Last Sunday one of the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial staff members published a column saying that Obama should have embraced Sen. Pat Toomey's budget plan in the Supercommittee. This particular writer is pretty conservative, as you might guess, and Toomey, to our continuing misfortune, is one of our two senators.
So I fired off a letter to the editor that afternoon, which the paper printed on Dec. 8 under the heading "No balance in Toomey plan." The Inquirer cut my letter, but not by much.
Kevin Ferris calls the budget plan by Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) a compromise and a balanced approach. Recall that this was the plan that slashed taxes for the highest tax bracket, while limiting deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and offsets for state and local taxes. In other words, raising revenue by imposing a higher tax burden on the middle class and working class, while offering another bonus to the wealthiest among us.
Ferris assures us that the plan is "pro-growth," which apparently is code for further privileging multimillionaires and sticking it to the rest of us. Never mind that there is little evidence that reducing taxes on the wealthy creates jobs.
Ferris calls Toomey's plan a balanced approach. I call it being a water boy for the 1 percent.