And why are they not being called on it by the “journalists” they spew this nonsense to:
Republican Senate Minority Whip John Kyl was hammered by Democrats earlier this week for backing extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy – and insisting they need not be paid for.
Now Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (pictured) is backing up Kyl’s position.
“That’s been the majority Republican view for some time,” McConnell told TPMDC. “That there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”
McConnell’s argument is that even though the government would be forgoing hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue by extending the tax cuts on relatively wealthy Americans, that loss will be more than offset by the growth spurred by keeping the money in taxpayers’ pockets. (The Obama administration wants to extend the cuts for Americans making less than $200,000 or $250,000 but let them lapse for those making more than that.)
WTF is he talking about? That just makes no sense whatsoever. None. Zero. One of the main justifications of the tax cuts back in 2001 was that the surplus was too large and we didn’t want the government having to reinvest or have too much money, so we would cut taxes so the government would have less money and give it back to “the people who earned it.” Now McConnell says that despite the fact that there is several trillion dollars less in the government cofferes because of the tax cuts, those tax cuts bring in more revenue. So why did the surplus not increase?
How do they get away with this shit? Any journalist who doesn’t laugh in the face of someone spewing this nonsense should go home, rip up their j-school diploma, and then do the honorable thing.