-
Laying Down My Pen
May 24, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
Streetcar Line
Fiscal Conservatives Are Winning
Budget plans advance the cause. The left is in retreat. Can we knock off the backbiting and nitpicking?
This is the week for bold, conservative, budget-related proposals, with major announcements from the Heritage Foundation, from Speaker John Boehner, and from a group of Republican senators led by Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey. Very good. Although some Tea Party groups may not recognize as much, conservatives are winning the political battle over budgets right now. Befuddled liberals, rocked back on their heels, are responding by pushing tax hikes. If that’s their answer, they lose and we win.
Boehner’s proposal is the simplest, and it’s well-nigh brilliant. He called for cuts from President Obama’s proposed long-term budgets that are “greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.” Also, “We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions. They should be actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future.”
And tax hikes will not be on the table.
The public can grasp this idea. This proposal paints a bright line, based on principle, easily measured. The debt limit should not rise by more than the amount by which five-year budgets are cut.
Last weekend, my friend Jim Guirard, the longtime chief of staff for former Louisiana Democratic U.S. Sens. Russell Long and Allen Ellender, was pushing a slightly different idea but one that would dovetail quite nicely with Boehner’s. Guirard said Republicans should go ahead and raise the debt limit, but only by half as much as Obama requested — with the other half absolutely dependent on Obama meeting several, measurable, strict savings targets in the meantime. Without meeting those targets, Obama could not trigger the full debt-limit hike.
Put Guirard’s proposal together with Boehner’s. Insist that Boehner’s suggested level of cuts be made — and that they actually be implemented, as intended, or else the higher debt limit would automatically be revoked. Or something like that.
Meanwhile, where Boehner lays out parameters, Heritage and Toomey lay out specifics. Both would balance the federal budget within ten years. Neither one would raise net taxes. The Heritage plan would fundamentally reshape large swaths of the federal government. It would combine income taxes and payroll taxes (for Medicare and Social Security) into one, flat tax system. It would provide a federal tax credit to individuals/families to purchase health insurance, rather than providing the tax break to employers. It would adopt much of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan to turn Medicaid into a block grant program (with added flexibility to the states) and to turn Medicare for future retirees (phased in) into a “premium support” program that would put authority and choice into individual hands. It would force domestic discretionary spending back to 2008 levels and then freeze it (with an inflation allowance only), and it would direct the federal government to sell $260 billion of assets over 15 years.
All these ideas are basically sound. Conservatives should quibble only with one of its proposed changes for Social Security: Heritage eventually would completely end Social Security payments for wealthy individuals. This is a bad idea. It makes sense to means-test the program to a certain extent, but to completely eliminate payments to some Americans would be to break faith with the idea that, at least at a conceptual level, payroll taxes are meant as a down payment for future considerations. By breaking that link entirely, Heritage would actually feed the notion that successful people are a cash cow to be milked by the less successful without any “return” due to them. This is Robin Hood, “soak the rich,” punish-the-productive, feed-the-looters policy writ large. And, as we shall see, it’s not necessary. Those extra savings can be achieved elsewhere.
Sen. Toomey shows how. For one thing, he would return domestic discretionary spending not just to 2008 levels (as Heritage would do), but to 2006 levels, and then freeze it for six full years (before eventually letting it rise, after that, in line with inflation). Believe it or not, this difference between the two plans could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars of extra savings.
Conservatives should just dare the left to call these levels of spending “Draconian” or “heartless.”
“Oh, really?” we should say. “So… was President Clinton heartless? No? Did he approve budgets that let old ladies freeze in the streets while children starved under overpasses? Of course not. Then why would it be heartless to approve domestic discretionary spending levels that, even after adjusting for inflation and population growth, are tens of billions of dollars above what Clinton agreed to? And no, we’re not talking about what he agreed to in 1995 or 1996, when Republicans were still cutting budgets; we’re talking what he agreed to in 1999 and 2000, after Republicans lost their spending discipline.”
If the 2006 levels were good enough to meet Clinton’s standards of empathy, and then some, surely they should be good for us now.
Meanwhile, Toomey joins Heritage and Ryan in block-granting Medicaid to the states. He also joins Heritage in setting annual spending caps for welfare programs. On taxes, he would collapse the current six income-tax brackets to three, with fewer loopholes but lower marginal rates. He would index the Alternative Minimum Tax to inflation. And he would cut the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.
That last proposal, like almost all corporate-income tax proposals in serious play these days, actually isn’t anywhere near bold enough. The regular corporate income tax rate should be zero, at least for U.S.-based companies. (I explained how and why more than three years ago, here.)
All in all, though, Boehner, Heritage, Toomey, Ryan and others are driving the debate. Democrats are being forced into lower spending, and also are being smoked out as inveterate tax hikers. Economist Larry Kudlow — a solid economic conservative if there ever was one — has been saying all week that Republicans are winning the economic debate and winning on actual legislation as well. He told a radio show Tuesday that the GOP won in the December deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, that it won in the spending showdown on the Continuing Resolution, and that Boehner’s proposal on the debt ceiling is a winner as well.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (128) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/12/fiscal-conservatives-are-winni
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.12.11 @ 6:29AM
That's a very interesting perception, considering that the Ryan budget that the House approved already has massive increases in the debt ceiling built in through 2021.
Here's a complete breakdown of the authorized increases in the debt levels.
In short, Boehner and the House already sold out on the debt limit. I hope this isn't perceived as back biting since it's based on the facts.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opi.....fb7dc0970c
Pages 5 and 6 of the budget resolution declare that the "appropriate levels of debt" subject to the debt ceiling are as follows:
Fiscal year 2012: $16,204,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $17,177,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $17,955,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,704,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $19,513,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $20,257,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $20,981,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $21,711,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $22,416,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $23,105,000,000,000.
Have you considered| 5.12.11 @ 7:41AM
Great post, BHO'S.
I read that the Ryan and Toomey budgets also use pretty rosy GDP growth projections to get the projected deficits "down" to this level.
Just more smoke, mirrors and debt.
