The likelihood that tax cuts will boost the economy depends on how big they are and who gets them. Under cuts instituted early in the Bush administration, my wife and I, solidly middle-class taxpayers, enjoyed about a $600 reduction in our federal taxes. Like most in the middle class, we used the savings for immediate needs. We bought heating oil, groceries and made car repairs. All money was spent here in Maine, thus directly aiding our local economy.
However, if we were multimillionaires and received tax cuts of $50,000, $100,000 or more, our financial advisors would have suggested investing it and diversifying that investment by sending a good part of the money into overseas markets. But that decision, while maybe making more money for us, couldn’t have helped create jobs in Maine or in the U.S.
This distinction is important in thinking about the current debate over federal deficits, spending and taxes. One big dispute is what to do about those Bush tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year.
Some politicians, such as Republican Mitt Romney, want to extend them for everyone, including America’s millionaires and billionaires. The smarter alternative is to extend them for nearly everyone: the 98 percent of us who make less than $250,000 a year.
Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins should support the “98 percent solution.” It will reduce federal debt by raising revenues from the 2 percent, but leave in place the kind of tax cuts that help create jobs in America.
Richard S. Nutt
I am a yellow dog Democrat who almost never crosses the aisle. Except I did proudly vote for Republican Ralph Stephenson as county treasurer at least once. When I see a “D” on the ballot, I’m pretty much good to go. I helped elect Gov. Paul LePage this way, and I am struggling every long day with the debacle my loyalty cost me and Maine.
This year I have a chance to do better, and I will not make the same mistake again. It disappoints me deeply, but it doesn’t surprise me at all that the only way the poisoned national interests figure they can win Sen. Olympia Snowe’s vacant senate seat is by lying and belittling one of the great people of Maine in hopes that we’ll split our votes. Angus King, an independent, was a great governor, and we are lucky that he would consider serving Maine again.
When he ran for governor, I voted for the other guy. But King’s independent status, attitude and aptitude suited Maine perfectly. He is still remembered for his comfortable and welcoming ease with Maine people from all walks of life and the ability to bring different views together and get work done. We need that spirit today in Maine and in Washington. What we don’t need is out-of-state money telling us lies. I hope my fellow loyal Democrats and Republicans will join me in making the best independent choice for Maine and the U.S. by voting for King.
Keep in mind three truths when entering the voting booth on Nov. 6: That a socialist state (socialism) does not last forever; it has an average lifespan of 50 years. That inevitably, a socialist state will self-destruct. And that since the Wilson administration (94 years), we have progressively become a quasi-socialist state.
In a few days voters will have to make hard decisions, something our representatives in Washington have refused and failed to do. We must decide what direction our nation must take to get us out of the fiscal mess we are presently experiencing. The media will most likely and excitedly claim that we are approaching a historical crossroad. Not so. We are coming to a historical Yogi Berra fork in the road. There is no middle road.
With our poor economy, insurmountable debt and 94 progressive years of encroachment, the left fork will eventually and surely come to an unexpected and abrupt end. When? This is the big question — certainly not 50 years. I hasten to add that the right fork will not be a primrose path either. It may have a 25 percent (or less) chance of success. These are very poor odds, but we should take it.
Norman J. Labbe
There are many reasons not to vote for Republican Mitt Romney. He is a technocrat at heart, viewing the republic as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, as a laboratory for government welfare. He’s uncomfortable using the language of liberty, appearing more elitist than liberator. His speech, rewording his 47-percent comments, clarified his point that President Barack Obama has not, in fact, helped the poor or middle class. In contrast, his own policies that will help everyone, did not receive attention.
The media has their talking points and are not about to allow them to be rebutted.
Obama openly stated his belief that our Constitution is a “fundamentally flawed” document of “negative liberties.” Romney believes in a Federalist Republic where “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Under Obama, Congress has not passed a single budget. The budgets put forward received not a single vote. That’s not Republican obstructionism; it’s intentionally unrestricted spending. The Federal Reserve is now “printing money” indefinitely until the job market improves, by buying mortgage bonds. Sound familiar? This will be about as effective as continuing the beatings until moral improves.
The establishment is cracking. We must ensure our base is the foundation for a new liberty when the hollow government-centrist policies crumble under their own lack of economic foundation.
I read that our governor was dropping his paying membership in the National Governor’s Association because the cost outweighed the benefits. It made me wonder if a similar cost-benefit analysis was made of Attorney General William Schneider’s having jumped on the unsuccessful Supreme Court suit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
With its unknown costs to Maine somewhere between “negligible” and $400,000, I’ll bet it could have kept Maine connected with the NGA for quite a while. Or repaved some of our roads, or helped address our budget gap. Choices.