An editorial in the Sunday NY Times (Dec. 19 2010) seeks to have it both ways on tax cuts. Having earlier praised the deal, the Grey Lady now awakens its deficit-busting potentialities, noting that extension of the Bush era tax cuts through 2012 "...will account for roughly 40% of today's deficit."
Then continuing in the vein that the President must lie in his bed as he has made it, the Times adds: "When deficit reduction begins in earnest, tax increases and cuts in big-ticket programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense — will be the focus." (My italics.)
OK, let me get this straight. Tax cuts for high bracket individuals are deficit busters, and must be paid for by sacrificing the cornerstone programs of the New Deal and Great Society.
Am I missing something here? Wouldn't it have been easier to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Does anyone realize that top marginal rates are at historically low levels now, far lower than during the great era of post-WW II American prosperity?