There was an article on TAS 2 days ago regarding the ease of opening a business in China verses how difficult it is here in the USA. If this situation does not change, the economy simply will not grow as these politicians project.
Curious, do you think the Tea Party voters would have voted for the GOP in 2010 based upon these numbers? I'm thinking no.
I am no longer enthusiastic about the GOP.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.12.11 @ 10:32AM
Here's how the Ruling Class sells out the Working Class, and it happens each and every time. While the Cardinals of the Ruling Class claim there's winning, the plan for the public to lose has deep roots and is already in place. The public can not win now. The Ruling Class has too many tentacles and the members of the Ruling Class are good at lying. Anything that remotely resembles honesty will be swatted down and ridiculed as "not understanding the complexities" whatever that means. Here's a perfect example.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues.....?pos=hftxt
But the conservative Oklahoma Republican just shrugged Wednesday when asked to comment on attacks from Norquist, who is president of Americans for Tax Reform, an advocacy group that, at least until recently, had long enjoyed a powerful grip on GOP politicians. Even Coburn is a signatory to ATR’s “No Tax Pledge,” viewed as a must for any Republican running for office.
In an interview with Roll Call on Wednesday, Norquist unloaded on Coburn’s participation in the Senate’s bipartisan “gang of six” budget negotiations as well as his stance on the president’s deficit commission. He referred to the efforts of the gang of six as a sham, said the Senator was being used by Democrats to promote tax increases and accused the Oklahoman of being duplicitous in his previously stated opposition to tax increases.
Coburn, who cruised to a second Senate term in 2010 and has long been viewed as among the most conservative and inflexible lawmakers on Capitol Hill, said the scale and urgency of the federal budget crisis has made it necessary to consider compromises that he might not have earlier in his career. Fixing the problem now means accepting the fact that Republicans can’t have everything their own way, he said.
stmichrick| 5.13.11 @ 8:46PM
So, great; vote for Ron Paul and enjoy another 4 years of Obama.
Boehner has a better handle on what's possible and fortunately he is on the side of real spending cuts. Not enough to be sure, but he is what you have and threatening to stay home is, in no way, useful.
simon templar| 5.12.11 @ 11:00AM
Bill, thank you for the link. I read the article. Perhaps Quin can address this and give us an explanation. What really disturbed me about this ( you might find this amusing as something you most likely knew most of your life) is the rampant disinformation, contradictory information, political propaganda, smoke and mirror politics, corrupt journalism, abundance of talking heads, and the never ending shortage of politicians willing to sell their souls for fame, fortune, and social acceptance of the ruling elites. Is it even possible anymore as a citizen of this Republic to obtain accurate information about anything? Are there any honest and informed men or women out there? I know this exist but sometimes I am just shocked by the extent of it at times. If TAS and the conservative media can not get it together to gives us the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then really what is the point of anything? It makes you seriously wonder if this Republic died a long, long time ago and the rest of us just have not awakened to this reality. It seems that this modern technological media is nothing more than one giant propaganda machine with a grip that is monstrous, insidious, and all encompassing. Perhaps, it is time for a citizen news source of committed patriots willing to expose the truth without ideology, agendas, or self promotion. What are your thoughts on this?
Warrior | 5.12.11 @ 11:20AM
Why would he address this? Even using Boehner's BS numbers that he throws out, we would still be running deficits of over a trillion dollars a year. Instead of listing the enumerated powers and telling every Conservative what they need to hear about the end of the entitlement era. Boehner and the Heritage Foundation continue to find less liberal ways of continuing the programs and sustaining the current size of government.
The greatest line, Democrats are forced into spending less. Someone tell me where there is one shred of proof or evidence to this actually happening. This is the text book definition of insanity.
simon templar| 5.12.11 @ 11:35AM
Warrior, I am assuming you mean Quin...referring to my request that he address Bill's pages 5 and 6? I would like him to answer Bill because I think he needs to be held accountable for what he writes here. I also want to give him the chance to explain. I am grateful that there are people like Bill out there who have a respect for the truth and a desire to be well informed.
Warrior | 5.12.11 @ 2:38PM
Yes I was. I wished I had more time to proofread. Probably wouldn't make a difference, I would still butcher the sentence structure and misplace the commas or even worse.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.12.11 @ 11:25AM
Yes. This is it in a nutshell:
simon templar| 5.12.11 @ 11:00AM
What really disturbed me about this ( . . . . . . . ) is the rampant disinformation, contradictory information, political propaganda, smoke and mirror politics, corrupt journalism, abundance of talking heads, and the never ending shortage of politicians willing to sell their souls for fame, fortune, and social acceptance of the ruling elites. Is it even possible anymore as a citizen of this Republic to obtain accurate information about anything? Are there any honest and informed men or women out there? I know this exists but sometimes I am just shocked by the extent of it at times
George S| 5.12.11 @ 11:32AM
The only "truth" is what you see at the end of the day. Is there a roof over your head... did you child go to bed on a full stomach... are you healthy enough to live another day... is there a job to go to tomorrow morning... are you still free to go about as you please? A lot of people do not like the truths they are experiencing and they will vote accordingly -- they will not be affected by media propaganda such as "Obama got Osama" or "polls show Obama beats Jesus +24 points in 2012". They will not care that the debt ceiling is x trillion or y trillion. They will not care which Republican is more "social" or "fiscal" conservative. All they will care about is the truth in front of their faces. Do they want another four years of the truth?
SpiralArchitect| 5.12.11 @ 4:37PM
Some of us take comfort (even if we only partially believe) knowing/thinking there will be a decent future for ours (children) and, hopefully, theirs as well.
Occam's Tool| 5.12.11 @ 12:07PM
Simon,
unfortunately,power corrupts. Even worse, governmental rules are written without any thought at all. (For example, Medicare balance Billing Provisions)
mames| 5.12.11 @ 11:44AM
Exactly if Ryan and Boehner are the best shot we have we are in big trouble and in fact we are in big trouble. Neither one of these men have demonstrated principled conservative, Constitutionally Limited Republic fighters. They are opportunists and I hope we Tea Party folks are sucessful in removing them through the primary system. They and these "conservative" make me absolutely livid.
