There actually has been such a "huge surge" in spending. Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation
noted in a June 1, 2010 report
that "spending and deficits continuing to grow at a pace not seen since
World War II. Washington will spend $30,543 per household in 2010-
$5,000 per household more than just two years ago....Since
2000, spending has grown across the board. Entitlement spending has
reached a record 14 percent of GDP. Discretionary spending has expanded
79 percent faster than inflation as a result of large defense and
domestic spending hikes."
Velshi completely omitted the possible strategy of lowering spending
during his commentary. In fact, he has endorsed raises in spending.
On February 17, 2010,
he commemorated the one-year anniversary of Obama's "stimulus" spending
with a cake, and gushed over its focus on "green energy"
during a August 24 segment.
Later in his commentary, Velshi seemed to endorse the concept of raising taxes:
VELSHI: It seems obvious that if you're concerned about
the economy, you'll vote for someone who wants to cut taxes, the
deficit, and the debt. But those things don't go hand in hand. Wanting
to bring down the debt and deficit- well, higher taxes may be the
most immediate way to do that because those dollars go directly into
government coffers. Cutting taxes is a roundabout way of doing it.
You cut taxes, people and businesses have more money to spend, and
theoretically, they spend that money in ways that either create jobs or
increase domestic demand, which creates jobs. But that assumes that
those people have enough faith in the economy that they won't just
pocket their tax savings.
The anchor closed the segment by repeating his opposition to tax cuts: "Who can you fault for wanting to pay lower taxes?
But just don't be fooled into thinking that you- if you are the average American- are going to be paying less of anything."
Actually, if the Congress and President Obama somehow let the Bush tax
cuts expire, it means that everyone, including the middle and lower
classes,
will experience higher income taxes.
Even after making this statement, Velshi hinted that this was the case:
"The victory for you might be the existing Bush tax cuts being
extended."
The full transcript of Ali Velshi's commentary from Tuesday's Newsroom:
VELSHI: Time now for the 'XYZ' of it. As things stand,
President Obama wants to extend the Bush-era tax cuts that apply to the
middle class, or households earning less than $250,000 a year. That
means about 97 percent of Americans would continue to get the breaks,
and that sounds like a great thing.
But let me put this into perspective. First, it's not free. Extending
the tax breaks to the top 3 percent of earners would cost between 650
and 700 billion dollars. Extending it for the rest of us is going to
cost a lot more, possibly $3 trillion. Everyone wants to pay less in
taxes, but in an economy with a debt like America's, that may not be a
brilliant idea. Arguments that it will grind the economy to the halt may
not hold much water either. Our tax rates are relatively low, and we
have not seen a huge surge in spending.
I say this because American voters need to come to terms with this
issue. It seems obvious that if you're concerned about the economy,
you'll vote for someone who wants to cut taxes, the deficit, and the
debt. But those things don't go hand in hand. Wanting to bring down the
debt and deficit- well, higher taxes may be the most immediate way to do
that because those dollars go directly into government coffers. Cutting
taxes is a roundabout way of doing it. You cut taxes, people and
businesses have more money to spend, and theoretically, they spend that
money in ways that either create jobs or increase domestic demand, which
creates jobs. But that assumes that those people have enough faith in
the economy that they won't just pocket their tax savings.
I say this so you can make an informed decision at the voting booth.
Who can you fault for wanting to pay lower taxes? But just don't be
fooled into thinking that you- if you are the average American- are
going to be paying less of anything. The victory for you might be the
existing Bush tax cuts being extended. Lower taxes are not feasibly in
our future- at least, not until this economy really picks up.
-Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
