Tax cuts as path to revenue growth? A 'fairy tale,' says Senator Schumer.

It is time to debunk the Republican myth that tax cuts will lead to growth in government revenues, says Sen. Charles Schumer, vice chairman of the Democratic Conference.

Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor
Sen. Charles Schumer, vice chairman of the Democratic Conference and chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center, speaks at the Monitor breakfast for reporters on Nov. 8, 2012, in Washington. Budget issues and, perhaps, immigration reform are agenda items for Congress, he said.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D) of New York is vice chairman of the Democratic Conference and heads the Senate Democratic Policy & Communications Center. He spoke at the Nov. 8 Monitor breakfast in Washington.

His response to House Speaker John Boehner's Nov. 7 statement that he could accept a budget deal with new revenue:

"I was heartened, very heartened, by the tone that Speaker Boehner showed.... It makes me very hopeful that we can do something big in the next month and a half [about the nation's fiscal problems]."

Mr. Boehner's view that government revenues would grow if tax rates are cut:

"It is about time we debunked that myth. It is a Rumpelstiltskin fairy tale.... Rumpelstiltskin ... turned straw into gold."

The outlook for immigration reform:

"The election gave great momentum to immigration reform, because it showed Republicans they cannot succeed if they continue with such a harsh position."

The impact of Karl Rove's super political-action committee's failure to elect Mitt Romney or 10 of 12 Senate candidates it backed:

"Karl Rove's reputation is going to take a significant hit. If [his PAC] were a business, and Rove was the CEO, he would be fired for getting a poor return for his investors."

The tea party's role:

"Those tea party candidates who won, many of them ran away from the tea party platform.... They are a little bit chastened, the ones who've come back."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.