SpiralArchitect| 5.12.11 @ 4:38PM
Not in disagreement, but I would focus on the greater evil out there currently then cycle around to review and act from there.
Alan Brooks| 5.12.11 @ 9:57PM
"Fiscal Conservatives Are Winning"
Yes, until another in-over-his-head Bushclone-type is elected (and re-elected) to mess it up again a la '89- '93, and '01- '09.
Cosmo| 5.14.11 @ 6:07AM
Bugger off, Quin...Boehner is a loser and we know it...Our only hope is a Tea Party revolt in the House to install a new leadership team, and that's a real long shot.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 5.12.11 @ 6:29AM
Mr. Hillyer, I'm sick of this endless separating of fiscal conservatism from social conservatism. Either you're an all encompassing conservative or you're no conservative at all. Stop segregating the movement! Fiscal & social issues are intertwined. I will not vote for anyone who claims to be only one or the other. Thinking & columns like this are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem!
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.12.11 @ 8:23AM
I survived...
Would you like to define "social conservatism" please, just to get us on the same page?
Steve A| 5.12.11 @ 9:21AM
I Survived, You need to grow up and play in the big leagues. My guess is that your definition is this: "A social conservative is one who says everything I agree with." This is not going to happen in the real world. If the chioce is between Obama & Candidate X who you agree with 80% of the time, you need to get off your ass & go pull the lever for Candidate X, otherwise, you have absolutely no right to complain.
Tom Osterman| 5.12.11 @ 9:35AM
Nice try. You know what a social conservative is as well as everyone else does here.
The "only" 20% of the time neglects the composition of that 20%. What if, for example, part of that 20% was calling for amnesty for illegal immigrants and calling it Comprehensive Immigration Reform? RINOs have used the 20% argument to justify every sellout of the base.
Steve A| 5.12.11 @ 10:52AM
Sure thing Tom. Sit at home & clap when Obama gets a 2nd term if the GOP nominates a candidate who is an idiot on Immigration. Brilliant strategy. Congratulations on your deep thinking.
SpiralArchitect| 5.12.11 @ 4:42PM
Forget not... a 'just OK' third party/independant could just a quick rain on your picinic. : /
Michael Tomlinson| 5.13.11 @ 1:50AM
It is said that Reagan coined the 20% maxim. He was no RINO.
The problem with an absolutist political position is that the people who demand 100% conformity are no different than Democrats in spirit if not actual policies. Though with an overwhelming majority of self-identified Tea Party supporters favoring Obama's deficit "reduction" and entitlements status quo policies they may just be Democrats.
JimH| 5.12.11 @ 8:34AM
It is remarkable how in this country conservative and liberal have come to mean the opposite of what they originally meant. Per Russell Kirk, conservatism is not a political system as much as it is an attitude and desire to preserve established institutions. Liberal, in the original sense meant favoring things which would increase the general liberty. People who call themselves conservatives now do not favor the status quo. They want to make major changes to the current order. Liberals on the other hand favor maintaining and expanding policies which in effect greatly curtail freedom. Most such labels have become meaningless. The real question to be asked is how much government is necessary and what is its legitimate function?
mames| 5.12.11 @ 9:50PM
That is why I am a Jeffersonian liberal.
Quin| 5.12.11 @ 9:44AM
When and where did I separate fiscal conservatives from social conservatives? Certainly not in this column. As a full-spectrum conservative myself, I frequently argue AGAINST those who would promote such a separation.
Steve A| 5.12.11 @ 11:01AM
Quin, Don't sweat it. The fact of the matter is that there are those who consider themselves "full spectrum conservatives " who would rather tell everyone about how pure they are & sit it out while the country goes up in flames.
They have the irrational fear that a vengeful God will cast a lightning bolt at them if they pulled the lever for a person with a moral stance on a single issue that contradicts their own.
If you must eat & you had to choose a restaurant where you hated the entire menu, or one where you loved 80%, which one do you pick. Some of our pals choose the hunger strike option knowing their decision forces the rest of us to eat garbage for the next 4 years. It is selfish, shallow & petty.
Doctor Right| 5.12.11 @ 1:13PM
A restaurant?
Stupid analogy.
We're not talking about food; we're talking core values and convictions. And we see a serious lack of them both in our current Congressional "leadership".
Want to compromise on your core values and convictions?
Then you don't have any.
Steve A| 5.12.11 @ 1:33PM
Hey Dr, When I start taking advice from you is when I need to check my sense at the door. Trust me pal. I have seen you act enough to know that I am likely in good shape if you disagree.
PS: I am not compromising anything. Did you agree 1000% on every position of every candidate you have voted for....duh....let me guess....no.
Doctor Right| 5.12.11 @ 2:11PM
I didn't offer you advice.
I asked if you were willing to compromise on your core values and convictions, and if you answer "yes", then you don't have any.
I got the answer I was looking for.
Seems like we WOULD disagree on a lot, Steve. Now go polish your RINO-horn before swilling drinks with Quin.
And by-the-way...1000% is stupid, too, like your restaurant analogy.
Steve A| 5.12.11 @ 3:00PM
Its Doctors like you who cause me to self medicate.
mames| 5.12.11 @ 9:54PM
Also compromise is rampant among the "conservative" pundits. And why do these guys get such credibility when many of the postings here are more cogent and direct? These guys get paid to write this misguided drivel, I want in!
tatosian| 5.12.11 @ 1:22PM
"You need to grow up and play in the big leagues."
Really? Is that what you're doing? Playing in the bigs by supporting republicans who will say whatever they have to so groupies like yourself won't "sit it out" every 2 years? Wow. You big league players are an inspiration. And I'm not just saying that either. It takes dedication and a commitment to the suspension of disbelief to keep swallowing lies, misinformation and more lies to keep pulling that lever for your heroes squatting in the seraglio.
"Sit at home & clap when Obama gets a 2nd term if the GOP nominates a candidate who is an idiot on Immigration."
Your republican idols gave us the ultimate in immigration idiocy with the McRat cartoon candidacy. It lost didn't it? Bet you were exceedingly proud pulling that lever huh? Cause you play in the big leagues.
