Making Tax Cuts Permanent…?
I ran across this little tidbit at HotAir tonight when browsing around the World Wide Web…
Today, on SFGate (the home of the San Francisco Chronicle), there was an article about Pelosi stating that, basically, Californians are idiots and they have no clue what they’re voting for. Seems that she disagrees with them passing Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage. Whatever. I rather think that there’s a few people out there who actually wanted it passed, because they don’t agree with gay marriage.
But that’s not the interesting thing that she stated. Here’s a direct copy/paste from the story, with my own emphasis added:
Whether it succeeds or fails, Democrats and Obama are planning, after he takes office in January, a stimulus plan that could be even bigger. Pelosi said the details are still being debated, but she is pushing for a tax cut for the middle class.
“We did the stimulus package with rebates (in February). … It had a good effect, I think,” she said. “I think a permanent tax cut would have an even stronger impact on the economy.”
Obama echoed Pelosi’s remarks on the stimulus plan at his first post-election news conference in Chicago Friday, urging lawmakers and President Bush to approve the bill now. He said, “If it does not get done in the lame-duck session, it will be the first thing I get done as president of the United States.”
Hmmm… That’s, er, interesting.
Yes, yes, I know. I’m ignoring that Obama said the stimulus plan would be the first thing he gets done as president, considering the fact that he’s already promised Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.
Oh, you don’t believe me? Why then, why don’t you hear it straight from the horse’s mouth? It’s near the end…
No, the point that I’m trying to make here is what Pelosi said about tax cuts. I find it extremely interesting that she would say that we need to make tax cuts permanent. Why do I find that interesting? Watch this. (Sorry I can’t embed that video. I’d like to, but CBS doesn’t allow it).
Anyway, in it, Bush says this:
Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent.
If you watch carefully, the room is divided in half–one side is made up of Republicans and one side is made up of Democrats.
Watch it carefully (I can’t stress this enough).
After he says “and make the tax cuts permanent,” can you tell which side is applauding? Nay, they aren’t just applauding, they are on their feet applauding. The other side? Not a one even claps their hands.
President Bush isn’t talking about the tax cuts on the wealthy. How do I know that? Because those are already in the current tax code, until Obama gets in office and he can change the tax code. Nope, President Bush is talking about the temporary tax relief that he’s given the middle class. It expires in 2011, just one year shy of the end of Obama’s first four-year reign. Assuming he gets another four years, but you understand what I’m saying.
President Bush urged Congress to make the temporary tax relief permanent on January 31, 2006. Not a single Democrat applauded at the thought. In fact, if you could find a large enough copy of this video anywhere, you could probably fairly easily see Democrats scoffing at the idea. Some you could probably tell by the look on their faces that the very idea is absurd.
He even did it again in June of this year:
Yet, today, November 7, 2008, here we have Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. A DEMOCRAT. And she’s saying that we need to make the tax cuts permanent?
Where was she in 2006 when President Bush urged Congress to do just that? She was the House Minority Leader until 2007, so she wasn’t just some nobody who couldn’t do anything. But she WAS the Speaker of the House this year whenever he asked Congress–again–to make those tax cuts permanent. Again, we’re talking about the temporary tax cuts that expire in 2011.
So, why the change in attitude now? Surely it can’t be because of Obama… Surely not.
(And yes, before you ask, I am ignoring him asking about re-instating the line-item veto, much like I discussed over here in this thread, whenever I responded to a comment made by a reader.)
