Republicans and Democrats the U.S. deficit - Research Paper Example

Download file to see previous pages... Republicans on the other hand advocated for “sound finance” and decreasing taxes but also realized that there should be some form of deficit to support government programs in progress (Colander & Matthews, 59). The republican sound finance perspective is based on the economic view that if taxes are cut, there is an incentive to work harder, save and thus revenues are increased (Miroff, Siedelman, Swanstrom, & Deluca, 397). Therefore in addressing the growing national deficit, the Republican Party advocates for government spending habits to be curtailed, and also to amend tax legislation with a view to creating jobs and increasing salaries, reform Medicare and national security, and for the reformation of welfare programs (GOP.gov.com). The Democratic Party takes the position that the wealthy should be compelled to pay higher taxes, so that the government can fund programs meant to strengthen the middle and lower classes (Moving America Forward, 2012 Democratic National Platform). This paper evaluates how democrats and republicans propose to handle the current U.S. deficit and will determine which approach has more merit. During the 2012 Presidential elections, the Republican Party’s Presidential candidate Mitt Romney revealed a plan for dealing with the US deficit. The plan involved an eight-year program in which the federal budget would be balanced (Sahadi). The plan also included a promise that taxes would not be increased and at the same time, retiring Americans would be protected and more would be spent on defense (Rubin). This plan would obviously mean that other government programs would necessarily have to be cut. According to Rubin, we are at least assured by Romney that social security would not be subjected to cuts. However, other government programs could be vulnerable and this would include housing assistance, national parks, food stamps, and any other number of government programs. Wyler provides the details of the plans Romney had for the Republican Party’s approach to the U.S. deficit. To begin with, Romney planned to decrease income taxes by 20%. These income tax decreases would affect all Americans regardless of income status (Wyler). This of course is nothing new for the Republican Party. In 2001 and 2003, former republican president Bush introduced two successive tax cuts across the board which were primarily beneficial to the wealthy (Bartels). For the most part Americans are receptive to tax cuts because they are singly focused on their own “tax burdens” (Bartels, 15). The reality however was that 36% of the tax cuts would benefit the “richest 1 percent of Americans – a share almost identical to that received by the bottom 80 percent” (Hacker & Pierson, 33). It was estimated at the time that within 10 years, the income tax reductions would cost the U.S. $2.1 trillion in revenue (Hacker & Pierson). Middle and lower class Americans were sold on the tax reductions because in less than a month after the initial reductions, taxpayers were receiving rebate checks for at least $600 (Hacker & Pierson). This was one way of passing a policy that would primarily benefit the wealthy and yet ...Download file to see next pagesRead More