Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) thinks it’s ridiculous to actually pay for the $3.2 trillion dollars that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost.
You’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for’?
And yet extending jobless benefits for the unemployed or sending money to the states to pay for teachers and police would “explode the deficit,” so he filibustered against them. But the idea of actually paying for the tax cuts for the rich? Are you kidding?
I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that when the Bush tax cuts were initially passed — using the reconciliation method he railed against on the healthcare bill — Mr. McConnell knew that giving them a ten-year limit would play right into their hands. If a Republican succeeded President Bush, they would have no trouble at all making the cuts permanent. And if a Democrat won in 2008, he knew that they would demagogue the hell out of the tax cuts, claiming that by letting them expire, the Democrats were trying to force through the largest tax hike in the history of the galaxy (actually, by the numbers, that honor went to Ronald Reagan.) Either way, they knew they had the tax cuts in the bag. Forget the fact that letting the cuts expire would greatly reduce the exploding deficit. Who cares about that when there are elections to be bought?