Tuesday, September 20, 2011

If the GOP hopes to win popular support for defeating Obama's plans to raise taxes, they're going to need some better arguments than Larry Kudlow's argument.

If, as Kudlow argues, the tax would affect a relatively small number of people and only to the tune of $19 billion a year, why and how would it be so devastating to the economy? Wouldn't it have to hit more than 22,000 people and/or hit them a whole lot harder for it to have the negative impact that Kudlow and other critics claim would be the case?

From a different perspective, advocates of cutting taxes would never claim that a $19 billion tax cut spread among just 22,000 people would do much of anything to stimulate the economy. Likewise, budget cutters would never claim that a $19 billion cut in federal spending was enough to have a major stimulative effect on the economy, they would - rightfully - argue that such an amount was too small - both in absolute terms and as a percentage of federal spending - to have any effect at all.

So how is it any different when it comes to taxes?

Guys, there are plenty of wonderful reasons with which to oppose Obama... we don't do ourselves any good when we advance arguments that don't hold up to the most basic level of scrutiny.