Bush tax cuts increased revenue 10.4 percent
Re: “Higher taxes won’t cure what ails us,” July 18
Both sides on the “Bush tax cuts” debate have missed a very significant fact: The Bush tax rates increased government revenue from personal and corporate taxes more than the rates under President Clinton.
Examining tax revenues between 1993-2000 and 2004-2007 (I’ve omitted 2001-2004 because the Bush rates weren’t fully in effect and the economy was still recovering from the 9/11 attacks), we see that while revenue under Clinton tax rates increased by 9.8 percent, it increased 13.6 percent under the Bush tax rates. That’s a 3.8 percent gap in favor of Bush’s rates.
Even if we incorporate the recession and consider the years 2004 through 2011, the Bush tax rates average out to a 10.4 percent increase in revenue, still better than the 9.8 percent of the Clinton years.
Republicans in the House and Senate should challenge the Democrats’ true competency and understanding of tax policy by insisting they explain how returning to the Clinton-era rates for any tax bracket will benefit the nation, because the numbers show that it won’t.
If Congress is going to address taxes, any discussion should begin by discarding the entire tax code and replacing it with something simpler, fairer and more equitable across all income brackets.
Brian Wrenn
Washington
Pepco president makes too much, linemen too little
Re: “People blame Pepco for Mother Nature’s wrath,” July 16
In all the letters and columns I’ve seen about Pepco, not onehas expressed dismay that Thomas Graham, the president of Pepco, reportedly received $7.2 million in compensation.Regular folks like me have to wonder:
1. How a person can possibly spend that much money in a year;
2. Why part of that amount could not have been paid to the workers who should have been trimming trees, etc. all year and are out there in the heat repairing the storm damage; and
3. Why part of the healthy dividends being paid to Pepco stockholders could not also go to the working stiffs.
E. Becker
Foggy Bottom
What’s so great about Metro?
As an intern in D.C. for the summer, I have had plenty of great opportunities and rewarding experiences in this storied, wonderful city.
I understand that driving through D.C. during rush hour and parking a vehicle anywhere in this city is both a tedious and expensive proposition. But I still have a bone to pick with the D.C. Metro system.
With a host of complaints about long wait times, whole stations smelling like burning rubber, cars with no air conditioning, single-tracked trains, shuttle buses between stations, blocked safety exits and the occasional fire, why are there still a number of politicians here pushing for public transit?
What exactly is so great about Metro?
And if they can’t even get basic transportation right, why should the general public trust their governing bodies to pass legislation on more complicated matters?
Casey Cheap
Washington
