BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Expiring Bush tax cuts for rich will affect only 5% of small businesses

William Gale. "Five myths about the Bush tax cuts." Washington Post. August 1, 2010: "If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year. And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses."
Extending Bush tax cuts would worsen income inequality

Pat Garofalo. "Stephen Moore calls for raising taxes on the poor in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich." Think Progress. July 8th, 2010: "According to the latest data, 'the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007.' The top 1 percent of families now receive nearly 25 percent of the country’s income, after earning less than 10 percent in the 1970s. This year the Bush tax cuts will give millionaires more in tax breaks than 90 percent of Americans will make in total income."
Extending Bush tax cuts for 1 year would hardly add to deficit

Debra J. Saunders. "Ending the Bush tax 'cuts' is a tax increase." San Francisco Chronicle. August 15th, 2010: "He must know that to put off raising taxes on the rich for one year would add $36 billion - peanuts in his circle - to the deficit. It's not going to close the gaping hole, but it could scare private-sector employers who are considering hiring. Especially when there are whispers from Washington that Obama is drafting another huge economic stimulus package."
Small businesses depend on product demand, not tax breaks for wealthy

A 2010 Congressional Budge Report Found: "Increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for [small businesses ] to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products." In other words, if you're worried about the fragile state of the economy and you want to do something to make sure recovery is not set back, there are any number of more effective ways to spend that money. Continuing to help states pay their Medicaid bills would be one.[6]
Raising taxes is always bad for the person paying

Megan McArdle. "Should We Raise Tax Rates on the Rich?" The Atlantic. August 9th, 2010: "The other question is, isn't there some upper limit on tax brackets for the wealthy? When the Bush tax cuts expire, that top rate will go to 39.5%. Then there's the 2.9% Medicare tax, and the 0.9% Medicare surtax we just enacted. There are, for those living in places like New York, New Jersey, California, or DC, state and local income taxes that can add an extra 5-10% onto the tax bills. We're now well over 50% marginal rates before we've even considered things like property and sales taxes. When more of your extra dollars are going to the government than yourself, I think it's a problem, even if you're very rich. I think that has to be factored into any argument about the "fairness" of the tax system."
High taxes on rich has coincided with great economic growth

Robert Creamer. "Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Breaks for the Rich." Huffington Post. July 28th, 2010: "The Republicans charge that eliminating these tax breaks on the rich -- and returning them to Clinton-era levels -- would be a 'job-killing tax hike in the midst of a recession.' Let's recall that while the Clinton-era tax rates applied to the rich in the 1990's, the economy created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years -- the most jobs ever created under a single administration. Moreover, the Federal deficit had turned into a surplus for as long as the eye could see. The number of private sector jobs created during the Bush years: zero."
Bush tax cuts are a minor contributor to the deficit

William Gale. "Five myths about the Bush tax cuts." Washington Post. August 1, 2010: "4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit. [...] Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame. [...] The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year."
Supply side economics has proven a major failure.

Robert Creamer. "Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Breaks for the Rich." Huffington Post. July 28th, 2010: "The 'supply side experiment' turned out to be a colossal failure. For eight years, George W. Bush applied the theory in its purest form: increase tax breaks to the rich, eliminate regulations on Big Oil, insurance companies and Wall Street. The results are there for everyone to see. The New York Times reported last year that, 'For the first time since the Depression, the American economy has added virtually no jobs in the private sector over a 10-year period. The total number of jobs has grown a bit, but that is only because of government hiring.' In fact, since George Bush and the Republicans in Congress passed two massive tax cuts, we have seen a massive, secular decline in the creation of private sector jobs."
Britain raised taxes, cut spending in 2010; so can US

"Our view on balancing the budget: To help control the deficit, let the Bush tax cuts expire." USA Today Editorial. July 21, 2010: "With the nation edging ever closer to a major debt crisis, there simply isn't much choice but to start living within its means. That message is being heard in other debt-laden parts of the world. British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, has put forward a budget that slashes spending 25% and hikes taxes. Remarkably, his fiscal responsibility is politically popular. The message needs to be heard on this side of the Atlantic. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, while simultaneously reining in bloated benefit and military programs, would be an indication that it is."
Deficit problem is entitlement spending, not Bush tax cuts

