Are Republicans for lower taxes, as a general principle? They would have you believe the answer is yes; in fact, getting the rubes to vote for them is a matter of promising to take control of the nation's uteruses away from their rightful owners plus a promise that you personally will see lower taxes. But are they in fact in support of lower taxes? Here's your answer:
At issue is the expiration of payroll tax cuts that Obama insisted on when he cut a deal with congressional Republicans last year to extend the Bush tax cuts. The 4.2 percent rate that workers have been paying will revert to the old level of 6.2 percent unless Congress and the White House can reach a deal before the end of the year. For most of this year, Republicans have been signaling strong opposition to extending the cuts. Over the summer, Rep. Paul Ryan belittled the payroll tax cut as “sugar-high economics,” while just this past Sunday Sen. Jon Kyl argued that it “has not stimulated job creation. We don’t think that is a good way to do it.”
So, if a tax squeezes the working class, they are all for it. They are for tax cuts, sure, but only if you're rich. Everyone else should pay more to make sure that our wealthiest class can afford a fourth summer home. According to this article, the average amount they want the 99% to pay in order to subsidize Ferrari maintenance for the 1% is about $1,000 a year: you should sacrifice a mortgage payment, your family's Christmas, or teeth cleanings for everyone so that rich people can better afford that $39,000 backpack. That's what Republicans stand for. Anything else they claim is just hand-waving.
By the way, blather about job creation is part of that hand-waving. Average families will spend that $1,000 on stuff that stimulates the economy. Money going to your dentist or to pay your mortgage or buy presents for your kids does a lot more, economically, than money that goes from a rich person to another rich person to buy a fancy doo-dad.