Rhetoric in Real Life: Sarah Palin and the Bush Tax Cuts

I believe I've hit on this before, but if a particular piece of legislation is scheduled to end, then it is not permanent. Further, if that particular piece of legislation was a non-permanent reduction of a certain number, then, when that legislation ends, the reduction will cease to be in effect and thus, the "original" number will be reinstated, not established. So, not creating new legislation that would maintain the current reduction would not seem to be an increase or "hike". According to her tweet on the eve of the congressional debate, Sarah Palin thinks differently. What is of notice is that she initially, using a non-loaded adjective, refers to the issue as the "tax changes". I gather from this that she views it as only her opinion, of which she entreaties her readers to agree with, that they are "hikes".

Sidenote: who is she tweeting to? I don't think the public has a say in the debate that is taking place this morning, as it is up to our elected officials to decide. So do our representatives read the tweets of ex-governors who quit in the middle of their term to professionally campaign, give speeches across the nation (including one at a private Christian primary school in Pennsylvania?), "write" two books, go on national book tours for both of those books, be a remunerated guest on Fox News, and have his or her family star in an 8-episode reality cable-tv show?

McCain

On Meet the Press two Sundays ago, they played a clip from 2004 where Senator John McCain is saying the exact same thing, in regard to the Bush Tax Cuts, as Obama is saying now (viz. to not extend the tax cuts for the top 5% or so). McCain defends his own discord by saying that those were different economic times than now and that we shouldn't raise the taxes on anyone when in a recession.

What he meant to say is that him saying what he said in 2004 helped him out politically, and that what he says now, which is in opposition to his 2004 view, helps him out politically (because it is against Obama). Take a look at Stewart's onslaught of McCain flip-flops here. I can't seem to find it, but Stewart also has a shocking clip where McCain mentions that "the system is broken" and "Washington needs changed" about 15 times over the course of 1992-2010. It's sickening really; A politician can spout the same empty phrase over and over and continue to get reelected. McCain is more concerned with reelection than having his stay in Washington, however lengthy it is, be valuable to the American people. If the system does need fixed, perhaps we should have a new senator from AZ. in office...

Rhetoric in Real Life: Bush Tax Cuts

The Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003 and gave tax cuts to most of the tax brackets. The legislation terminates here shortly and, given our economic thin ice, it is a hot-button issue. Because this is only a temporary law, if nothing is done, the tax percentages will go back up to their 2002 levels. Those in favor of reinstating/upholding/maintaining the Bush tax cuts argue that, in more or less words, we should not raise taxes for small business owners or rather, employers. First, it is not “raising” taxes when there is an established law maintaining it at that level and the current numbers are only where they are for a determined number of years. And secondly, there is no daggum way that “small business owners” are those populating the top 5%.

But when people argue in favor of the tax cuts, and use this language, it sounds as if Obama’s administration is tying the hands of small mom and pop stores all over America. And of course that sounds horrendous!

A more convincing argument that side invokes is that we shouldn’t increase the taxes on those who provide jobs, because they won’t have the money to hire people. This is true, but again, misleading. The owners of companies are not the companies. Companies hire people, private individuals do not. Thus, this argument only supports the capital gains tax portion of this law, not the top-earning brackets of individuals.

On another aspect, the owner’s salary has a minimal effect on the profit of the company; typically, the big CEOs do not have ridiculous salaries. It is the bonuses, which are given from the company to the owner (a private person) that are the biggest deal. So really, saying that we shouldn’t tax the employers is a backward way of saying that the richest should get a tax break so they get bigger bonuses too. Of course, I understand that I’m conflating the top-earners with the CEOs (employers), but if this isn’t the case, then the opposing argument is even more faulty.