Fareed Zakaria: Ending Bush Tax Cuts Would Solve Budget Deficit
There are times when the idiocy oozing from the mouths of America's television commentators sickens me.
Consider Fareed Zakaria, who after telling NPR Friday, "CNN is getting smarter," actually said on the program bearing his name two days later that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire "would provide the federal government with $3.9 trillion in revenues over the next decade and basically solve the deficit problem" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
FAREED ZAKARIA: The most important difference between Greece and America is this -- America has many paths to solve its deficit problem. Were it to implement the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Plan, for example, it would instantly give America among the strongest public finances of any rich country.
Were Congress would simply allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, returning rates to where they were under Bill Clinton's presidency, when America created almost 25 million jobs. That one action would provide the federal government with $3.9 trillion in revenues over the next decade and basically solve the deficit problem. We would still face the long-term problem of entitlements, especially health care costs, like every other rich country, but the short and medium-term crisis would be over.
This is the same guy that told NPR Friday, "CNN is getting smarter, and you can feel it in the stories, you can feel it in the depth with which they're covered, the kinds of people in terms of guests who are brought on air, the way in which issues are discussed."
Really?
Well, we currently have a $1.5 trillion deficit. Assuming allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would actually generate $390 billion in extra revenues without having a negative impact on the economy that resulted in lower receipts, the deficit would still be over $1.1 trillion.
It seems to me that either Zakaria doesn't understand simple arithmetic, or he's so in the tank for raising taxes that he's willing to intentionally misrepresent the benefit regardless of the absence of truth.
Whichever it is, this man is clearly unqualified to discuss budget matters on national television.
As he should also recuse himself from foreign policy issues due to his private meetings about such things with President Obama, one has to wonder what Zakaria should be allowed to talk about on his weekly program.
I'd suggest the weather, but he believes carbon dioxide is warming the planet.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Minor nitpick
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 5:59pm.
Just one minor nitpick....
Zakaria is identified as an American Commentator. He's a commentator but there's nothing about him that's American, especially when he was doing his bit about the Constitution recently.
I'd call him a Muslim Commentator or a Foreign Correspondent, but definitely not American.
Just my two cents.
He should just be taken off the air entirely and sent packing.
-Jon
Jon
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:38pm.
Do you know where he got his degree in economics?
rick,
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:47pm.
I'd say he got it out of this.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
He should just be taken off the air entirely and sent packing.
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:44pm.
Yeah, to someplace where there are a lot of camel fleas.
Heck, I'll even help him pack and then drive him to the airport.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Didn't the Bush 'tax cuts'
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:03pm.
Didn't the Bush 'tax cuts' actually INCREASE revenues in the years following it's inception??? But now, if they are eliminated, they will INCREASE revenues too??? This is 'black is white'......'night is day'....'yes is no' thinking, as far as I can tell.
killa 37 - yes, fed tax revenues soared 44% from 2004 thru 2007
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 11:07am.
killa 37 - yes, fed tax revenues soared 44% from 2004 thru 2007.
(;~> gary
we don't even need an accountant*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:08pm.
We don't even need details to know this guy is a liar and an idiot. We have a 14 Trillion deficit RIGHT NOW!! . How is 3.9 trillion total revenue in the next decade even going to make a dent? Of course when you make millions a few dollars shouldn't make a difference. For folks like me, my taxes went up 1-1-11 $50 per month and I make less than $30k a year. People like this idiot want it all to play with, want all of us to be slaves to the government.
Considering that obama is
Submitted by robert108 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:52pm.
Considering that obama is running $1+Trillion deficits a year, $3.9 Trillion won't even come close to doing the job, even if it were true(which it isn't). Higher tax rates take money out of the earning sector, thus killing economic growth to feed his insatiable govt.
Bush tax cuts elimination would raise 60 billion per annum
Submitted by Paarl on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 6:49pm.
provided no change in the economy....maybe a trillion over 12 years....again provided no negative impact on economy
paarl of Rhodesia
He isn't lying or mistating
Submitted by buddyc on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:10pm.
He isn't lying or mistating something he knows is false. He is really that stupid. CNN is populated with people just like him. That is why no one watches CNN. What is sad is that as stupid as this guy is (btw, isn't he suppose to comment on foreign policy??) he is times 10 smarter than POTUS Obama and probably the smartest commentator on CNN.