"there are those who consider themselves "full spectrum conservatives " who would rather tell everyone about how pure they are & sit it out while the country goes up in flames."
As opposed to those like yourself, who deride purity or principle and insist the justified concerns of American citizens are destructive, delusional and, damn it, downright un-American if they prevent any of us from pulling that lever every two years.
"Some of our pals choose the hunger strike option"
And some of us (you) choose feasting on table scraps from the republican dumpster. Ah. The big leagues. By the way, are you putting on weight?
Steve A| 5.12.11 @ 1:44PM
tatosian, Get a grip. Believe me when I tell you this: I am about as far out to the right as you can get. Thought Bush spent too much, was an idiot on Immigration & Education reform, voted for him 2 X. What, you want me to vote for Gore & Kerry. MCCain absolutely blows. Not even close to a conservative. What, you want me to sit at home & watch Obama waltz in there & destroy the freaking country? Yeah, you take your marbles & go on home if you don't like the choices & let the rest of us deal with your "purity." Freakin joke.
Sure, if I could dig up Reagan & run him vs. Obama, everyone is happy. The reality is that this is not going to happen so we need to deal with what we have. Can we demand true conservatives represent us?? Yes. Do imposters get the nomination sometimes? Yes (McCain) Do we then sit at home & cry for the next 8 years while the country gets shredded? I say no.
I am reacting to the suggestion that social conservatives sit it out if "their true, imaginary, perfect candidate," does not get the nomination.
Bob Grant| 5.12.11 @ 2:26PM
I'm afraid most here fantasize Sarah will swoop down and save the republic @ 2 minutes before Midnight. In their mind it's the next best thing to digging up Reagan.
Me?...I'm voting for whomever BO's opponent is. And no, I'm not a RINO.
tatosian| 5.12.11 @ 2:30PM
Well hell. I voted for g.w. twice myself. As you say, what choice did I have?
But isn't that sort of the point these purists that you deride are making?
You must admit that the lack of real choices presented to voting Americans has given us, for one thing, bigger, more intrusive government. Surely this is a conservative issue. That happened during republican g.w.'s reign. Republicans didn't stop it sir. They took for themselves whatever they could get and continued to assure us they were looking out for our best interests. Those actions led directly to obama.
Some of these purists, and by the way, calling them/me purists implies that we are naifs or juvenile idiots who cannot see that these republicans are far more concerned with their own careers than fixing what ails us. I mean if they are public servants, what have they done for us sir? We can see what they're doing for themselves. We can see where their interests lie. Clearly their interests and ours are not the same.
I don't want to get muddled here so I'll ask you a question: you say you are to the right. I consider myself to the right also. Do you make your decisions based on principle or expediency sir? That is, do you do whatever you must to get ahead, to make money and achieve with or without principled decisions and actions? I'm assuming you make decisions based on principles. Not because I'm to the right and so assume some sort of moral high ground here, but because I see rank and file Americans take actions based on principle every single day. There are lines in the sand many Americans won't step over, no matter the rewards.
Those republicans you insist we pull the lever for have made careers obfuscating or eliminating those lines. All so they could get more, more more. For themselves.
Opposing that doesn't make one a purist sir. It makes one a realist and a pro American.
Show me where I'm wrong sir.
Steve A| 5.12.11 @ 2:48PM
To Bob G, Yes, you get it. Thank you.
To tatosian, I do not disagree with anything you just stated. To answer your question directly, principle, every time.
One of my principles is this: America is the greatest country in the history of civilization for several reasons. The fact that thousands upon thousands perished in the struggle to get us to this point leads me to hold the belief that I will not " sit one out" if I am confronted with a decision to exercise the freedoms granted me by God & secured & protected by those who serve in our military & permit others, who may not view our country in the same light, to dictate the terms upon which my children & their children shall live.
tatosian| 5.12.11 @ 3:53PM
I may have missed something but I didn't catch anyone saying they were going to sit this (2012 election) one out.
That said, we're still in the same place.
When the entire apparatus of Government continues to find ways of taking more and leaving us with less, it's time for change. When that same government apparatus diminishes the American culture and society while imposing a manufactured and oppressive culture of political correctness on us, it's time for change.
The republican party is quite at home within that government apparatus that brought those two realities about.
America is indeed the greatest nation in the history of mankind.
It is my love of and commitment to that nation that precludes my supporting a republican political class that puts its own petty interests above the interests of this nation and its citizens.
No disrespect, but Americans need real representation. Not election cycle platitudes and promises that amount to nothing.
We need an alternative to the republicans.
Pulling that republican lever over and over again and expecting different results is insane.
Bob Grant| 5.12.11 @ 5:00PM
Well, Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton, some third party candidate will give us Pharaoh Obama part deux. Hope you can live with that.
tatosian| 5.12.11 @ 5:22PM
Actually, the lack of adherence to constitutional dictates and the undeniable quest for power and wealth that characterizes our political class gave us clinton, bush and obama.
Didn't happen in a vacuum. Didn't spring full grown from Reagan's head. Republicans played, and continue to play their part in the dissolution of America.
Blind loyalty to the republicans also got us to where we are. You appear quite comfortable living with that.
Margie| 5.13.11 @ 1:06PM
Mr. Grant.
They can.
They did.
They will do it again.
mames| 5.12.11 @ 9:59PM
One can always compromise on peripheral issues but we are now at a point where it is collectivism against our Republic and no compromise is possible, only victory. WE need as much clarity and purity as we can get and the Boehners and Ryans are not it, in fact they have become enemies to our Constitutionally Limited Republic. They are useful idiots to the collectiv ists.
Warrior | 5.12.11 @ 2:57PM
Dr Right is well...right. You are can't compromise on core values. Just what the hell is a full spectrum Conservative? The only logical question is, are you a Conservative or a Libertarian? The people on the right want to use the word libertarian similar to the way the use the word liberal. There is nothing wrong with being a libertarian, because while there may be a large difference on some social issues, there is a larger agreement across the broader spectrum of all issues.
