What Repug Tax Cuts Would Buy

This refers to jebbie's "plan," but all the repugs propose the same thing: stripping trillions from the public to further engorge the obescely rich.

Matt Yglesias:

The plan, as currently released, is not sufficiently detailed to permit credible independent scoring. But even four economists handpicked by Bush's team to analyze it say that under standard methods it would reduce federal revenue by about $3.4 trillion over its first 10 years. That's trillion with a T. Which is to say that if you had a stack of a billion dollars, you would need to add 3,399 more billion-dollar stacks to equal the cost of this program.

To get a sense of the scale, consider the following big government liberal proposals:

• Create subsidized job opportunities for 80,000 adults per year ($10 billion)
• The Center for American Progress' plan for high-quality day care ($40 billion)
• A bipartisan plan to boost the EITC to help the working poor that's held up in Congress because of disagreement on how to pay for it ($60 billion)
• Barack Obama's proposal for universal preschool ($75 billion)
• Eliminate the Highway Trust Fund fiscal gap ($168 billion)
• Hillary Clinton's plan for debt-free college ($350 billion)
• A national high-speed rail network ($500 billion)
• End sequestration, and adopt the Congressional Progressive Caucus's wish list of domestic discretionary funding increases ($1.9 trillion)

Sounds pretty ridiculous, right? Especially if you don't specify how you are going to pay for it. But it all adds up to only $3.1 trillion in new budgetary commitments. Read too quickly and the difference between $3.1 trillion and $3.4 trillion can seem like just a decimal point, but $300 billion is a lot of money, even spread across 10 years. So much that it would be enough to add in the $30 billion a year it would take to end hunger globally.

Obviously, a person is free to believe that delivering a large tax cut to owners of corporate bonds will do more to boost social mobility than providing preschool to poor children, or that reducing the tax burden on people who inherit $10 million estates is more morally urgent than reducing global malnutrition. 

But that would make you a moral monster.  More honest to just admit that you don't give a flying fuck about anybody who is not a billionaire, except to the extent that the poor can be mined and exploited for every last dime they can still produce.