This comment was dumb even
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:18pm.
This comment was dumb even for a Leftist. Does his audience really buy this?
Is the addition of Joy Behar to HLN part of this smartening up of CNN?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Two different numbers
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:26pm.
$3.9T vs $390B. I don't know which is correct but I do wonder why, if $3.9T is the right number, would Obama extend the Bush tax cuts before the 112th Congress was sworn in? He had the votes to end them. He had the votes to end them on day one of his term. So why, if that would solve the long term debt problem, AND it is within the very basic lifeblood of every current Democrat in the Federal Government, AND it's the patriotic thing to do, did Obama no do it?
Also, If Simpson-Bowles was the answer, and since Simpson-Bowles was Obama's very own commissioned entity, why did Obama dismiss their findings in total, right from the outset? Actually, I think I can answer that one: I think Obama was unwilling to concede the 3-1 cuts vs. tax increases formula. But that leads to another question: Why is he willing to accept that formula now?
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 7:25pm.
I don't quite follow your argument about the extension of the Bush tax cuts and Obama having the votes to end them, etc. Would you elaborate, please?
Thanks,
Jer
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 7:52pm.
Obama signed the bill extending the Bush tax cuts on December 17, 2010. They would have expired December 31, 2010. The 112th Congress convened on January 3rd, 2011.
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:07pm.
That had never been the policy of administration. It would have violated an explicit campaign pledge of Obama and politically suicidal. He wanted to do what the majority of the American public supported--restore the previous rates on the top earners. The Republicans blocked it. The Dems then offered to make it applicable only to those earning more than a million per/yr. The Republicans blocked that, too.
So, a deal was cut. That's politics.
Jer
Blocked how?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:12pm.
The dems had the majority in the House and the Senate. How did they block it? And which campaign promise was that, there were so many that he basically broke. And I don't remember the majority of the Americans wanting to restore the top earners' rates. The whole point of the TEA party was Taxed Enough Already and that applied to everyone who was paying taxes.
Not just the top earners.
-Jon
jon...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:19pm.
The Senate was conducting business under a continuing filibuster threat by the Repubs. Thus 60 votes would have been required. When I get the chance, I'll dig up the polls reflecting public opinion on the tax debate and proposals.
Jer
What?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:15pm.
Campaign pledge? Obama campaigned on extending the Bush tax cuts? And the Republicans blocked it? The law was to sunset on December 31st. If nothing was done, the tax rates of today would be the rates prior to the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
The REASON democrats couldn't allow that to happen is because the vast majority of those rate increases would have effected the middle class. They couldn't say that because that would go against the class warfare meme loved by so many democrats. And yet, with majorities in both Houses for the first two years of Obama's reign, Congress neither repealed nor offered an alternative plan for when the tax rates were to sunset.
Raising taxes was never the policy of the administration, huh? Come on, sell that somewhere else; no one is buying that here.
You misunderstood, bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:25pm.
The pledge was not to raise taxes on those earning less than 250k per year. Permitting the Bush tax cuts to lapse would have done so.
Jer
Not just 250K
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:36pm.
They changed that damn number so many times, it'll be 250, it'll be 200, it'll be 300, and on and on. I think someone said it changed like at least 10 times whenever it was mentioned. Kinda like the number of people that the health care "legislation" would cover, went from 20 million to 50 million, etc.
Besides, his pledges aren't worth a damn thing.
-Jon
Besides, his pledges aren't
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 9:08pm.
Besides, his pledges aren't worth a damn thing
Yeah that came thriough loud and clear during the 2008 election when he renigged on his promise to use public campaign funds.
Now I get it Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:55pm.
What you're saying is that Obama campaigned on raising taxes only for the "rich", but unfortunately he and his party were unable -due to republican obstruction- to actually accomplish any meaningful fiscal policy and thus were forced by the minority to extend the Bush tax rates, against their will and better judgement.
Thank you for the history lesson.
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 9:08pm.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
As a matter of courtesy.
Thanks.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 9:28pm.
You're free to correct the record.
I would prefer, bk, that you did so
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 9:40pm.
by acknowledging that I haven't made any comment at any point about the ability or inability of the administration or Democrats "to actually accomplish any meaningful fiscal policy."
Jer
Sorry, Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 9:47pm.
