Tax cuts or stimulus 2?

First off, the use of tax cut is a misnomer. It is not a tax cut; it's just maintaining the existing level of taxation. Tax cut sounds better on sound bites and it's easier to rally people around, "tax cuts for the rich, that don't need it" even if it's inaccurate. "Maintaining existing tax levels for every American" just doesn't have the teeth to rally opposition. Even if they attacked it as the "continuation of Bush era tax cuts" that doesn't sound as bad either. According to the arguments against, the extension will cost the government an estimated $70 billion in revenue; however, not only was it never the government's money in the first place and why does the bill cost over $850 billion? That’s more than the failed stimulus that was passed shortly after Obama was inaugurated.
Let's see if we can find out how this bill costs as much as a stimulus package. First, we must understand the political system. Congressmen often attach unpopular bills or bills that don't stand a chance to pass on their own merit to wildly popular or very important bills; obviously to increase the chance of their bill passing or hope of stopping a bill from passing. This is how earmarks, or pork barrel politics, are passed and that is what is happening to the tax bill now in Congress. Let's take a look at some of the spending that was piled on the tax bill. Of course there was the addition of the unemployment extension and the earned income credit and even college scholarship provision. Does all of that add up to $850 billion? Not yet, let's see what else was attached to the bill. How about ethanol subsidies, commuter subsidies as long as you use public transportation and of course you can't forget about the green energy. Did we hit our mark yet? Let's keep adding on. More incentives for developing hybrid vehicles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy efficient appliances. Tax incentives for Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi to jump start economic activity.
If the $70 billion figure is accurate, which history has shown the exact opposite effect on tax revenue when marginal tax rates are cut. The Melon tax cuts of the 1920's, the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960's and the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980's have shown economic growth in all instances. If you compare the Reagan tax cuts to the Clinton tax hikes you can see government revenue rising under tax cuts and declining under tax hikes. So if history tells us tax cuts increase revenue, instead of maintaining existing rates shouldn't we be cutting taxes more? This just shows that DC hasn't changed and it's all about rewarding politicians for their votes at the expense of the tax payer. Where are we going to get $850 billion, the United States is broke?

Please see my examiner article for links. Thanks for reading.