So, a couple of things have been really bugging me. One of
them is your statement about cutting any programs that would result in
borrowing money from China. OK, but why aren't the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan high on your list? Your running mate tries to draw
parallels between your plan to reduce the top marginal tax rate and
JFK's, but there's a big difference. The top
marginal tax rate when JFK took office was 91%, and it was set that way
to pay down the debt from World War II. Once the debt was paid down
and we began running a surplus, then the top marginal tax rate was
reduced to 70%, then later to 50% during Reagan's first term. That's a
far cry from the 35% that it is now, or even the 40% that it was during
the Clinton-era boom. You see, the problem is that no one in this
country-- no one, not the rich, not the Middle Class, not the poor-- has
paid for the wars in the Middle East. We have now been at war for a
longer period of time than any in U.S. history, yet we did not, as a
nation, raise any revenue to pay for it. Rather, we decreased taxes
during wartime, for the first time in history. I'm not suggesting that a
return to the tax rates of the 1950's is a good solution, but I also
know that, during the 1950's, there was no shortage of entrepreneurs,
rich people did not stop working, and the economy did not come to
a screeching halt because the top marginal tax rate was 90%. I hardly
think that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire-- for everyone-- would
cripple us. Personally, the Bush tax cuts saved me all of $50/month.
You can have it back, with my compliments, if you'll just acknowledge
that paying higher taxes is the responsibility of any nation that
chooses to go to war. Perhaps, had we raised taxes to pay for Iraq and
Afghanistan, there would have been political pressure to end those
conflicts much sooner.
The other thing that's been bothering me
is your statement regarding jobs. You seem to be in favor of creating
jobs at any cost, but I think we can all agree that there are some jobs
that are better left uncreated, even if we disagree on exactly what
those are. I would imagine that you probably do not consider "marijuana grower" to be a job that is worth creating, for instance, although it is undeniable that this
activity does boost the economy in states where it is legal. Now understand that there are many of us who believe that "mountain top removal coal miner" is not a job worth creating, even though it undeniably also boosts the economy in states where it occurs. We have more than sufficient natural gas resources in this
country to eliminate the need for coal as a fuel, so let's please stop
talking about "jobs" as if it is a zero-sum game. We all have things
that we're not willing to give up in order to create jobs-- your
"things" are moral, and my "things" are environmental, but at the end of
the day, we're both unwilling to sacrifice the soul of our nation in
order to create jobs. Besides, you really think that ObamaCare won't
create jobs? There aren't enough health care professionals out there
now to accommodate the number of people who will likely seek health care
once they have insurance. That sounds to me like a market that is
about to boom.