Debra J. Saunders. "Ending the Bush tax 'cuts' is a tax increase." San Francisco Chronicle. August 15th, 2010: "For my part, I don't want to hear another conservative pundit call for more tax cuts until the there's a closure of the gap between what Washington takes in and what it promises and spends. If that day never comes, well, someone has to pay for the party. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin stands out as the rare Republican willing to challenge the Democrats' "culture of dependency" by proposing painful cuts on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending. He, at least, is willing to tell the middle class that entitlement spending is "unsustainable." Ryan is the adult in this room. As David Walker, head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former U.S. controller, told The Chronicle's Carolyn Lochhead last week, 'If you eliminated all the Bush tax cuts, if you withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, if you eliminated foreign aid, and if you eliminated all spending associated with congressional earmarks - the populist things - it's about 15 percent of the problem.'"
All Bush tax cuts should be expired; ending just those for rich is modest

"Our view on balancing the budget: To help control the deficit, let the Bush tax cuts expire." USA Today. July 21st, 2010: "As it happens, with the so-called Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 set to expire at the end of this year, both parties have a chance to do something about the deficit simply by doing nothing. So are they prepared to seize this rare opportunity? Hardly. President Obama and most Democrats want to extend those tax cuts — which slashed marginal rates as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains — for all but high-income households. Never mind that most Democrats voted againstthe cuts in the first place, or that the economy had been flourishing before they were enacted."
Extend Bush tax cuts temporarily, foster recovery, then expire them

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told CNN: "[It would provide] a considerable boost to economic activity in 2011 and beyond for a few years." This is precisely when the economy needs such a "considerable boost." While it is true that he then said, "Over time, [however,] the negative consequences of very high federal borrowing build up," extending the tax cuts should be seen as a short-term thing; something that would be ended as soon as the economy has had a chance to recover (within a couple of years). This means helping stabilize the economy, while taking measures to address the longer-term deficit problems in the nation.[3]
Expiring Bush tax cuts for rich will burden small businesses

"Editorial: Extend the Bush tax cuts, temporarily." Dallas Morning News. August 2, 2010: "Obama's proposals could put thousands of small-business owners in a tax bracket higher than America's corporate giants. The top tax rates would rise from 33 and 35 percent today to 36 and 39.6 percent in January. The millions of small-business owners who file income taxes as individuals could pay rates higher than Exxon Mobil or Goldman Sachs. Where's the wisdom in that when small businesses create most American jobs – and need help, not hindrance?"
Majority support expiring Bush tax cuts for wealthy

An August 2010 CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 51 percent of Americans support repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest families.[11] Another poll by Society for Human Resource Management and National Journal Congressional Connection found: "30 percent of Americans believe all of Bush's 2001 and 2003 cuts should stay in place. That compared to 31 percent who believed that all of them should be repealed. Twenty-seven percent take the route Obama campaigned on: Tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, while the others should stay in place. [. . .] Independents hewed closest to the overall sample. Twenty-seven percent said all the tax cuts should be kept in place. Thirty-two percent said they all should be repealed. Twenty-seven percent said the tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, but the middle class cuts should be kept in place."[12]
Advocates of extending Bush tax cuts created deficit

"Our view on balancing the budget: To help control the deficit, let the Bush tax cuts expire." USA Today Editorial. July 21, 2010: "Republicans, for their part, are not satisfied with extending most of the tax cuts. They want to extend them all. Never mind that these are the very people who turned a budget surplus into a $5 trillion mountain of debt during the Bush presidency and whohave been making the most noise about the deficit recently."
Letting Bush tax cuts expire will slow economic growth

2010 Congressional Budget Office Report: "CBO assumes that tax reductions enacted earlier in this decade that are currently set to expire at the end of this year do so as scheduled; ... Under those assumptions, the federal budget deficit would decline substantially over the next two years—to 4.2 percent of GDP in 2012—and, consequently, the budget would provide much less support to the economy than has been the case for the past two years… CBO projects that the economy will grow by only 2.0 percent from the fourth quarter of 2010 to the fourth quarter of 2011; even with faster growth in subsequent years, the unemployment rate will not fall to around 5 percent until 2014."[4]
Over-taxing wealthy impairs trickle-down effect and job-creation

