Bill Scher
Published: Sunday 29 July 2012
“There’s the 2010 bipartisan tax cut deal, which, in exchange for additional middle-class tax cuts and jobless aid, extended the Bush tax cuts until the end of 2012.”

Romney: Protecting the Rich is More Important than Deficit Reduction

Article image

On CNBC yesterday, Mitt Romney said:

What the president should do is say look, we're going to extend for at least a year the--well, I'd like to see it permanent, but at least a year--the current tax environment. This sequestration related to defense spending, in particular, has to be put off ... whichever president is going to be elected, at least six months or a year to get those policies in place. So let's extend where we are now as opposed to looking at a cliff in January...

Let's remember what this "cliff" is. It's a two-fold bipartisan agreement.

There's the 2010 bipartisan tax cut deal, which, in exchange for additional middle-class tax cuts and jobless aid, extended the Bush tax cuts until the end of 2012.

And the 2011 bipartisan debt limit deal, which, if no deficit reduction agreement is struck, imposes automatic spending cuts, particularly on the military budget, at the end of the 2012.

The latter deal was made with the clear understanding on all sides that it would put pressure on Republicans to give up their absolutist position opposing any tax increase for the wealthy. Continued Republican obstructionism means deep cuts to another one of their priorities: military spending.

Romney's response to this hard bipartisan bargain in the name of deficit reduction, a policy which Romney argues is essential to prevent America's decline?

Junk it.

Because anything that would change the "current tax environment" so cherished by the most selfish of the 1%, even if it would help achieve Romney's own stated goal of a "balanced budget within eight to 10 years," should be verboten.

Romney is making his priorities clear. We should pay attention.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange

Top Stories

14 comments on "Romney: Protecting the Rich is More Important than Deficit Reduction"

belleville

July 30, 2012 10:24am

The only thing that has "Trikled Down" in the last 30 years was from a dog on the roof of Romney's car. We need to demand they change the Tax Code to what it was in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, & early 80's. In the Good Ole Days we had many more Tax Brackets in order to reach all range of income, and we had a Top Marginal Rate of 70%, or 80%, or even 90%. These were the days when the economy was strong, everyone had a job, and the rich didn't own a Political Party, like they do today. We have to vote every Republican out of Congress and get this country back on track.

jon02794

July 30, 2012 9:49am

IT IS NOT A FISCAL CLIFF. It is the way things were back when we had a Middle class. It is a shame that the Democratic Liberals have to push for going to the past times prior to the Bush era. The Republican Conservative solution is: Staying where we have been for the last 10 years; War, Hate, Fear and Pessimism ( opposite of Hope and Change ); The Rich getting richer and everyone else getting poorer; Negect and Sabotage of the Education, Health and Environmental systems in the name of lowered "Spending" ( running the country ) ; Disdain for "We the People" and "The Greater Good"

jon02794

July 30, 2012 9:33am

I WILL BE *GLAD* TO PAY MY FAIR SHARE OF THE CLIFF TAX SO THAT THE RICH GET TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. PLEASE, DEMOCRATS, DO NOT LET THEM OFF THE HOOK. WE NEED TO GET OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THE PLUTRARCHS.

jon02794

July 30, 2012 9:29am

TAX THE RICH OVER THE CLIFF

labman57

July 29, 2012 6:10pm

There is simply no data to support the supposition that providing disproportionately huge tax cuts for the top 2% of the wealthiest people results in job creation or other significant economic growth.

Enter the Congressional Republican think tank: since the currently provided huge tax breaks for the wealthy clearly have had no stimulating effect on job growth, let's conclude that we need to further extend said tax cuts indefinitely in order to stimulate job growth.

In reality, the only result that the GOP truly expects is the one that will occur -- the rich will get richer at the expense of everyone else.

Suggestions that tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy will stimulate job growth is simply their cover, their disingenuous talking point designed to try to sell their Reaganomic bill of goods to the public. Ultra-wealthy Americans made a major investment in the Republican Party during the 2010 mid-term elections. The GOP is simply carrying out the job for which they have been duly paid.

Fiscal conservatives are primarily interested in two outcomes:
1) Increasing the income divide between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of society
2) Increasing profit margins for corporations via lowered taxes and minimized environmental and workplace regulations

Reducing unemployment is a secondary issue -- if said corporations opt to use their increased profits to hire additional employees, that's their prerogative.

