Dem 'compromises' on tax cuts should be ignored

James V. Capua
The debates over extension of the Bush tax cuts, ironically, can help Republicans do what Bush rarely managed to do himself - embrace and articulate clear, unambiguous principle.

There should be no compromise of any sort because any "compromise" compromises the bedrock principles of individual freedom and economic liberty that should animate the post Midterm Republican agenda.

Senator Schumer
, reliably, wants a compromise based on the time-honored liberal principle of governance by envy - making fine judgments about how much money any citizen should retain. People making $999.999 should get a tax cut, but those making more should not:

"The American people want us to do a tax cut I really believe the Republican party will not hold middle-class tax cuts hostage to protect tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires."

Senator Mark Warner
,  a more modern Democrat, prefers  dirigiste government. It is not a matter of punishing the successful so much as an abiding faith in the ability of legislators and bureaucrats to direct how best private actors in the economy should invest:

"The problem with the two-year extension is -- I'm new in the Senate but most of these contrary extensions have a tendency to end up becoming permanent and most economists would say given folks like me an additional tax cut might not be the best value. So I say how can we use dollar for dollar the revenue we take for a two-year extension on the top 2% and use it for targeted business tax cuts to get parts of the literally $2 trillion in cash sitting on the side lines on the business balance sheets back investing in the economy."
Both are equally wrong, and both should be ignored by newly-energized Republicans who claim they understand the message of the Midterms.

The debates over extension of the Bush tax cuts, ironically, can help Republicans do what Bush rarely managed to do himself - embrace and articulate clear, unambiguous principle.

There should be no compromise of any sort because any "compromise" compromises the bedrock principles of individual freedom and economic liberty that should animate the post Midterm Republican agenda.

Senator Schumer
, reliably, wants a compromise based on the time-honored liberal principle of governance by envy - making fine judgments about how much money any citizen should retain. People making $999.999 should get a tax cut, but those making more should not:

"The American people want us to do a tax cut I really believe the Republican party will not hold middle-class tax cuts hostage to protect tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires."

Senator Mark Warner
,  a more modern Democrat, prefers  dirigiste government. It is not a matter of punishing the successful so much as an abiding faith in the ability of legislators and bureaucrats to direct how best private actors in the economy should invest:

"The problem with the two-year extension is -- I'm new in the Senate but most of these contrary extensions have a tendency to end up becoming permanent and most economists would say given folks like me an additional tax cut might not be the best value. So I say how can we use dollar for dollar the revenue we take for a two-year extension on the top 2% and use it for targeted business tax cuts to get parts of the literally $2 trillion in cash sitting on the side lines on the business balance sheets back investing in the economy."
Both are equally wrong, and both should be ignored by newly-energized Republicans who claim they understand the message of the Midterms.