Start a petty argument somewhere else; this bores me.
I understand, bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 10:13pm.
putting words in someone's mouth is generally a quick debate killer. We'll try again another time.
Hope you have an enjoyable 4th, Marine.
Jer
Have a nice 4th as well Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 10:53pm.
-
Bk, look what I found in the shredder about Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 10:10pm.
This binding agreement, signed by all parties, DNC, OFO, poster known as JER, agree that Jerwill be promptly enrolling at NewsBusters.Org for the express and explicit purpose of defending any and all liberal talking points.
There is, to be clarified, ONE exception to this contractual agreement. JER will not be required, nor should he do so, attempt any positive comments at said site noted above, regarding Democratic fiscal policy since said, signee, JER, has determined that this policy is clearly indefensible in any form.
The administrative signees do require said signee, JER, to keep accurate count and record of every positive comment regarding liberal policies in order to comply with the intent of this contract. Any negative comments, in particular regarding any liberal media celebrities, shall also be accurately counted and documented, and duly noted, that count shall not exceed a count of 25 for the duration of his enrollment at NewsBusters.Org.
All parties agree and sign, this day, June 01, 2007.
Wow, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 10:19pm.
After four years you finally were able to piece together all of those tiny fragments of paper you retrieved from the shredder.
Commendable perseverance, my dear.
Jer
Sorry it took so long*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 10:25pm.
It's those darn bi-focals.....;-)
Well, at least Jer didn't once again---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 10:41pm.
subject us to another listing of Fareed Zakaria's schooling, education, and bona fides that allow him to come up with such brilliant observations.
Maybe Jer could get us a look-see at what Obama has in his educational duffle bag as well.
I'd be surprised, though, if it contained much more than dirty gym clothes.
MD
Just for that, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 10:48pm.
enjoy:
Zakaria attended The Cathedral and John Connon School in Mumbai. He received a B.A. degree from Yale University where he was President of the Yale Political Union, editor-in-chief of the Yale Political Monthly, and a member of the Scroll and Key society and the Party of the Right (Yale). He later earned a Ph.D. degree in Political Science from Harvard University in 1993,[1] where he studied under Samuel P. Huntington and Stanley Hoffmann. After directing a research project on American foreign policy at Harvard, Zakaria became managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine in 1992. In October 2000, he was named editor of Newsweek International,[1] and wrote a weekly foreign affairs column. In August 2010 it was announced that he was moving from Newsweek to Time magazine, to serve as a contributing editor and columnist.[4]
He has written on a variety of subjects for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, and as a wine columnist for the web magazine Slate.[5][6] Zakaria is the author of From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role (Princeton, 1998), The Future of Freedom (Norton, 2003), and The Post-American World (2008); he has also co-edited The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World (Basic Books).
In 2007, Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines named him one of the 100 leading public intellectuals in the world.[7]
Jer
Well, Jer, if nothing else---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:04pm.
your contribution (again) proves that when a fool is educated, he is still a fool.
That applies to Obama, with his supposed education, and "brilliance", as well.
"KORPS" MAN, indeed.
Good lord.
MD
Well, Jer, if nothing else---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:05pm.
your contribution (again) proves that when a fool is educated, he is still a fool.
That applies to Obama, with his supposed education, and "brilliance", as well.
"KORPS" MAN, indeed.
Good lord.
MD
I heard you the first time.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:42pm.
Happy 4tth.
Jer
Nothing wrong with repeating a good---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:54pm.
message, but I would much prefer it was planned.
First ever double post; just my luck it would be while replying to you. :o)
Happy 4tttttth to you, too!
MD
And, by the way...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:45pm.
Have a happy 4th.
Jer
Like this
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 2:44am.
little news report?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/scary-group-almost-done-piecing-together...
lol
Lol caj
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 10:56pm.
+
The extension
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:10pm.
Didn't they do the extension as a reaction to the Nov 2010 election? I forget, but I thought it was something to make themselves look good despite everything else.
I know the dems were hemming and hawwing about the tax cuts extension the whole time, especially getting closer to election.
-Jon
Correct, Jon, it was the
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:19pm.
Qua-a-a-ck lame duck session of the 111th Congress.
And, I still don't understand how the R's could block anything. Next we'll be told that the dems couldn't come up with a budget because the R's would have blocked it.
