you agree that it's a bit of a stretch to blame him for TARP? The same writer also criticizes the economic stimulus package and says there's “no proof” that it brought economic stability and growth.

“I'm not proposing anything radical here,” President Obama said on July 9. “I just believe that anybody making over $250,000 a year should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Bill Clinton.” Mitt Romney thinks otherwise: “This will be another kick in the gut to the middle class in America.” And so the fight is on again, just as in 2010. That was the year the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were, by law, set to expire. Obama and the Democrats wanted to keep the Bush tax rates for most taxpayers while raising them only for couples with incomes over $250,000 and individuals over $200,000.

Again the government has found a way to stick it to the American people, and they don't care. They even stand behind it. The so-called tax cuts come from your Social Security taxes that come out of your paycheck, not your income tax. They have actually gone up this past year. That means that $105 billion has been diverted from the Social Security fund to pay for depleted unemployment funds.  It doesn't effect me or the other senior citizens over 55. But, if you're under 55 years of age, you're screwed once more.

Two items dealing with “class warfare” on the “Opinion” page of Monday's issue grabbed my attention.   In the Mike Luckovich cartoon, a top-hatted and caned representative of Wall Street tramples on a figure representing the middle class. The victim has evidently had the temerity to complain about the abuses of the financial industry. He is told to remain silent or be guilty of class warfare.   Luckovich is holding up as ridiculous the idea that the market needs less regulation, not more.

Billionaire businessman Warren Buffet summed up the fuss about raising the debt ceiling in a way that was clear, concise and candid. “We don't need to tell the world that anytime people in Congress start throwing a tantrum, we're not going to pay our bills on time,” he told CNBC. When it comes to economics, I'd put more faith in the “Oracle of Omaha” than the partisan rantings of politicians. At a Kiwanis lunch on Wednesday, a club member asked why I hadn't “weighed in” on the debt limit debate.

Tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs Editor: Our nation is on the brink of a financial crisis. In times of crisis, our nation must unite and work together. Everyone must sacrifice. The poor may have to give up food stamps. The sick may have to give up Medicaid. The old may have to give up Social Security. The unemployed may have to give up their benefits. Yes, we must all sacrifice for the good of our nation. All of us except, of course, the rich who have been affected most by our current financial situation.

The Lancaster City Council unanimously approved an approximately $3.6 million budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year at a special called meeting Monday night. The budget comes with a $126,309 general fund surplus, which the city will use to give employee raises for the first time in three years, increase the allocation for community grants and potentially propose tax cuts, Councilwoman Maggie Morris Mick said when she described the budget earlier this month. At the meeting, the council also had an hour-long executive session regarding personnel but took no action.

This month marks the 10th anniversary of the first of the two tax cuts sought by former President George W. Bush. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act was enacted in 2001 to be followed, in 2003, by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Ten years later, it is time we assess the actual results of these tax cuts, looking at economic performance rather than political promises. The results have been a disaster for the U.S. economy and for almost all of the American people.