(This is a re-post of a letter written by Dave Girves. You can always find his blog in Buster's Links. Dave regularly writes some great letters to the editor, but our weenie newspaper rarely has the nerve to print them. I particularly like this one, so here it is. Well said, Dave!)
________________________________________________
Letters to the Editor
Columbus Dispatch
In his Friday
letter, “Soaking the wealthy won’t eliminate the debt”, Michael Rice objects to
the term "obstructionists" when referring to congressional Republicans. He asks
“What major piece of legislation [did] President Obama want that he failed to have
passed?”
In August, 2011 he
proposed The American Jobs Act to put more people back to work, even though his
policies had already generated tens of thousands of new jobs every month for
more than 30 straight months. That piece of legislation failed to pass.
Because of obstructionist congressional Republicans that piece of legislation
hasn’t even been discussed. The Republican head of the Senate even admitted,
out loud, that their primary objective was to limit Obama to one term, not to do
something about jobs.
During the debate
last year to allow our country to pay its bills, the obstructionist
congressional Republicans refused to consider asking millionaires to pay one
cent more in taxes, causing our country’s credit rating to be reduced for the
first time in history, leading to the impending fiscal cliff. The President
wasn’t proposing to soak the wealthy then and he isn’t now. All he wants is to
allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, just as President Bush had intended them
to.
The wealthy would
see their top marginal rate, the rate they pay just on the income they earn over
$250,000, return to 39.6%. That was the rate they paid under Clinton and they
weren’t complaining about being soaked then. Under Republican President
Eisenhower, with full employment and a good economy, the top marginal tax rate
was 91%, well over twice what Obama is proposing, and no one was complaining
about being soaked then either.
Dave
Girves
No comments:
Post a Comment