comments

Solution simple to fund tax cut

-A +A
I called Congressman Tom McClintock’s office to find out where he stands on the payroll tax-cut fight. I asked him why he voted against the Senate approved bill on Dec. 20. McClintock’s office assured me that the congressman didn’t vote against the tax cut; he just voted against the two-month extension, which left me confused because McClintock was one of the 14 Republicans who voted against the “Republican” one-year extension the week before. McClintock believes the tax cut should be paid “forward.” One option he offered would be letting a worker “opt-in” or “opt-out” of the tax-cut. If the worker offers to “opt-in,” they would pay for it by delaying their retirement. McClintock’s office could not name one person who agrees with a single one of these positions. If McClintock believes that putting $3 to $4 a day in a working family’s pocket but it “must” be paid for first, then why shouldn’t that same standard with all taxpayers’ dollars such as oil companies’ “subsidies”? In the past two years, McClintock has voted on three separate occasions to keep paying tax dollars to the richest companies in the world and at the same time he voted against all amendments that called for any kind of payment “forward.” How about paying for the payroll tax cut with these subsidies dollars? How about using this firm stand of “paying-forward” with the same method we use on a welfare mother: If, and only if, oil companies provide jobs, and they must provide documented proof of those jobs, and let’s say they have to be in McClintock’s district, then, and only then, would these corporations receive “any” taxpayer dollars. That could be double bang for the buck: Dollars in the workers’ hands and generating jobs in our district. Pat Snelling, Garden Valley