Steve A| 5.12.11 @ 3:03PM
So Warrior, According to your theory, if either candidate in 2012 holds 1 single social position you disagree with, you are staying home, correct? Do I understand or am I not quite nuanced enough for the superior intellect of the pure?
Warrior | 5.12.11 @ 4:34PM
What theory? I am not a social Conservative, maybe that will make it clearer for you. However, I will never compromise on the fact that abortion is murder. That is a core value, won't be compromised. Since I've never discussed who or when I've voted, I'm not sure why you would interject speculative nonsense.
Chuck| 5.12.11 @ 6:50AM
You think so, I got news for you. The debt-ceiling will be raised again and again, no budget cuts, Obamacare in place and the Federal Reserve...business as usual.
Dee See| 5.12.11 @ 7:18AM
80% of the American public is now
calling for an audit, dismantling and
prosecution of the ILLEGAL 'Federal
Reserve'.
Prior to its unconstitutional establishment
in 1913, ALLLLL government costs were
defrayed by tariffs. There was NO income
tax.
Since its establishment the REAL purchasing
power of the dollar has declined 96%.
Almost simultaneous with its establishment
the income tax was introduced and we were
embroiled in our first global, and utterly
unneccessary war.
The FED is also now, ON RECORD, cited even
by the likes of Milton Friedman, as the instigator
of the 1929 Great Depression.
A host of other matters as well that we don't have room to relate.
Get rid of your TVs and your laid on FOX News
pseudo-populism (Murdoch's a RED China sellout
enabling globalist) ---call everyone you know,
and MARCH on the New York offices of the
Federal Reserve, AND the TAX-free 'benny
violent' 'chair-IT-Abel' EUGENICS Foundations this July
4th.
HUAC meets NUREMBERG for 2012.
Spread the word-----------------------------
TIME TO MOVE
Michael Tomlinson| 5.12.11 @ 8:18AM
Why raise the debt ceiling if we're going to cut the Obama deficits? We need to go back to the last GOP budget in 2006 and use that as our baseline on spending. Everything since Obama should be off the table.
I Survived Arlen Specter there is a difference between social and fiscal conservatives. The latter spent 2005-2006 attacking profligate Republicans and gave us the Reid/Pelosi Congress. Not happy with that they made the 2008 elections another bitch session and gave us Barack Obama. For many of them supporting “blue dog” Democrats, appeasing Muslim terrorists, aborting babies, winking at human trafficking, trashing free trade, gutting national defense and even raising taxes are well worth the price if their narrow idea of “fiscal conservatism” becomes reality.
Margie| 5.12.11 @ 11:36AM
OOh baby did you get it right.
I'll just go one step further for you if I may: I'll name them. These are the Libertarians, the Paul-bots, and the so called Paleo-conservatives.
These are the despicable Clint/Tim*s and his ilk.
The interesting thing is about them is that while they preach about how "pure" they think we're trying to be when it is them~ and they trash anyone BIG TIME who doesn't bow to THEIR disgusting ideology.
They WILL indeed give us Obama II, as the their false preaching hasn't changed a bit, but in fact has only gotten stronger.
Case in point~ notice how Clint/Tim* was trashing me (as usual) for sticking up for a great guy, Herman Cain yesterday.
Their immoral and disgusting ilk thinks they own the TEA party as well.
Just look at how Ron Paul thinks he can run again and get anywhere. And sadly, I see a lot of "conservatives" kissing his rear end these days.
But not Rush, thank God.
Like I always say~ FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ALONE DOES NOT A CONSERVATIVE MAKE!
P.S. The Clint/Tim* punks always rail on about how we're the RINOS, when in truth they are~ they won't vote for a Republican if he or she doesn't preach from their same choir~ (namely "fiscal responsibility") and THAT'S the definition of Republican In Name Only.
Clint| 5.12.11 @ 12:33PM
Explain Cain's Positions: For The Bailout Scam, Against Auditing The FED, For Propping Up Big Banking With The "Too Big To Fail" Scam.
Aaaand , others point out that:
"Herman Cain is a past President of the Kansas City Federal Reserve but he is also a member of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), a Security and Properity Partnership (SPP) steering group which none other then Glenn Beck revealed in 2007 with his big selling An Inconvenient Book (which was sadly skeptical at the time, but now he gets it) working towards making North America the most powerful continent in the world: the North American Union."
Clint| 5.12.11 @ 2:15PM
Uh Oh !
Israel Firster Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie Beat The Drum For The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain & then voted for Him in The Joisey Super Tuesday GOP Primary & The General Election & then gets all PMS'y and Bitchified, because Tea Party Clint calls Her A RINO-CINO Israel Firster.
Tell Us about McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, The Gang Of 14, Opposing The 2001 & 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, TARP.
Warrior | 5.12.11 @ 3:14PM
Margie, respectfully, calling out libertarians like this is counter productive. You are not understanding why Ron Paul appeals to some people. There is no candidate I agree with on everything. At least Congressman Paul is ready willing to try and bring us back to Constituional rule. While I respect social conservatives and their values. There is nothing wrong with having differing ideologies and a debate on substance. This is why you can't have a one size fits all government in DC. The federal government needs to be held to only that which the Constitution lists as enumerated powers. Prostitution, marijuana, making it illegal to sell and consume raw milk, health care, etc. are all issues that need to be settled at the State or lower levels. What works for the citizens of Idaho may not work for the citizens of Vermont.
We should debate the candidates on substance. If we do this, maybe we'll find that an Allen West or Michelle Bachmann are our best hope. Maybe, we can find enough common ground to get more Constitutional stateman elected.
Margie| 5.12.11 @ 11:17PM
Punks are as punks do.
The Paul-bot mentality is on display for all to see~ but who cares, right?
The immoral scum that back him will sit there and trash EVERY GOOD MAN AND WOMAN who does not march lock-step with the anti-American, anti-semitic Neo-Nazi PUNK mentality.
Oh, and Warrior, you know what I meant.
Libertarianism is all about it and you know it.
But hey!
You guys love your own!
Go for it.
Trash anything good.
Trash Herman Cain.
All in the name of fiscal responsibility, of course.
