Ruth Marcus: The shifting line on tax cuts - The Washington Post
"Ruth Marcus: The shifting line on tax cuts"
"Memories are short, which is lucky for politicians. Consider the current debate over letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, and the largely forgotten rationale for cutting taxes in the first place.
Hint: It wasn’t because rates were too high. It was because the surplus was too big.
Yes, too big.
President George W. Bush laid out this reasoning in his first address to Congress, in February 2001. “Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree,” he said, vowing to eliminate $2 trillion in debt over the next decade.
Likewise, he said, the nation, like “any prudent family,” should have a “contingency fund” for emergencies. And so, Bush assured the nation, he would set aside another sum, nearly $1 trillion over 10 years."
Does this strike a chord?
Does this refute the "one size fits all" attitude on taxes?
As "Recessions cause deficits, deficits don't cause recesssion," does this pinpoint the start of our recession?