Fair & Balanced Tax Cuts
Topic: Dittohead Dogma
This is part of an editorial in today's Sacramento Bee---

Editorial: Shared sacrifice? Nope, Robin Hood in reverse

Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, June 12, 2005
George W. Bush said in the 2000 presidential campaign that the majority of his proposed tax cuts would go to the "bottom end of the spectrum." And the president has said of his tax cuts, passed by Congress in 2001, 2002 and 2003: "Everyone who pays income taxes benefits - while the highest percentage tax cuts go to the lowest income Americans."
A chart in the June 5 issue of the New York Times shows just how false his statements have been. Bush's three rounds of tax cuts have gone to the highest-income households at a time when income has become more and more concentrated at the top.


This has had serious consequences for the nation.
The Bush tax cuts have contributed to a dramatic drop in tax revenues as a portion of the U.S. economy. Where revenues typically have been 17 percent to 20 percent of the economy, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2004 they were 16.3 percent - the lowest level since 1950. That makes it more difficult to pay for government services, including the ongoing war in Iraq.

In short, the Bush tax cuts have had the effect of turning budget surpluses into huge deficits. And the greatest share of tax cuts have gone to those who need them least.

Just look at the people at the top of the income scale, the 145,000 Americans who make more than $1.6 million a year. Those 145,000 taxpayers have received 15.2 percent of the Bush tax cuts.

Then look at the 116 million people making less than $44,000 a year. They received just 15.1 percent of Bush's tax cuts.

For that bottom 60 percent of Americans, the average tax cut was $328 - 90 cents a day. In contrast, the average tax cut for the 0.1 percent making over $1.6 million a year was $195,762; that's $536 a day.

====================================
While Richard Nixon will always be remembered for Watergate, many people have forgotten that fiscally, he was faced with one of the greatest challenges since FDR!

What he did in 1971 would be considered subversive communism by today's dittoheads, and as George the Second continues to plunge this country into dire straits whilst the Democrats sit quietly like lap dogs, Amerikkka is in abject need of another economic visionary as the 37th president, but the rabid partisianship now dividing this country will never let another fiscally responsible person into the White House.

The forecast for the future???

Look for the sun to also set on the american empire.