By Tim Redmond
The NY Times today has it about right on tax policy: The Democrats are ducking for cover while Bush continues to demand that his insane tax cuts be made permanent. Lyndon Johnson was forced to recognize in the 1960s that he couldn't have both a Great Society and the Vietnam War at the same time without figuring out how to pay for it all, but back then, it wasn't considered political suicide to raise taxes on the rich. (Let's remember: Even under RIchard Nixon, the top tax rate for the very very rich reached 80 percent. Today it's 34 percent.)
At some point, Nancy Pelosi, as the speaker, is going to have to make a choice: Start to cut spending on the war -- by a lot -- or talk about at the very least repealing the Bush tax cuts.
Of course, the third choice (and perhaps the most likely) is to continue to duck, continue to go into debt, continue to screw up the economy and continue to burden our kids with the results of our greed, fear and stupidity. Nancy?
Most Commented On
- That seriously angry troll - December 5, 2013
- Hot sexy events: transman awardwinners and vibrator art - December 5, 2013
- Time to enforce the law - December 5, 2013
- I've noticed that bike lanes are sometimes poorly-lit and - December 4, 2013
- In defense of being a d*ck - December 4, 2013
- Meth YES, Sewage disposal NO - December 4, 2013
- I see. Well, judging from the - December 4, 2013
- You can't eat art - December 4, 2013
- Because only tech workers - December 4, 2013
- You watch the 6 o'clock news? - December 4, 2013