As portions of the Republican Party split over how to tackle fiscal cliff negotiations, Yahoo News asked GOP voters to weigh in: Which camp in the party do they support? Here's one perspective.
COMMENTARY | The news has been dominated lately by talk of the impending fiscal cliff facing the federal government. This refers to an economic crisis in the minds of many to start in January 2013.
They believe this will likely occur without a bipartisan agreement in Congress that President Obama would sign into law. It would avert tax raises for Americans in essentially all income brackets, as well as various deep spending cuts, especially to the Defense Department.
President Obama has offered a plan to come up with at least $2 trillion in increased revenue for the federal government over the course of a decade. His deal relies primarily on tax hikes -- to the tune of $1.6 trillion -- to get the money.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has floated a plan that looks for a similar amount of money -- in the neighborhood of $2.2 trillion over 10 years. However, his proposal focuses much more on tax reform, savings from re-worked health plans administered by the federal government, and cuts to other entitlement spending.
I think both proposals from Obama and Boehner are misguided and fall short of what needs to be done. Rather, I support the stance of Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky.
Sen. Paul is a firm believer in the argument that lower tax rates increase tax revenues for the federal government, especially the money paid by the top earners. This spurs economic growth. The federal government, meanwhile, needs to drastically cut spending, and allow the private sector to grow the economy.
Senator Paul was quoted on Dec. 4: "It would be a huge mistake to raise taxes. It will cripple the economy."
I could not agree more.
-- Patrick Hattman Parkersburg, W.V.
- Politics & Government
- Budget, Tax & Economy
- President Obama