Alas, historical evidence overwhelming demonstrates that increased corporate profits do not translate into increased hiring -- increased demand for goods and services does.

And, of course, increased demand requires increased purchasing power by that subset of society which does the majority of the purchasing, i.e., the middle class.

Don't pee on my shoe and call it trickle-down economics.

Markgm

July 29, 2012 6:02pm

There are two groups being entertained by this... One includes the CFR, half of which is defense contractor executives (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, GE, Raytheon). These people provide funding and write the foreign policy scripts for congress. The other is the Rothschild banksters, which I think you will find own all of Israel, which is effectively a surrogate nation of theirs, conceived 250 years ago by Mayer Rothschild and originally formally scripted in 1898.

These are the two biggest problems in America today. One is lobbying, which began in the Ford administration, and which, in the name of corporations "being able to have a say about government", has effectively turned the US into a country where the most money has the most voting power. The most radical extension of this is the 501c type PAC, which can receive any size donations and nobody knows who it is. Dollars are the new votes.

The other is the private central money supply. I think you will find that the US Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank that lends 99.7% of all US money to the US, which must be paid back with interest and printing fees. You will also find that congressional investigations in 1976 and 1983 showed this bank to be a line item in relation to the N M Rothschild bank of England.

These are the two biggest problems. The banksters are being and have been fought by Ron Paul for 30 years, and the matter went to the house floor on the 25th, but I have to go check what happened. The other is LOBBYING - and corporate America, whose offices aren't even in America anymore, is using money to tell the US federal government what to do. Well, the bigger they are, the harder they fall, and LOBBYING/PACs is it's name. The American people need to have a revolution against what is destroying it in virtually every industry today, such as defense, agriculture, oil, metals, you name it - every industry, and it is against LOBBYISTS (period).

I think Romney is really serving these kinds of interests most unabashedly. AIPAC is big money in the US and Israel wants the US to conduct a couple more wars in the ME (Syria and Iran). For the past 16 months NATO and CIA-led armed men have been flowing into Syria from Turkey, Jordan and even Lebanon, funded by US taxpayer dollars to say the least... Find Wesley Clark from 2007 on video... They were given orders to attack "7 countries in 5 years". Find John Perkins, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" to understand the model of US imperialism from 1953 to the present day.

Cheers, Mark

Richard Cottingham

July 29, 2012 1:53pm

When is the media going to quit calling what Romney and the Republicans are working toward Deficit Reduction? When is it going to be called by its rightful name, Defunding the government so the rich can get richer and bigots can exercise their prejudiced practices without interference from a government too weak to do anything?

Why do pundits and authors keep pretending that tea-partiers and other working class whites give a damn about small government on some principal of individual or states rights? The reason the extreme right appeals to the working class whites who make up the Tea Party and similar groups is because they believe that a smaller government will let the benefits of the Civil rights Act and the voting rights Act be taken away resulting in a rfeturn to Jim Crow era values.

datdemdar

July 29, 2012 12:30pm

The Grandest Weasel wants to be the savior of the USA?

Woe to the people who unleash this rich asshole upon the masses and shame to the misguided who voted him in.

That is unless you're a rich asshole too. Then rejoice: you can continue to completely avoid paying your proper share of taxes.

jon02794

July 29, 2012 11:36am

The right thing to do is to TAX THE RICH OVER THE FISCAL CLIFF in 2013.
The middle class and the poor are already screwed. The RICH should pay their share toward running this country.