Deroy Murdock. "Halt reckless spending and extend Bush tax cuts." Dessert News. July 26, 2010: "Americans in the top bracket run companies, start new businesses, launch innovative products and hire other Americans to perform these positive functions. While Democrats routinely denounce "the rich" as if they were un-American, the sad truth is that very few poor people create jobs."
Tax cuts for rich can be safely expired as they offer least stimulus

"A Real Debate on Taxes." New York Times Editorial. August 23, 2010: "Tax cuts for low-, middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers should be temporarily extended because those taxpayers tend to spend most of their income and the economy needs consumer spending. That would cost roughly $140 billion next year, but the spur to the economy is more important than the budgetary impact. [...] Tax cuts for the rich can safely be allowed to expire because wealthy taxpayers tend to save rather than spend their tax savings. The revenue from letting these expire — nearly $40 billion next year — would be better spent on job-creating measures."
Republicans are fiscally austere toward middle-class, but not wealthy

"GOP has no problem extending tax cuts for the rich." Washington Post Editorial. July 14th, 2010: "SENATE REPUBLICANS, committed as they are to preventing the debt from mounting further, can't approve an extension of unemployment benefits because it would cost $35 billion. But they are untroubled by the notion of digging the hole $678 billion deeper by extending President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."
Expiring Bush tax cuts impairs productive small businesses

Jay Newton. "Democrats to Propose Extending Bush's Middle-Class Tax Cuts." Time. July 21, 2010: "Less than 5% of the subchapter-S companies — small businesses that have less than 100 shareholders and pay individual income taxes — made more than $200,000 in 2007. That 5% packs quite a wallop, though, accounting for more than two-thirds of tax receipts in the top two brackets and representing the wealthiest hedge funds, law firms and lobbying outlets in America, all of which file individual or partnership income taxes, according to IRS statistics."
Ending Bush tax cuts on rich still keeps cuts for 95%

Robert Creamer. "Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Breaks for the Rich." Huffington Post. July 28th, 2010: "President Obama has proposed to eliminate the massive deficit-busting Bush tax breaks for the top 2 percent of Americans -- while maintaining tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. He is spot on. [...] The Bush tax breaks are set to expire at year's end, so there is real pressure on Congress to act. Congress should maintain the cuts for individuals earning $200,000 or less, and families earning $250,000 or less. And it should restore the Clinton-era tax rates to the very rich. [...] It is the right thing to do economically, politically and morally."
Balanced budget takes/diminishes important programs from people.

Kathy White. "Guest Commentary: A federal balanced budget amendment would hurt the economy." Denver Post. July 24th, 2011: "And there's another reason why a constitutional amendment is unwise: people. Contrary to trending tweets, the federal government actually provides a lot to average folks from every walk of life. Pregnant women learn good nutrition through the Women Infants and Children program. Young children hit school ready to learn through Head Start. College is affordable to many because of federal Pell Grants. Social Security and Medicare keep older Americans from poverty. The list goes on and on. If you can't think of something that benefits you, think again. Whatever it is, you stand a good chance of losing it under a balanced budget amendment."
Amend needed to address systemic, runaway spending.

Dr. Jim Garlow Chairman, Renewing American Leadership Action. Statement before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 13, 2011: "Rather than treasuring and celebrating the limited government our founders willed to us, since the Progressive era our governing establishment has been moving toward an all-encompassing State that intends to dominate our lives. And the way they have been doing it is through runaway spending. According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2011 Chart Book, since 1970 federal spending has grown more than ten times faster than the median income of Americans. The annual federal budget did not reach $1 trillion until 1987, but exceeded $2 trillion in 2002 and $3 trillion in 2009. This rate of growth was unsustainable at the time, but that was before the recession led to an explosion of irresponsible federal spending that now stretches for as far as the fiscal eye can see. President Obama’s latest budget plans to spend more than $46 trillion over the next decade, without even a gesture in the direction of solving our long-term fiscal crisis. According the Congressional Budget Office, if Congress enacts President Obama’s 2012 budget, interest payments on accumulated deficits will total $931 billion in 2021 alone. That would consume 20% of all tax revenues. When we then add the cost of mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, 95% of all tax receipts would be spent before Congress can begin to fund national defense or any other essential function of government. This is simply unsustainable. As Richard Nixon’s Chief Economist Herbert Stein famously said: 'That which cannot continue, won't.'"
States need fed to be able to run deficit to back-them up.

