Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Dems' Health-Care Bill

[meegbear]

Citizens for Tax Justice point out what I was saying just the other day: We only hear all this crying and moaning about the deficit when it's something for regular working people, and not a powerful lobby. And of course, the Republican'ts are right out there in front of the Hypocrisy Parade:

And yet, many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is “too costly” are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts.

Their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities.

It’s difficult to see how the Bush tax cuts could provide us with two and a half times the benefits of health care reform. In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.

President Bush and his supporters argued that these high-income tax cuts would benefit everybody because they would unleash investment that would spark widespread economic prosperity. There seems to be no evidence of this, particularly given the collapse of the economy at the end of the Bush years.

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48
trillion over the 2001-2010 period.

This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.

(...) Over the upcoming decade (2010-2019), the costs of the health care proposals approved by three committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are projected to be around $1 trillion. (One committee trimmed the costs of its health care bill below that amount, but an official estimate of the cost reductions was not available at the time of this writing.)

The chairmen of the three House committees have explicitly stated that their goal is a final bill that is deficit-neutral in the decade following enactment.

It’s unclear if they have accomplished this yet, since the Congressional Budget Office has not yet issued final cost estimates of the bills, and the legislation is likely to change before the full House votes on a final bill. But President Obama and Democratic leaders have also committed to ensuring that health care reform will not increase the budget deficit.

Under the House bills, roughly half of the costs would be offset with savings in our existing health care programs, while the other half would be offset with a surcharge on the incomes of wealthy taxpayers.

In contrast, President Bush and his allies in Congress never even attempted to replace the revenue lost as a result of their enormous tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were deficit-financed, which increased the national debt and resulted in greater interest payments on that debt, as already explained.

These figures make clear that costs cannot be the real concern of lawmakers who oppose the House health care legislation and yet supported the Bush tax cuts. Their position seems to be that showering benefits on the wealthiest five percent of taxpayers and leaving the bill for future generations is preferable to making health care available for all at a much lower cost and paying that cost up front. That demonstrates a different set of priorities than most Americans have, but it doesn’t demonstrate much concern about costs.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m

[havocmom]

1. add to that the costs of his wars

but we can't afford to provide single payer? BULLSHIT

[TheKentuckian]

7. I've actually never heard anyone against SP based on being able to afford it

That is much more an issue of political will, desire, and dogma.

[havocmom]

10. Cost was one of the first reasons the GOP had to fight anything in health care reform

It is where they start from. We don't have money for services to people, just corporations, evidently

[Hannah Bell]

2. K&R

[trayfoot]

3. This surely paints the picture!!!!

[HughBeaumont]

4. K & R!

Let's dispel the lie once and for all that 'teh tax cuts created jobs'.

The TRUTH of the matter is, they did nothing but create a whole lotta debt and wealth inequality.

It's really a wonder why people buy into the taxaphobia bandied about by the conservatives. I'm not getting where they all think the revenue needed to run this country is going to come from.

It's nothing but socialism for the wealthy, corporatism for the rest of us! This wouldn't really be a problem if we didn't waste an asston of money on people who do not need it and occupations that can't be won. Always money for that. NEVER money for us. Progressives get NOT ONE DAMNED INCH. EVER.

[n2doc]

5. And yet no one talks about rescinding those cuts in the face of huge deficits

Only more spending cuts are allowed. Oh, and more borrowing to feed the military-industrial cabal.

[Romulox]

6. Well, when Obama keeps his campaign promise to repeal those cuts, we'll have plenty of funding!

Oh wait, that's one of those promises he had no intention of keeping...

[CrispyQ]

8. I wish I could rec this multiple times.

k&r

Thanks for posting.

[Hav]

9. That's a very important point.

To me, it just seems morally wrong when one sees the tax cuts as good and necessary while fighting against real health insurance that would actually help those who need it.

[chill_wind]

11. Big fat K & R. n/t