Will anyone admit that taxes have to rise?
 

While I don't agree with the final statement E.J. Dionne Jr. makes:

The task of those who genuinely care about deficits is to make the world safe for tax increases. Under current conditions, it's a whole lot easier for politicians to talk a lot about deficits, and then just let them grow.

I don't think we should make the world safe for tax increases. That is exactly the wrong thing to do in my opinion.

However I do agree with the sentiment that along party lines, the politicians are not telling the truth. Taxes (for more than just the top 5%) are going to have to be raised. This is the essence of what he is saying.

He says politicians (on one side of the aisle mostly) are not willing to commit political suicide and actually tell the truth about taxes needing to go up to cover this amazingly huge debt.

Finally, as he asks the question:

Will anyone admit that taxes have to rise?

Obviously he is aiming at the majority, most conservatives and some democrats are already saying that the budget deficit will require higher taxes OR that there is too much spending.

From the Washington Post -

washingtonpost.com

Deficit Dodge Ball
Will Anyone Admit That Taxes Have to Rise?

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Thursday, March 26, 2009; A21



The debate on the budget is phony, the howling on deficits a charade. Few politicians want to acknowledge that if you really are concerned about long-term deficits, you have to support tax increases.

That's why the most significant moment of President Obama's news conference on Tuesday was not his dodge of a question on AIG but his defense of the least popular tax increase in his budget: limits on the benefits wealthier taxpayers get for their charitable contributions and mortgage payments.

It has been a long time since a president was willing to defend raising taxes. You have to go back to Bill Clinton and his 1993 budget. The consequences for Democrats who voted for that budget -- no Republicans did -- were grave. Republicans swept the 1994 elections and held on to the House for 12 years. No wonder politicians are so phobic about taxes.
Obama himself is going only part of the way on tax increases. He is still arguing that he can fix things with hikes on just the top 5 percent of taxpayers.

He's right that a large share of any increase should hit those who enjoyed the biggest income gains over the past decade. But in the end, no politician (with the possible exception of libertarian Ron Paul) is willing to cut the budget enough to contain the deficit without a general tax increase down the road.

Every budget analyst knows this, and every politician knows that it's far easier to bemoan deficits in the abstract than to risk spending cuts or tax increases that hurt sizable groups of voters. "There are no more low-hanging fruit," says Tom Kahn, the staff director for the House Budget Committee. "The low-hanging fruit have already been picked. Any tax increase or spending cut is going to trigger opposition from somewhere."
In an ideal world, Obama would come right out and say we'll need broad-based tax increases. But that would be suicidal right now. Witness the reaction to his effort to put a 28 percent ceiling on deductions. His proposal would affect only 1.2 percent of taxpayers, yet even that idea seems to be dying in Congress.

Obama's proposal is based on a sound intuition: Do we really believe it's fair that when a married couple with a taxable income of $50,000 gives $1,000 to charity, they get a tax benefit of $150, while a couple earning $1 million making exactly the same contribution gets back $350? Is it fair that the higher-income couple also gets a bigger tax advantage on their mortgage payments?

The value of the deductions is currently worth more to the higher-income couple because they pay taxes at a higher rate. Obama wouldn't even close the whole gap. Applied to this example, his 28 percent cap would still let the wealthier couple deduct $280.

Yet even this modest effort to raise money to pay for health-care reform is falling under a hail of fire from those who say the president wants to hurt private charities. Obama was quite right when he said at his news conference that the effect of this change on charitable giving would be small: Using 2007 figures, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Obama's change would reduce charitable contributions only marginally -- from $306 billion to $302 billion.

Is that too much for nonprofits to give up so the country can cover the costs of health care for the needy? The truth is that the opponents of making any changes in the amount the wealthy can deduct are using solicitude for the private charities to kill the whole plan.

Fine, kill it. But then, how else will we pay for health-care reform? Obama's across-the-board limits on itemized deductions would raise $318 billion over 10 years. Does anyone have a less painful way to raise that much money?

The larger problem is the emptiness of all the howling over the long-term deficits. Nibbling away at bits of Obama's proposed budget will do very little about them. Talk of "entitlement reform" is empty unless we have health-care reform -- and unless we acknowledge that we will never cut Medicare and Social Security enough to close the budget gap. In fact, Social Security is more important than ever, now that the value of so many 401(k)s has plummeted.

The task of those who genuinely care about deficits is to make the world safe for tax increases. Under current conditions, it's a whole lot easier for politicians to talk a lot about deficits, and then just let them grow.

not necessarily, spending has to stop :)

:iagree: you're on fire today.

When I stop hearing about people who have stopped paying their mortgages and getting a pass or free refi because they can't afford it, then maybe, but I'm sick and tired of being one of the few who pays his mortgage on time, doesn't have any cc debt and has a good credit rating, yet, there are jokers out there who can't afford 1/10th of their mortgage payment, have cc debt up the wazzoooo and are getting a free ride or assistance with my tax money.

Eff them. I don't work 70 hour weeks to support the lazy and mentally challenged.

Gresch;

Just a thought........

I don't believe you're one of the few who pays his mortgage on time, doesn't have any
cc debt and has a good credit rating. There are a "LOT" of people like you who live their
lives in a financially balanced way but we don't make news. Instead
we stand on the sidelines, watch the news and grit out teeth.

Although responsible people clearly out number the offenders
I do believe that there are just enough (as you put it)
jokers out there who continue to game the system for their own
economic gain and they get all the attention (Media coverage) because of their bad deeds.

I agree that getting a free ride or assistance with tax money or any financial reward for
mismanagement of their financial lives is upsetting for sure. And I don't believe the
so called big wigs have an answer for the whole financial meltdown.
But one thing I am assured of is that what goes around really does
come around and in the end people get what's coming to them.

Keep living and keep watching my friend. I've seen it many times.
The wicked may seem to be on top but it doesn't last. Sooner or later
we get to watch them fall and this is no exception.

Granted, I might have exaggerated on the "one of the few", but it's due to the constant barrage of stories in the media about those who I spoke about, and it's not just the media, I was out to dinner last night with friends, and every single one had stories about people they knew first hand (including family members!) who were "gameing the system" and it infuriated me.

Regardless of my exaggeration, which wasn't the point, there are an incredible amount of people out there who are as or more than repsonsible for putting the county in the mess that it's in now, and I'm not talking about the bankers.

It sickens me. Some people play by the rules, others don't, the cheaters screw the economy and wind up getting a pass! while people who play by the rules pay for the losers mistakes.


Friggin disgusting.

I'm with you, it kills me that cheats and bumblers can end up getting a free ride.

There are lots of stories of them lining up now to get on the gravy train. They don't care what they signed up for or committed to - just get somethign for free.

Playing by the rules is the only way I know how to go. I'm more than willing to pay my taxes if it seems fair and I think I pay loads.

That's why I pay so much attention to gov't spending - I'll pay but come on, let's cut out the wasteful spending, cheaters and get the bumblers on the right track by getting them off the dole.

For those that really need help and can't do for themselves, I'm more than willing to help them too, through taxes and my own charitable contributions.

I'm ok with taxes rising, just not mine