Tax Cuts Stimulate Economies...when governments shrink spending

Officials are now concerned about saving the Bush tax cuts after years of saying tax cuts caused this mess.  Despite the evidence contrary to the myth.  Currently, Germany's recovery is attributed to that economic method as well as the sttes of VA and NJ.  But on to the story...

Some Democrats are now arguing forcefully that a delay is a win-win plan that would help the federal budget without hurting the economy.

Wealthy families would not have an incentive to cut back on spending and budget writers could assume an inflow of tax funds in future years, making five- and 10-year budget projections look less scary.
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over taxes, said some of his Democratic colleagues have discussed the idea out of fear of impeding the nation’s economic recovery.
“I’ve heard some sentiment about raising the rate but not making it effective until 2012,” he said.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama said he would not extend the Bush-era tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000.
Obama promised that families earning less than $250,000 would not see their taxes increase.
But vulnerable Democrats in Congress are worried about talk of raising taxes, even on the wealthiest families, when the national economic recovery has slowed.
“I think the recovery is sufficiently fragile that we ought to leave tax rates where they are,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, a freshman Democrat from Virginia.
Connolly said Democrats should not allow the 2001 Bush tax cuts to expire for anybody.

My God.  Ignoring the lie that "families earning less than $250,000 would not see their taxes increase" (current taxes will not increase but the mandate is a NEW tax, and that's one...), let's take a step back.  So there's a limit to taxing the "rich"?  Allowing to tax cuts to expire WOULDN'T increase tax revenue?
I'm being sarcastic......sigh, I'm posting something about how government's work at building revenue, and where the money comes from.  Here's a refresher on how businesses make money in the meantime.

Obama looking to end CRA? Hell is about to freeze over

For most of a decade, the US government manipulated lending markets and pressured banks to get mortgages for lower-income families under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and with Democratic and Republican Congresses. Now, the Washington Post reports that the Obama administration wants to end the social engineering that created the housing bubble and subsequent collapse as its next target for reform:

Responding to the collapse in home prices and the huge number of foreclosures, the Obama administration is pursuing an overhaul of government policy that could diverge from the emphasis on homeownership embraced by former administrations.

“In previous eras, we haven’t seen people question whether homeownership was the right decision. It was just assumed that’s where you want to go,” said Raphael Bostic, a senior official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. “You’re not going to hear us say that.”
Bostic, who has published leading scholarship on homeownership, added that owning a home has a lot of value, but “what we’ve seen in the last four years is that there really is an underside to homeownership.”
The administration’s narrower view of who should own a home and what the government should to do to support them could have major implications for the economy as well as borrowers. Broadly, the administration may wind down some government backing for home loans, but increase the focus on affordable rentals.
The shift in approach could mean higher down payments and interest rates on loans, more barriers to lower-income people buying houses, and fewer homeowners overall, government officials said. But it could also pave the way for a more stable housing market, one with fewer taxpayer dollars on the line and less of a risk that homeowners will not be able to pay their mortgages. And it could spell changes throughout the financial markets, as investors choose new places to put their money if the government withdraws some incentives for investing in the U.S. mortgage market.

Let’s hope Obama commits to this reform. If he does, it will easily be the most significant economic reform of his tenure, and would represent a significant retreat from the government interventions and social engineering that have ruined the American economy, and could set the stage for even further constraints on federal power. That would show actual leadership and strength.