The Democrats proposed we cut the AMT and increase taxes on hedge fund investors to pay for it.
However, why does a tax cut here have to always be paid for with a tax increase there? Why can’t we pay for a tax cut with a similar cut in unnecessary government spending instead?
To cover the cost of the AMT fix, how about a few less bridges to nowhere or ridiculous government studies?
This is also an issue in my home state of New Jersey. The answer to balancing the budget is automatically raising taxes and fees and never cutting expenses.
Unfortunately “pork” is the currency of politicians – whether it be personal pork (i.e. allowing NJ officials to hold two or three or more elected and/or appointed - often no-show - paying jobs at once, with double and triple dipping into the benefits pool), or special interest pork, or constituent-based pork.