The serious argument is that politics don't affect economic reality. But no one would understand that.
Quote of note:
Tax increases -- more accurately, undoing the reckless tax cuts that account for a good portion of the current constraints -- are, unfortunately, off the political table.
That is unacceptable.
Were I arguing the Democratic case I'd remind folks we're at war, and we all much make sacrifices in such times. The middle and lower class are sacrificing their lives and their childrens' lives, their financial well-being...I would go so far as to say their critical intelligence but I don't think that would fly. But we know what the lower and middle classes are sacrificing.
What sacrifice is being offered by the wealthy?
Because they own so much of the USofA they benefit more from its safety and should be willing to pay for that protection.
Anyway...
Remember the Poor
Monday, February 7, 2005; Page A20
BETWEEN 2000 and 2003, the number of people living in poverty rose 14 percent. In 2003, the most recent year for which numbers are available, one out of every eight Americans was poor, a disproportionate number of them children. The number without health insurance was the highest on record; more Americans went hungry. The poorest fell further below the poverty line while the richest took home a greater share of national income than ever.
We recite these depressing numbers today, as President Bush prepares to unveil his fiscal 2006 budget, because budgets are not only dry, fact-choked documents but a measure of the national character. These are the budgetary times that try the nation's soul: tax cuts that have drained the available revenue; a deficit that demands austerity; a war on terrorism, at home and abroad, that requires resources to keep the country safe. In the face of this unhappy fiscal reality, the risk is that the budget ax will fall most heavily on the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, those with the greatest need for government help but the smallest voice in the corridors of power.
