It’s not clear why Keith Rothfus thinks Mark Critz’s votes on the Bush tax cuts are contradictory.
Critz thinks it would be better to return to Clinton-era tax rates on income above $1 million. House Republicans don’t want to do that, so Critz thinks the next best thing is extending all the regressive Bush tax cuts.
I disagree, because we clearly can’t afford to extend any of the Bush tax cuts – not for people making less than $250K, not for people making less than $1 million, not for anybody. The Critz position, that we should raise rates on income above the millionth dollar, is barely more affordable than the Rothfus position.
But what I think is really remarkable about Keith Rothfus’ statement is that there’s just no pretense of caring about the deficit at all.
Rothfus sure loves to whine about the deficit, but when push comes to shove, it turns out the only thing he cares about is keeping tax rates on rich people as low as politics will allow.
I’ll go further: Rothfus hasn’t proposed a single policy idea that would actually reduce the deficit, and certainly nothing even close to large enough to offset the deficit-exploding effects of the Bush tax cuts.
Journalists should press him on this contradiction any time Rothfus talks about the deficit. On a fundamental level, it would misinform readers to let Rothfus portray himself as the deficit hawk candidate without this context.