The one thing we’ve learned to expect from the unprincipled opportunist, Joe Lieberman (Folly, Connecticut) is that he will search for chances to obstruct something worthwhile, then cynically place himself in the doorway to block it, based on some completely bogus argument designed to exasperate anyone with an ounce of decency or common sense.

Sure enough, here’s Joe explaining he’ll do everything he can to screw up the deal and insist we extend Bush tax cuts for the richest 2 percent:

“I don’t think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through. The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our economic recovery will be. And that means I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year and takes action to prevent the estate tax from rising back to where it was.”

“In our current economic situation, we cannot risk the economic headwinds that would be caused by tax increases. We need to keep as much money as possible in people’s pockets and business’s bank accounts.”

“I know that many people, including the President, have argued that the tax cuts should not be continued for people making more than $200,000 a year, but to me these are the people we need to be using their income to spend and invest to spur growth and job creation. The fact is that the top 3% of American income earners account for 25% of the consumption in our economy. Remember consumer demand is still the major driver of economic growth in America. I want the top income earners in our country to have the confidence and the money to spend and invest over the next year, rather than worrying about paying more in taxes to the federal government.”

What Joe is reminding us is that "the top 3% of American income earners" have managed to capture 25% of the nation’s goods and services consumption (the top 10% get about 40%), and the rest of you slobs get what’s left. And since the financial sector we just bailed out is where most of the wealth was being made (looted) in the last decade or so, a fair percentage of those big spenders cashed in. That alone is a compelling argument for more progressive taxes on high incomes and rich estates. But Joe thinks this is an argument for letting the richest Americans keep their riches so they’ll spend and invest in America.

All the economists/studies tell us just the opposite. It’s the lower income folks who spend a much higher portion (virtually all) of their income, and so getting more money to them provides the best stimulus for jobs and economic growth during a recession. So let’s use Joe’s unprincipled opportunism as a teaching moment.

If you raised taxes on the richest 3% and reduced their share of total spending to, say, merely 10% or 15% of total spending (i.e, they still get to spend 3 to 5 times the average), instead of 25% of total spending, and then reallocated those dollars to the bottom 50% who would immediately spend most of that money, you would increase total spending, boost the economy and lower unemployment.  . . .

And Joe’s argument for keeping all the money in private hands in also gibberish. The public sector is abysmally underfunded, which is why states are laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers, firemen, police, public parks/health/safety workers and neglecting trillions in needed infrastructure investments. As long as that’s true, private consumption and investment are not inherently more worthwhile than public spending and investments. And when private spending is depressed because the private sector just lost $8 trillion in housing wealth, never mind what Wall Street did to your retirement savings, we need a lot more government spending to fill in the massive hole in GDP. That’s just basic economics. (And note that Joe is not calling for large cuts in federal public spending for defense contracts in Connecticut.)

But thanks, Joe, for providing a perfect example to explain why we need to end the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent and reinstitute a healthy tax on rich estates . . . while reminding everyone what an unprincipled man you’ve become.

Moodys:

Hand the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.