It doesn’t appear that the deficit cutting proposals from the Deficit Commission’s leadership of Erskine Bowls and Alan Simpson will be accepted by the rest of the commission. Members of both parties have issues with different aspects of the plan. Note, you can view the original NPR article here.
Just as Daily Camera columnist Clay Evans predicted (although I can’t find the article on the Daily Camera website) the major players don’t want to play. (note: admitting Clay has a valid point is more painful than a tax increase).
Erika Stutzman, the editorial page editor also chimes in today. Ignoring the factual error that this is the recommendation of the bi-partisan deficit commission, it isn’t, she also elects to only criticize objections to increasing taxes (or letting tax cuts expire) and ignores the Democratic/Progressive objections to cuts in Medicare and Social Security.
I don’t know if raising taxes will increase revenue or not. As I remember Clay, as Erika is, are both absolutely certain it will. Personally, I expect people to take evasive action but that’s only me. However, I am more certain it won’t raise the $700 billion that she implies. What concerns me is the following:
If the taxes are increased as suggested by the Commission leadership, Erika and Clay, how will you guarantee they will be used to decrease the deficit instead of used to fund electric cars, solar panels, windmills fighting global warming and your other pet projects looking for handouts from the Federal government? Personally, I’m for making hard choices and as hard as it is to believe, would perhaps consider the tax increases (or not renewing the tax cuts, let’s not get into a semantics deal here) IF you can convince me that the funds will be used to reduce the deficit. You have a lot of convincing to do.
