Benjamin Franklin once said, in effect, "You can help your budget by saving more money (cutting taxes), or you can help your budget by making more money (raising taxes), but it is easier if you do both."
If we tie political action to current conditions, most voters think economic recovery is our government's number one priority. So why continue Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent when economic disparity is greater than at any time since the Gilded Age? Income for the top 1 percent has increased 256 percent from 1979-2006, and they control 40 percent of our country's wealth, while the bottom 10 percent has seen income increase only 11 percent.
Why pretend those in the 39 percent tax bracket actually pay 39 percent (Mitt Romney paid 13.9 percent on the two years of taxes he is willing to release), and use this figure to justify giving them an additional tax cut (see Paul Ryan's budget)?
Why pretend we will have tax dollars to repair our crumbling infrastructure - something good for business - while advocating cutting taxes only?
Why pretend we can cut the deficit by decimating the social safety net while allowing no defense budget cuts at the very time two wars are winding down? Could it be that campaign money for politicians advocating defense spending ensures production of more weapons of war, even those the Pentagon neither wants nor needs?
Why pretend we will solve high unemployment by deliberately defeating President Obama's jobs bill that would have funded hiring of more teachers while approximately 800,000 job openings go unfilled because workers with the required training cannot be found? Why increase the cost of a college education by cutting Pell Grants and increasing college loan interest rates?
Perhaps certain multi-millionaire Republican campaign contributors (e.g. the Koch brothers) know these answers.