Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

Ah, class warfare AND the classic Mephistophelian bargain — but only if Republicans fail to remind Democrats that many of the “wealthy” are simple small business owners that represent an important source of job creation.


Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said:

That depends on whether the Republicans have any interest in serving the public good, or just want to continue to the party of NO and obstructionism. That's their call. It is not a question of SHOULD, but WOULD.

Michelle Bernard, president of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Politically, it makes sense for Republicans to support a bill that would maintain lower taxes for those in lower income brackets, even if that legislation also phases out tax cuts on high earners. If the choice is between all Americans being hit by a tax increase, or just some Americans being hit by a tax increase, better to spare as many as possible. 



Yet policy-wise, it's still a mistake to raise taxes on anyone — even “the rich” or those in the highest income tax brackets, which includes many small businesses. As I've written before, (http://www.iwf.org/news/show/23552.html) the effects of higher taxes on this group won't just lower the income of well-off individuals, but will have effects that ripple through the economy, slowing growth and deterring job creation across the board.
 
While Republicans may move ahead with allowing some tax cuts to expire, they shouldn't give up rhetorically on making the case that it's the federal government's spending problem — not a revenue problem — which drives our deficits and long-term debt. Revenue increased from $2.0 trillion in 2000 to $2.5 billion in 2008, at the end of the Bush Administration; the problem is that during the same time spending swelled from $1.8 trillion to nearly $3.0 trillion. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)

Yes, our receipts fell some since the start of the financial crisis (while spending skyrocketed) but greater economic growth — not higher tax rates — are

what's needed to drive those receipts back up. Tax increases on anyone take more from our already pinched private sector — that's not going to

encourage economic growth and is the wrong direction for our economy. 


Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said:

The Democrats are looking for an excuse, any excuse to avoid keeping their promise to keep the Obama tax hikes in January 2011 from hitting anyone who earns less than $250,000.
 
They could have passed such a bill in 2007 or 2008 or 2009 or 2010….but they refused.  Now they are pretending to want to do this no…or maybe they will pretend now that they want to do this conveniently after the November election.
 
Republicans should not give them any excuse to postpone—and never do—what they have refused to do every day of the year for three to four years now.
 
Heck the Democrats could have made these tax cuts permanent by offering to vote for them outside of reconciliation in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006...and again once they had congressional majorities in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
 
Democrats view all that lovely tax money as “theirs”.  They don’t want to waste it by leaving it with the folks who earned it.  As Obama says, he knows how to spend your money better than you do.


 

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

Absolutely not. "Wealthy" is defined as anyone who makes over $250,000 a year -- which is precisely what one would expect a small businessman to make. Small business is the chief generator of jobs -- and jobs, not taxes, are what we need right now.

I would also point out that the Afghanistan war is going to cost us more than the Iraq war -- a complete waster of money, not to mention human lives both American and Afghan. Get us out of Afghanistan -- and cut taxes now!