If states have a balanced budget amendment, they often fall victim to a number of circumstances which makes it necessary for them to seek Federal backing (in which case it is important for the fed to be able to borrow in order to support them). These circumstances can be natural disasters, epidemics, or just demographic shifts that cause a number of years of poor revenues and too much spending. In such cases, it can be very important for the Fed to step in to help-out funding certain critical programs or in lending general emergency support. Without the ability of the fed to run a deficit during bad times, this important supporting relationship with the states would be significantly damaged. This is bad for the republic.
Balanced budget amendment undervalues loans and debt

Kathy White. "Guest Commentary: A federal balanced budget amendment would hurt the economy." Denver Post. July 24th, 2011: "Traveling back in time is no way to prepare for the future. You meet the future by making investments that will pay off. Families take long term loans to buy homes and pay for college. Businesses borrow to take advantage of modern technologies and more efficient facilities. State and local governments borrow to build and maintain roads, dams, schools and prisons. Denying the United States government that same basic tool would jeopardize generations of progress. Indeed, a balanced budget amendment would be like forcing a family to pay the entire cost of a house up front, or making a college student pay a year's tuition entirely with money earned that same year. At the federal level, unless exempted as Senator Udall's proposal does, it could mean that the Social Security Trust Fund could pay out to current retirees only what it took in through taxes on current workers. Too bad if there are more retirees than workers."
Amend would create Const. crisis, court battle w/ each budget.

Davis Merritt. "Balanced-budget amendment is unworkable." The Wichita Eagle. August 2nd, 2011: "Since arguments over whether a budget is truly and honestly balanced are endless, a constitutional requirement of balance would make resolving the argument the province of the federal court system, raising two critical problems. Timing: The president proposes a budget to Congress around Feb. 1 to take effect Oct. 1. At any point in that process, lawsuits could be filed by members of Congress and other citizens and interest groups. Typically it takes two or three years to get a case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and there likely would be thousands of cases annually, many frivolous. Thus we could never be sure that any budget actually met the constitutional requirement until it was far too late. Power: In resolving the conflict, federal judges would have the unwanted power to decide how to balance it — what to cut and what revenues to raise. As lifetime appointees, they would be beyond the reach of citizens or Congress if their decisions were unacceptable or inadequate. The primary power of the legislative branch — the purse — and the primary power of citizens — the vote — would be nullified."
Spending limits creates certainty for job creation.

Ohio Republican John Boehner said that adoption of a balanced budget amendment would help ensure "that spending restraints are set in stone, and the certainty it provides will help create a better environment for job creation across the country. The House bill that we’ll consider would require the government to spend only what it takes in, and would include limitations on our government’s ability to raise taxes and to increase spending. I voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment in the past and I'll support it again now."[4]
Politicians will favor corporate interests w/ balanced budget.

Jack Lohman: "If your politician’s choice is to 'balance the budget' by either (a) cutting entitlement or social spending, or (b) cutting spending on projects or contracts for the corporate interests that fund his elections, which way do you think the vote will go? If your politician’s choice is to raise taxes on the top 3 percent, or not, would you expect him to do that if those top 3 percent are the funders of his campaign? Or would he instead cut entitlements to protect his funders?"[5]
Politicians can't make hard choices; BBA necessary

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: “The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. If these debt negotiations have convinced us of anything, it’s that we can’t leave it to politicians in Washington to make the difficult decisions that they need to get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment will do that for them. Now is the moment. No more games. No more gimmicks. The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We’ve tried persuasion. We’ve tried negotiations. We’re tried elections. Nothing has worked."[2]
Balanced budget amend in states is often a bad thing.

The fact that some states have balanced budget amendments often means that, during hard times when tax revenues are low, states have to dramatically cut spending. This can damage or even fully close many programs that deserve to exist and are sustainable during good, or even just average, times. If they were able to run a short or medium term deficit during bad times, they wouldn't have to do this. So, it is very arguable whether states should have balanced budget amendments. This undermines the argument, "if states can do it, so can the federal govt." Just because some states have done it, doesn't mean it's a good idea for them, nor a good idea for the US government.