In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Elections Have Consequences," Paul Krugman would have us know that higher taxation of affluent Americans by the Obama administration has had colossal economic benefits:
"The point, of course, was not to punish the rich but to raise money for progressive priorities, and while the 2013 tax hike wasn’t gigantic, it was significant. Those higher rates on the 1 percent correspond to about $70 billion a year in revenue. This happens to be in the same ballpark as both food stamps and budget office estimates of this year’s net outlays on Obamacare. So we’re not talking about something trivial."
Ah yes, progressive priorities. I suppose that means cutting US military outlays in the face of Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Islamic State aggression, while paying $19 million in 2014 to government workers suspended from their jobs.
The tax hikes have made a difference? If so, why has America's national debt soared to an unsustainable $18.8 trillion, or more than $58,000 for every American citizen under Obama? It is well worth remembering how, on July 3, 2008, Obama declared:
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."
Krugman continues:
"Speaking of Obamacare, that’s another thing Republicans would surely have killed if 2012 had gone the other way. Instead, the program went into effect at the beginning of 2014. And the effect on health care has been huge: according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of uninsured Americans fell 17 million between 2012 and the first half of 2015, with further declines most likely ahead."
The number of "uninsured Americans" has fallen; however, what good is insurance if high deductibles effectively render health care unaffordable?
How about just a tiny bit of objectivity, Paul? Pretty please?
No comments:
Post a Comment