Tax Increases or Government Budget Cuts?

As every American knows by now, our country is in drastic trouble; that's an understatement. Yes, I know this is probably the millionth time you've read about how unorganized and unfocused our government is, and I know you have strong opinions about which party is to blame. I, however, truly am unbiased because I believe there is corruption everywhere in the government and too much corporate money levying our politicians. The New York Times featured an article reporting that Republicans are at fault for keeping our government and economy in a rut. The writer argues that Obama has, "given the supercommittee a clear blueprint for $3.6 trillion in deficit reduction through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich. If the committee followed even half of that program, it could exceed its original mandate, wrap up its work quickly and accomplish a great deal." (NY Times 1) The supercommittee they write of is a new committee which the Republicans have formed to brainstorm budget cuts that are supposed to save the economy; all the while leaving out tax cuts.

I agree with the author that Republicans are not resolving the economy by not compromising with Democrats, because that is what our government leaders should be able to do. On the other hand, I know the author feels strongly about the Democrat's tax increases on the rich and budget cuts across the board, but Republicans have a few logical reasons as to why they don't want tax increases. The author correctly observed that Republicans who oppose tax increases on the rich are not for the American people, but I doubt the author thought of how the Democrats would keep tax increases over the next decade if they held Congress. Is it wrong to increase taxes? Yes and no. The opposing argument I acknowledge is our country is dying and more tax revenue from the wealthy would help, but when would the taxing end? Can we trust Democrats or even Republicans to reduce taxes later? I don't want to entertain the idea of having 40-60% of each dollar I earn go to taxes. 

As Republicans fight for only budget cuts, they will soon realize that disproportionate cuts would be forced upon military spending, which is their main program of choice to keep a large budget for. The author writes, " If the two sides cannot agree, [Democrats and Republicans] there will be automatic cuts, which largely spare social-welfare programs but would severely reduce military and security spending." and they quote Rep. Howard McKeon saying, "It is my suspicion that the White House and Congressional Democrats insisted on that defense number for one purpose: to force Republicans to choose between raising taxes or gutting defense." How can McKeon blame the White House and Congressional Democrats for cornering Republicans when Republicans box in Democrats? The author is correctly identifying the outcome of the supercommittee's stubbornness. The author of this article clearly cheers on Obama and his will behind his proposed recovery plan and argues with mostly facts.

When they write,

    

     "The committee has only one option, Speaker John Boehner said a few days ago: cutting domestic spending and social-insurance programs, including Medicare and Social Security. Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the co-chairman of the committee, said the president’s plan was “undermining the work” of the group.

     The opposite is true. Mr. Obama identified $570 billion in detailed cuts to mandatory spending programs over 10 years. If committee members actually looked at the plan, instead of dismissing it, they would find scores of useful proposals for savings: $31 billion in agriculture subsidies; $18.6 billion in Postal Service reform, including ending Saturday delivery; $27.5 billion in increased fees charged to lenders by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $42.5 billion in higher health premiums and pension contributions for federal and military workers; $135 billion in less generous Medicare payments to drug makers."

The detailed cuts Obama proposed is true and the argument that if committee members looked at the proposal and recognized its potential, our economy could have a fighting chance is logical. Their obvious Democratic stand is not easy to find flaws with, but as with any argument there is another side. In conclusion, I find this author refreshingly calm and logical with their argument.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/the-supercommittees-stark-choice.html?ref=editorials