You guys are blind. You really think you're doing a service to your principles by trashing everyone but your own.
Obama II here we come.
Thanks to PUNKS like your pal Clint/Tim*.
Your pal Clint/Tim is the scum of the earth and you know it. But you allow it~ you WANT it.
Sickening.
He sticks up for the lowest of the low.
Adam Kokesh, the anti-American scumbag who is in cahoots with Code Pink, and with whom Rand Paul is buddies with.
Ya know, the Stormfront gang.
Clint/Tim* is no conservative.
He's a lying sack of crap.
But you love him.
You deserve him.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.13.11 @ 1:54AM
Warrior you make a good point, but forget Ron Paul is one of the kings of slopping up gov't pork. That's one reason when in our current fiscal mess.
Margie| 5.13.11 @ 11:28AM
Warrior~
Sorry for my emotional reaction but I cannot STAND the punk Clint/Tim* and the punk remarks were toward him, not you. I ought to have just replied separately to you.
You said: "There is nothing wrong with having differing ideologies and a debate on substance."
Warrior~ Tell that to your Paul-bot pals.
You have it backwards.
I'm the one who is willing to vote for the Republican candidate and have been since I began voting. I am the one who won't compromise on my values and allow my vote to go to a Democrat and so vote Republican, even if he or she isn't the one I wanted to become the nominee.
Your pal (is he?) Clint/Tim* always accuses me of being a triator to conservatism because I voted for McCain/Palin. First of all, if you cannot tell that that is most despicable, then you are certainly no better than his ilk.
But secondly~ going to my point to you~ people like me DO what you exactly that. Debate on substance, and reject lunatics like Ron Paul, who believe that America is an Aggressor and blames her for terrorism.
I think it's pretty insincere to try and pretend that I am trying to stifle debate somehow, when it's your pals, the Paul-bots who ONLY accept him, and no others~ and will TRASH the living heck out of anyone who speaks truthfully about him, and TRASHES anyone who votes Republican, calling them RINO's when in reality a RINO is someone who calls themselves Republican but won't actually VOTE Republican.
Rank hypocrisy.
Derek Leaberry| 5.12.11 @ 8:24AM
At the very least, until the US budget is lowered to the last pre-Obama budget of $2.7 trillion, the Republicans have failed. This is not quibbling. That is fact. Mr. Hillyer seems to be some sort of waterboy for Bob Michel- nay, John Boehner.
D| 5.12.11 @ 8:41AM
I define conservatism as adherence to the words and principles laid out in the country's Constitution. That is, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Individual freedom and limited government. Nitpick that, Mr. Hillyer.
John | 5.12.11 @ 9:14AM
The GOP is setting themselves up for another big loss in 2012 by proposing drastic changes to Social Security and Medicare that will surely screw middle age Americans and seniors who vote in high numbers. Medicaid is different since it is a welfare benefit. Instead the GOP should go over the billions of dollars of fraud, waste and abuse of both programs. Anyone who has been in a hospital knows that they game Medicare and avoid lawsuits by giving the patient a thousand tests costing billions of dollars. Serious medical tort reform would be one answer. And stricter Social Security disability requirements and limiting it to citizens only would also save billions. More structural changes, if needed, to both programs should wait until after the elections. Finally, using ER rooms for free health care for millions, even for a cold or a headache, needs to go.
To effectively destroy the health benefit to employees willingly paid by wealthy corporations to attract the best and brightest is another political loser and another attack on America’s middle class.
I saw nothing in the article about cutting the billions of corporate welfare, wasted foreign aid (except for Israel), bloated highway bills, subsidies for farmers, and especially the corrupt education system. And isn’t there still billions left from endless stimulus and bailout money to too-big-to-fail corporate crooks?
And for the Heritage company to suggest that all corporations should pay zero income tax like Obama’s GE, while the middle class pays their freight defines crony capitalism. A low flat tax for BOTH the American people and corporations is the fairest answer to this nightmare of a tax code.
Finally, no amount of budget balancing will bring prosperity (resulting in an increasing tax base) and a thriving middle class back to America until we stop outsourcing our engine of growth (our manufacturing base) to foreign powers, including many of our enemies. Pull out of the World Trade Organization (the U. N. of trade), end Clinton’s NAFTA and the rest of the sellout trade giveaways for starters and then forbid any American company from sending our manufacturing base overseas for cheap labor -- since when did this treasonous policy be considered trade (goods) anyway.
Then for big-time added revenue enact Trump’s high tariffs for imported goods as our Founders advocated. Do these things and we will once again be a self-reliant and sovereign country again, dependent on nobody with very low inflation. In addition, the GOP will win big again in 2012, including the Senate and the White House.
Pecos Pete| 5.12.11 @ 10:50AM
Corporations do not pay income taxes, or any taxes for that matter. They simply collect taxes from their customers and then remit the money to the applicable taxing governmental unit.
Corporate taxes only inflate the prices for goods and services. Reduce taxes on corporations and retail prices will decline dramatically.
Reduce corporate taxes to zero and watch companies bring their factories back to the USA.
Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 11:50AM
Large corporations, not the small ones. Large corporations seek government help to give them an advantage over the smaller competitors.
Bob K.| 5.12.11 @ 12:34PM
Agreed that corporations do not really pay taxes. But if they pay corporate taxes in the USA and sell their products in the USA those taxes, no matter who eventually ends up paying them come back to the United States.
If they pay no corporate taxes here but sell their product to foreign countries and pay taxes there (as they inevitably will) the USA gets no benefit from the corporation except that it can continue to tax the wages of it's employees and the employees of course still have the salaries they contribute to the overall economy. But the employees still do that if the corporation is taxed here.
The employees carry the burden if the corporation is untaxed. The consumers share in that burden if it is taxed.
Bob K.| 5.12.11 @ 12:46PM
To clarify: The employees carry the burden when untaxed corporations here in the USA make their profits from over seas sales as American consumers will not have the opportunity to share in that burden by purchasing those products as they do when they purchase products sold in America that are subject to a corporate profits tax.
Mike 3/505| 5.12.11 @ 8:30PM
There is actually a proper way to fairly tax the profits of corporations that does not get passed on to the consumer. Tax the "realized profits," also known as dividends at the tax rate of the recipient.