You don't understand how
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:31pm.
You don't understand how filibusters, threats of filibuster, holds, blue slips, etc. can block bill consideration, amendments, confirmations, committee hearings, floor votes?
Jer
Sure, I do.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:48pm.
I also understand that the dems had a super majority in the Senate prior to Scott Brown. And absolute control of the House. They could have ended the Bush Tax regulations any time they wanted to, and could summon the stones to do so, but they didn't. So, it became the R's fault they didn't do it?
And Collins and Snowe would, more than likely, have voted with the dems, to end any filibuster. They're more dem than R on just about everything.
And even then....
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:52pm.
And even then, it was a tossup of what the 4-5 RINO senators were going to do. Half the time they go with the dems and it's only them while the other Republicans vote against them. And the news would report the bipartisanship of the bill being passed in the Senate.
Har. Har. Har.
-Jon
edit: Whoops, you were editing that part in there just before I hit "save" on this one. Sorry, UpNorth!
No apology necessary.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:54pm.
That thought popped up right after I posted the original. And, I didn't even include Lindsey Grahamnesty.
zakaria
Submitted by driguana on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:30pm.
Zakaria is truly a dick.
Ok that's it. Go to your
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:43pm.
Ok that's it. Go to your room. This guy is a s*&thead. Obama is the dick. You will stay in that room until you get it right.
Fareed at last, Fareed at last, Good Gahd almighty...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:46pm.
...he's Fareed at last.
I can't wait for the "Obama-extended tax rates" to expire. I was trying to set aside money to help my daughter out when she starts college in the fall and maybe get my roof repaired before the next monsoon season but WTH. BO and his boy Fareed at last know what's best.
Fareed,is he Muslim brotherhood member?
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 7:06pm.
this guy needs run out of the country.enough from the anti American-A$$HOLE
Actually, this might not be Fareed's fault
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 7:08pm.
Perhaps his abacus just doesn't go into the trillions.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
The deficit is a problem created by...
Submitted by Order270 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 7:17pm.
the government. Our government in it's current form is unsustainable.
Obama's position tumbles down to not having enough money to pay for the National Safety Net in place and with ObamaCare coming and so many people approaching or living in poverty, deficit spending cannot be avoided.
This is romper room logic. Someone needs to send these kids to bed without supper. How can anyone be against a BALANCED BUDGET? How can anyone not be ripped to shreds for advancing the concept of deficit spending?
Does he understand
Submitted by octavioj on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 7:28pm.
That the biggest beneficiaries of the "Bush tax cuts" were the middle class? Does he even see that letting them expire will decimate the purchasing power of the middle class? Whatever they have left will still be diverted to de leveraging an the consumption will be severely affected. Does he understand that? I do no think so.
That's right, Fareed
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 4:11am.
Without Clinton's magical tax rates, the dot com boom responsible for all those jobs would never have happened. If those tax rates were so great, Fareed, why did the dotcom boom go bust, and why did Clinton leave a recession?
This is another democrat futile attempt
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 11:33am.
This is another democrat attempt to rob Peter to pay Paul. When you rob Peter it makes him sore then disaster strikes.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
People who are rich will stay rich in spite of any new taxes ...
Submitted by Kenyon Schraeder on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 1:18pm.
... they'll simply cut back and spend less. And that will, in turn, hurt all those who have a job or earn their wages as a result of the rich. From waiters and busboys at the poshest of eateries to sales associates at the trendiest of boutiques to cabana boys, tennis instructors and golf instructors at the finest and most expensive resorts to bartenders at the 19th hole, etc., etc., etc.
Rather than curse the rich for having the excess to spend, some folks should be thinking about all of the good that comes from the rich spending that excess within our economy.
I'm nowhere near rich but I don't regret where I am financially. I was the primary architect of my own future. And, I don't live my life envying or despising those who are rich and have come by their fortunes legitimately and not through tax evasion or whatever else.
Sadly, the very people in Congress and MSM who are screaming for more revenue through taxation by various means are the very same ones who have feathered their nests admirably all along and continue to do so at the taxpayers' expense. That Charlie Rangel is NOT standing before the IRS and being made to account for his own brand of tax evasion and that an Anthony Weiner stands to reap $1.2 million in pension money despite his shameful conduct and resignation are shining proof of the duplicity.