It’s Not a Pay-For Situation?

During an interview with The Hell, Tea Party freshman Representative Tom Reed described the sought-after permanent extension of the Bush Tax Cuts as "not a pay-for situation," implying that deficit spending is okay as long as the source of the spending is a tax cut.

That is unless they're tax-cuts for working people, in which case they must be paid for.

House Republicans say they have no plans to pay for the extension of the Bush-era tax rates, a move that could erase the deficit reduction they have achieved since winning their majority in the chamber in 2010.

It is Republican Party orthodoxy that tax cuts do not need to be offset because of the additional tax receipts they spur through economic growth. And in interviews, even House Republicans who have broken with the party leadership on taxes told The Hill they do not believe the extension of the Bush-era rates needs to be paid for. [...]

“From my perspective, you’re setting tax policy on a permanent basis, long-term basis,” said Rep. Tom Reed (N.Y.), a freshman Republican and member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. “It’s not a pay-for situation. It’s just strong policy that needs to be adopted.”

Fixing the Washington Monument after an earthquake was a pay-for situation.

Extending current student loan interest rates is a pay-for situation.

Healthcare, you know, the stuff that keeps us alive, is apparently a pay-for situation.

Extending pay-roll tax cuts was a pay-for situation.

Emergency disaster response to hurricanes and tornadoes is now treated as a pay-for situation.

Why aren't tax cuts for the rich?