I think the bloomberg editorial summed it up pretty well….
Why target a tax benefit that goes to a lot of your supporters (and donors), that tickles one of the sweetest spots in American politics (subsidizing higher education), and that will hit a lot of people who make less than the $250,000 a year that has become the administration’s de facto definition of “rich”?
Presumably, because you’re running out of other places to get the money.
[/quote]
Stupid, illogical conclusion. The benefit doesn’t go to a lot of supporters (or donors). It hardly goes to anyone. And those that the benefits do go to, are disproportionately not those that need it the most.
The reason to dump it obvious. It doesn’t reach a wide enough population. So the proposal is to scrap it for future benefits, (NOT for people who have already taken advantage of it.) and replace it with a program with a wider market.[/quote]
Exactly.
And it’s not because they are running out of other places to get the money…it’s because the places with the most money have the best lobbyists. That’s not a coincidence, either.
