Revenue Neutral Fever

By now you may have heard of the new policy phenomenon sweeping the GOP known as “revenue neutral.” A policy position which says you can only implement tax-hikes if you offset them with tax-cuts in other areas, effectively canceling out any additional revenue you might have gained by doing so.

The first genius to profess the virtues of this new school of Tax-Cut Magic was Paul Ryan, the Republican budget front-man, but now Eric “The Weasel” Cantor and John McCain are taking turns running the torch.

“If the President wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) told reporters at a Wednesday Capitol briefing. “But, listen, we are not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”

We’re happy to talk about loopholes, but we’re not willing to close any of them. Even if we did close them, they would have to be offset by cutting taxes elsewhere.

John McCain continues with the mother of all trickle-down lectures.

“Millionaires can contribute to deficit reduction by spending part of their millions,” said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). “I agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial this morning: We should cut the corporate income tax from 35 to 25, and close loopholes that are in, and make sure that everything is revenue neutral, and that is a great approach.”

Millionaires spending their excess cash to reduce the deficit might sound like a good idea… Wait. No. It doesn’t. In fact, that may be one of the most idiotic statements to ever emerge from John McCain’s mouth.

The kinds of things millionaires spend their money on do not help the average person. Buying a tax-deductible yacht, another vacation home, or taking a trip to Mexico or Europe does nothing to help people here at home. Neither does buying another 70 inch TV which isn’t even made here and more than likely crossed the ocean in a tax-free container.

And how exactly is any of that suppose to contribute to deficit reduction? It’s not as if Millionaires are going to begin writing checks to Washington to be used for deficit reduction or –gasp — pay more taxes! That would be the only way what John McCain said would make sense.

And again with the “make sure everything is revenue neutral” nonsense. Being revenue neutral is not how you reduce the deficit. It’s more comparable to pissing into the wind.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Economy and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://twitter.com/gbeaudette Grant Beaudette

    Hopefully they keep this language up- literally going to the mat for “millionaires” rather than ” producers” or “job creators” and the like. The more that sinks in with regular Americans the better.

    • JMAshby

      It seems to me that as time goes by, their generous hand-jobs to the rich only increase.

      And I do think that will bite them in the ass.

  • incredulous72

    I’m starting to think that republicans in the house and senate watch the evening news to see what their colleagues say to the press and whatever sticks in their minds as a memorable soundbite, they proceed to run it into the ground for the next few days until some other republican adds to the word salad.

    Revenue neutral. Eeeesssh!

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    But they’re so good at pissing in the wind.

  • trgahan

    Wasn’t it like a week ago the cry was “Tax Cuts at the Top will Save Us! Tax Cuts!” then polling Americans weren’t buying it and it was backfiring. So the same BS strategy got rebranded as “Revenue Neutral! Being Revenue Neutral will Save Us!” cause it sounds so much better thought out. Still can’t believe how blantantly not interested in 90% of Americans they are and still can win elections.

  • nellcote

    At this point it would be a damn thrill if corporations actually paid a 25% tax!

  • likala

    Looks like Frank Luntz (sp?) is still on the job. Death tax anyone?