Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning OrphanWorksActof 2008

[Jon Pruente]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:45 AM, lowell <lowell at kc.rr.com> wrote:
> Could we see some of these facts and their sources, instead of saying "I
> know the facts and you don't!" without proving it?

Ten myths of the Bush tax cuts -
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm
Summary of 2006 tax data - http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

When I go back to look, my numbers may be a bit off, but my points still stand.

> administration genuflected to their holy-of-holies (free market laissez
> faire no matter what the current reality may be) and dramatically cut the
> tax *rates* of the upper bracket incomes (the ONLY ones who pay taxes, if I
> understand you correctly) knowing this would drastically reduce tax
> *revenue*.  The motive driving this on-the-face-of-it foolish action  had

Nope, I never said the tax cuts were for the rich only.  The lower
brackets accounted for quite a lot of the tax relief from the Bush tax
cuts, even if the Democrats want to play like it isn't true.

> voters agree with this, we'll rig it this way: eliminate its sources of
> revenue (EVERYONE will vote to cut his own taxes, no matter what), keep
> spending like there's no tomorrow (EVERYONE likes it when congressman Billie
> Bob brings in the big bucks to his district), and force it to collapse under
> its own beyond-payable debt. Thus far they appear to be doing a pretty good
> job of following this strategy.

Cutting taxes that are too high will encourage people to engage in
those even more once the tax burden is lowered.  There is a point of
diminishing returns for cutting taxes, but there is also a point on
the side of increasing taxes.  Increasing taxes works in the short
term until people move their investments away from those taxed
situations and into less burdensome ones.

You agree with me and Jeremy that massive spending is a problem.
That's good.  I'd also like to point out that I liked reading the
clear and reasoned posts by Matthew Coppel.  I don't agree with all he
had to say, but he said it well, and clearly, and didn't attack anyone
in doing so.

Jon.

P.S. I'm still waiting on Jeffery to send up some data or links for
his position.  If he doesn't, he gets written off as a Kool-Aide
toe-er of the line in my book.  That's not particularly bad, though.
It gives me a point of reference, like it has for Luke, who (no
offense) has made it clear that he's an avowed Catholic.  I know to
think about that when I read his replies on certain issues.