I’m not the best at numbers, but I don’t know what William Saletan is going on about:
Dean is in bigger trouble. He wants to repeal all of Bush’s tax cuts; Kerry wants to keep the parts that benefit the middle class….
Part of the problem is that the average middle-class person’s share of the tax cuts, while low, isn’t zero. As Kerry points out, for people with kids, it’s substantial. Another part of the problem, noted by Kerry and Joe Lieberman, is that the middle-class portion of the tax cut was originally pushed by congressional Democrats. But the biggest problem is Dean’s stated reason for repealing that middle-class portion: that he has to do so in order to balance the budget. If the amount of money involved is so small that you don’t need it as a taxpayer, why is it so big that Dean needs it as president?
This question has a simple answer: because the number of households receiving this small amount is very large. It still doesn’t form the bulk of the tax cut, but we’re deep enough in the red that it makes sense to talk about whether these “middle class” tax cuts (vague term - what we’re talking about are taxes on those making near the median income) are something we can afford AND keep Social Security and Medicare funded into the future. Howard Dean may not be the best at making this case, but the dilemma (middle-class tax cuts small or unafforable) isn’t as contradictory as Saletan imagines.
No comments have been added to this post yet.