In the short past, two conservative legends have publicly come out in favor of increasing taxes as a way to increase fairness and help reduce deficits.
One, Ron Paul, has suggested that all subsidiaries, industrial, extractive and agricultural, be abolished and the military be substantially pared down to meet the country”s needs rather than its desires.
The other, Warren Buffett, noted the inequities in the present tax system and the fact that there should be a consideration of ability to pay in establishing rates that reflect an equality of sacrifice amongst taxpayers. The conservative members of the federal legislature do not agree and are holding to their pledge of no tax increases.
I think it is time the American people got some detailed and specific explanations from the “no tax” people as to why the country should not ask its citizens to sacrifice a bit to help recovery.
Why is it best to not increase taxes for those who can afford it and pay less than their subordinates? Just how is it that the claim is made that tax increases cost jobs when more investment capital is available than being demanded?
I would think that conservatives would welcome the opportunity to diffuse a lot of present thought that they are more interested in protecting the very rich than in promoting recovery and job creation.
Perhaps Mitch McConnell”s statement that the whole goal is to prevent Obama”s re-election, and John Boehner”s callous refusal to consider job loss as a factor in reducing spending are the best strategies for the country rather than ideological dictates.
I think the country would be much better off with an improved infrastructure and more jobs, whether private or public really doesn”t mean much as long as we have 9 percent or more unemployment and higher taxes for everyone, including the very rich.
But I would really like to hear the conservatives, again with specifics and details, tell us why these are bad choices.
Guthrie “Guff” Worth
Lakeport