The whole "evil corporate profits" discussion is BS. corporate profits are what fund a big chunks 401k's.
Clint| 5.12.11 @ 9:24AM
"Mark Meckler, co-founder of one of the nation’s largest Tea Party groups, said votes in favor of the budget deal and raising the debt ceiling will make for a toxic electoral combination for House Republicans.
Meckler said that while no one’s truly sold on trying to oust the new Republican Speaker just yet, activists around the country are watching with an increasing level of concern.
“If John Boehner really thinks there’s no daylight between him and the Tea Party, he’s not looking,” said Meckler."
If The GOP Ruling Elite Fops want War with We Tea Party Patriots, let it start here & now.
We are already vetting candidates for The Second Wave, for The 2012 GOP Primaries.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Louis Tully| 5.12.11 @ 9:27AM
Thanks in part to Speaker John Boned's repeated signals that he would not stand in the way of raising the debt ceiling, tax cheat and Secretary of the Treasury Turbo Tax Timmy is now selling bonds that exceed the legal debt ceiling. With a wink and a nod from the GOP. Whether the ceiling is formally lifted or not is a meaningless (in Washington) formality. Timmy knows he has the green light from Boehner, Cantor et al to borrow as he deems necessary.
Winning! the GOP/Boned/Hillyer way. I can't wait for 2012--I'm voting against every incumbent, including all GOP, but for a couple conservatives who *now* wear the GOP uniform. The GOP sucks, it is part of the problem, and no amount of rah-rah from the usual blogging suspects is going to change that.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.12.11 @ 10:22AM
Then you empower Obama and Democrats. Who will you vote for? "Tea Party" candidates like Davis in NY 26 -- a solid Democrat in everything, but name only.
Louis Tully| 5.12.11 @ 2:56PM
Conservatives only.
Which excludes most GOP and all Dems.
tatosian| 5.12.11 @ 5:09PM
Americans are in an untenable situation: vote for fast talking republicans who helped get us to where we are now, or don't vote for those republicans and give another term to obama and his democrats.
What the hell kinda choice is that?
I used to think a third party was the only way out of this mess, but that's not going to happen. Ever. Why? Because a vote taken from the republicans will give another term to obama and his democrats.
So the republican party is my only choice? A pretend party of loyal opposition?
I'm sorry. There's got to be another way.
I don't know what that might be, but one of you big brain conservatives better come up with something because this is like being herded down an ever narrowing cave till we run out of room to turn back and end up suffocating. At which point the tunnel is sealed so the stench doesn't disturb the new crowd lining up for the next cycle.
What the hell. What the hell.
NotALibertarian| 5.12.11 @ 9:39AM
Nit-picking and back-biting are the only reasons Republican Congressional leaders have moved forward as far as they have. And there has been A LOT to nit-pick . . .
(see: Boehner running around D.C. in the midst of negotiations telling anyone who would listen how afraid he is of a government shutdown.)
(see also: McConnell refusing to put DeMint on the Senate Finance Committee even though DeMint was next in line for the open slot.)
Doctor Right| 5.12.11 @ 9:43AM
Once again, Mr. Hillyer is shilling for the feckless, gutless GOP leadership.
So Cry-Baby Boehner has proposed a bold new series of spending cuts?
...Yawn...
Been there, done that, Quin.
Boehner already showed his true colors (yellow) by caving on last month's CR and the oh-so-scary potential of a government shut-down. He and his cronies promised $100 billion in cuts during last year's election cycle; what they ended-up delivering was less than satisfactory, and full of fiscal year trick and feints.
Here's a lesson for you, Quin: Talk is cheap.
We want results, and we damn-well better see them this year.
That means aggressively taking the fight to Obama and the Libs, and NOT backing down.
That means calling this President what he is: A job-killer who is wrecking this economy for purely ideological purposes, and looting the rest for his constituency.
This President has provided the Republicans with so much rhetorical ammunition to use against him, it's a wonder that he has ANY chance at all in 2012. And yet, our "leaders" continue to cower in fear of him as if he was some unbeatable demi-god.
In the words of the TRULY gutsy former Governor of Alaska, it's time to stop pussy-footing around with these jack-offs, and start flexing our muscle. Otherwise, what good is controlling the Congress and the purse strings?
You want to be a cheer-leader for Boehner, Quin? Go ahead. The rest of us have stopped playing games.
Boehner needs to understand that if he doesn't do what the Conservative electorate wants, he can join his Liberal colleagues in the unemployment line in 2013.
Once again, I ask: What the hell is going on at TASOnline??? Where do you find these GOP-flacks??
Warrior | 5.12.11 @ 3:22PM
Let me know when you are ready to run. I'm ready to vote for you.
Michael L. Hauschild| 5.12.11 @ 10:36AM
This has got to be an Onion parody; Quinn, you are so distorted on the reality of what is occurring with Boehner that I am seriously beginning to doubt your sanity. By placing a career capitulator in the only position where the right has input virtually eliminated any chance of controlling or mediating the debt spiral. Giving this man the gavel has effectively negated any positive outcome for reforming spending until 2012.
John | 5.12.11 @ 10:56AM
The term conservative is meaningless today. Rockefeller Republican president Bush was touted as a conservative for years by the talk radio phonies as they carried his liberal water even though he spent like crazy, prosecuted wars like a PC liberal, never built up our shrunken Clinton military, was for open borders, pushed for ultra-liberal Harriet Myers, for Dubai Ports, and sold out our industry to Communist China.
Don’t listen to the fake conservative pundits -- most are GOP talking heads and libertarian economic globalists. Our Founders would disown these big-money Trojan Horse American sellouts.
I am voting for Trump, with all his flaws, because he is at least pro-American. And if he loses the Republican nomination I will vote for him as an Independent. No more anti- American RINOs.