larronm

July 29, 2012 11:17am

With so much unaccountable money in the system, it is conceivable that Mr. Romney could actually win. In fact, the level of understanding which so many voters lack is disheartening. In reading "letters -to-the-editor" pieces in 2 newpapers as well as the comments posted on line, it seems that far too many of us fail to grasp what is going on and how the system works. That Mr. Romney is and empty suit is a given. That he is the water carrier for the folks on Wall Street is a no brainer. What he actually stands for is an enigma. Nevertheless, he remains tied with the president in most polls. This before the bulk of the PAC money has begun to flow into the race.
While it's easy to say that we deserve the government we get, I wonder if our children and grand-children also deserve such a fate. That a Romney administration with a GOP controlled Congress will bring an end to what we think of as democracy is a forgone conclusion. It is becoming increasingly clear that, to our uninformed brethern, democracy is limited to the "right to vote". It does not seem to matter much that many who are likely to vote in ways objectionable to the elite are increasingly disenfranchised. Those who dare to speak the truth are drowned out by the volume of money on the right. The "main-stream media" are so cowed by the weight of the ad dollars from the PACs and right wing dominated corporations that they fail to point out lies and falsehoods and simply quote "he said, she said" comments as though that constituted fair and balanced journalism.
While I am not one to promote other peoples work, I think it important to suggest that readers of this blog make it a point to read the well written and insightful work of Christopher Hayes, "Twilight of The Elites: America After Meritocracy". The decline of our once great nation appears to be upon us. If we fail to see the signs or fail to act upon them, the consequences are all but inevitable. It is time for Progressives to stand up and be heard.

Markgm

July 29, 2012 6:19pm

@larronm Hi, I give a bit of a break to Americans at this point, because the MSM and the papers are OWNED. Way too many important stories don't show up on the MSM radar. It's sick. That also means 200+ million Americans sit in front of ABCCBSNBCCNNFOX and won't well know what is going on. For example, I don't see the MSM telling the story of NATO-commanded armed men flowing into Syria for the past 16 months, do you? A good place to start for that would be globalresearch.ca - has good links, also to US sources (articles that are effectively buried, but there).

As long as this is the case, I think the battle for real awareness among American citizens is the front line. The media itself is most often the biggest problem. Like Thomas J said, "A well informed people can run their country well".

But this is a very big country - the sheer size simply has to present it's own issues. I can't tell you much about US health care, because of how many fronts I get busy on and learn about. So much work, and there's no way 315 million people can do all of that. We have largely lost our 1st Amendment representatives. Thanks be to the Internet and may it ever be free.

Cheers, Mark

rnmah

July 29, 2012 10:06am

The republican party is going to go the way of the dodo bird in the future. The main bulk of the gop are white people who are older. blacks and hispanics are the lowest educated and fastest growing segment of our population and the majority between 18 and 24 do not pay income tax. So why would this class vote for a party that would reduce income taxes that they do not pay and cut welfare benefits that they collect. The gop brought this on themselves by allowing mass immigration of immigrants who use benefits and cutting taxes that took millions off the tax payer rolls. I could go on but you get the gist

Ronni85

July 29, 2012 10:05am

Romney's position has ALWAYS been clear. There is one goal - more and ore tax breaks for the rich!! Let the rest of the country pay for it. He will continue to ship jobs overseas; continue to approve imports that are cheaper than they could be made here; continue to send his money offshore; continue to pay almost nothing in taxes - let WE the PEOPLE pay his share - we don't need a roof over our head, we don't need to send our kids to college, we don't even need to send them to school - he wants to do away with public education.
If the American people elect this jerk-off, they deserve what they get!

Ron in NM

July 29, 2012 7:52pm

How about those of us who didn't vote for this "jerk-off?" We'll probably get him even if we voted for the other guy. Do we deserve what we get?

I can't really enjoy saying "you deserve what you get," or "I told you so," because he'll be my president, if you know what I mean. It's depressing, to say the least, but I think Romney may get elected, because he and his rich backers are buying the smears that have been proven to work. Out here in NM, I see smiling lies every day for Republican party hack Heather Wilson to be elected to the Senate. Karl Rove's money pictures her as "an independent voice," yet when she was in Congress during W's presidency, all he had to do was ask for something, and Heather voted "Yeah, sure, whatever you want, George!" And this is the way things work nowadays. Just repeat the Big Lies enough times and the people will accept it as truth. Say, didn't some Nazi bigwig say that?

I was never a fan of conspiracy theories, but now I'm beginning to wonder if W didn't choose our Chief Justice (Roberts) of the Supreme Court with the understanding he would make a "People United" decision that would enable Republicans to take over our government and rob Social Security and Medicare so they could preserve the low-tax privileges of the 2% at the top.

I'm not a religious man, but I can't help feeling, "God help us "when Romney gets elected, along with more Tea Party ideologues in Congress. There will be no one standing in their way to officially make America a plutocracy.

"All to create jobs (snicker-snicker), of course," says Mitt.