In 2008 I held my nose and voted for him -- at least he was talking a good game. But I'm a Chicagoan, remember -- I know what our politicians are like.
So now, as a "stimulus" measure, he wants to cut taxes again -- the employers' side of payroll taxes.
Targeting the employer side of the payroll tax could both attract Republican support and spur job growth, said Christina Romer, who was Obama’s first chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers.
“A cut in the employer side of the payroll tax could absolutely help accelerate job creation,” Romer, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, said in an interview. “In addition to the usual beneficial effect on demand, this tax cut would make hiring less expensive.”
OK -- the idea being floated is for a "temporary" cut. First off, we know what "temporary" means in Washington when you're talking about tax cuts -- "now and forever." Second, if you take "demand" to mean consumer spending, how does a tax cut for business stimulate that? And as far as stimulating hiring -- no other tax cuts have done that, why should this one -- especially if it's supposed to be temporary? Do they think employers aren't smart enough to figure that in a year or two, payroll taxes won't go back up? (Of course, maybe they are -- since I doubt that payroll taxes will actually return to present levels.)
And of course, Obama has now bought in to the "destroy Social Security" meme long a favorite of Republicans. Since cutting benefits is so unpopular, being a Chicago Democrat he has another angle -- we'll just eliminate the revenue earmarked for Social Security and Medicare. Two birds, one stone.
Elegant, no? Just what you'd expect from a U of C professor.
No comments:
Post a Comment