9th ID| 5.12.11 @ 11:15AM
Since Boehner and the GOP lied to us again over the now infamous $100 Billion Budget Cut Pledge, even after the "shellacking" in November, why would anyone believe them now? That lie suddenly became a glorious win coming in at somewhere between $385 million and $20 billion! As they seem beyond redemption, may the GOP/RNC go the way of the Whig Party. We are sick and tired of the moral relativist games, lies, and corruption. Democrat Light isn't the answer. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me...
Chef Schnauzer| 5.12.11 @ 11:28AM
The Sniveler (and Republican Party) have made a careers out of lying to conservatives - take the last 'deal'. No reasonable person can expect a conservative to trust a Republican politician again. It kills me to see these guys all running around with empty words trying to pander to conservatives - they have no principles, no values. They lie with their words and in their deeds. They are as indefensible as the socialists over at the White House, perhaps more indefensible because they pretend to be decent, honest, God fearing men. They are not.
LarryK| 5.12.11 @ 11:33AM
Duh! Winning!
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 11:47AM
Means testing social security is NOT fiscal conservatism. It is SOCIALISM. It is stealing and right in line with Obama's spreading the wealth around. Social Security is a forced investment with VERY modest returns, and to take it is theft and breach in the social contract. In other words the act would break the contract between citizens and the state making the state illegitimate.
LarryK| 5.12.11 @ 11:51AM
Unfortunately, Wayne, social security was hijacked in 1964 and became a permanent tax on earnings to fund the Federal Government spending with IOU's being written to the Social Security trust Fund. The FICA and Medicare you pay to the Federal Government is not your money any more. The Feds can do with that money as they see fit.
Like I said, unfortunately.
Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 11:53AM
The Feds, not the people. Unless you are suggesting we give up the country to the Feds.
Purpleguy| 5.12.11 @ 1:30PM
Who are these "Feds"? Aliens from outer space? Illegal Aliens? seems to me they are the people too.
Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 1:47PM
It is obviously an entity of itself. You are being deliberately obtuse.
George S| 5.12.11 @ 11:56AM
There is no contract. From the Social Security Act of 1935:
SEC. 1104. The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.
How many contracts do you know of that allow one party to change the terms?
The Supreme Court settled the question in Nestor v Fleming -- social security is not a right.
Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 12:05PM
Its a moral obligation, like it or not. Any effort to take the money from those who paid into it for 40 years is an act of theft whether a right or not, and certainly one can't claim it a "conservative" act. Conservatives don't punish the savers and the produces. It is a desperate act of Leftist who will take the money to pay off unions and provide illegal aliens benefits they would deny citizens. Conservatives should not be aiding and abetting the transfer of wealth.
George S| 5.12.11 @ 12:25PM
Fact is social security is political, nothing more. The fate of the program will be determined by the voters -- not by budget proposals or thoughtful debate on the moral or social obligations. The day that social security becomes a political liability is the day it will end. Always remember: everyone is expendable in the war of political survival.
Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 1:52PM
And if any political party hopes to get votes from those who retired or are about to retire, they better show that they have exhausted all other avenues of cost reduction. That includes pensions to government workers, Cozy financial benefits given to congressmen and staff, public education funding, medicaid etc. Otherwise you can put what ever political spin you want on it. By putting "needs testing" into social security, you are NOT being fiscally conservative. Instead you are being a socialist and spreading the wealth around.
George S| 5.12.11 @ 6:46PM
That's like saying if I didn't rob you I gave you money -- money you have because it wasn't robbed. That is not spreading wealth any more than money not subjected to tax liability is a cost to government.
But what I truly find puzzling is that it is okay to increase taxes on those earning over 250k per year because they can afford the increase. Yet, at the same paradoxical point in time, deducting their social security benefit will hurt them. I fail to see the tenets of socialism in that.
Purpleguy| 5.12.11 @ 1:24PM
"This proposal paints a bright line, based on principle," - and that's what's obvious - it's an ideological (=principle) proposal that the American people can see right through. If raising revenue is not on the table, these jokers are not serious about the deficit, and are no better than the jokers that approved all the spending under Bush 43 that got us in this boat.
Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 1:54PM
When the problem is spending then you must starve the beast and lower the taxation, not raise it. The Democrats will only spend more if they get more. You also see few here praising Bush 43. He and Obama 44 have created a mess.
Al Adab| 5.12.11 @ 2:03PM
Tax rate reductions, spending cuts and deregulation WILL increase revenue. Happens every time it's tried. Ask JFK, ask Lincoln, ask Ibn Khaldun. Eliminate the repressive regulatory agencies and their budget costs, Lower individual and corporate (eliminate) tax rates and watch.
tatosian| 5.12.11 @ 5:39PM
Um. Is that the Ibn Khaldun that made that unfortunate (to be kind) statement regarding African slaves?
simon templar| 5.12.11 @ 6:45PM
Purple, It may seem to you that it is an obvious need to raise taxes to pay for these bills. You probably think conservatives are crazy or just greedy. This actually is not the CASE. For once rather than making assumptions, ask them honestly why they think this is not a good idea and what is their rationale for this. Listen for once. You may actually change your mind and learn something. There are sound economic and a historical facts behind the conservative position on this subject. Sometimes intuitive or 'obvious" thinking is dead wrong.
axbucxdu| 5.12.11 @ 10:33PM
Haha, the progs on the left continue to amuse by blaming the progs on the right.
It's 100 years' accumulation of the financial stupidity, dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption of moralizing progs, on both the left and the right, continuously selling something for nothing from the Treasury to their ever enthusiastic and multiplying client base, that has gotten us into this mess.
John | 5.12.11 @ 1:26PM
Right -- the first thing these fake conservatives go after is Social Security. They already taxed it and continually raise the age, now they want to means test it -- code word for making it like welfare. Pretty soon you will have to be dead to collect SS. A true conservative, really a patriot, would go after the fraud in Social Security and those that game the system.
Look Pat Toomey and Larry Kudlow are not conservatives anyway – they are cheap labor, open-border/ H1-B Visa, Red China sellouts and cannot be trusted. They are greedy Country Club elitists who look down on middle class America.
Al Adab| 5.12.11 @ 1:37PM
The answer to SS is to maintain the payroll deduction and employer "contribution" (tax) but allow those under whatever age the actuaries decide, 55, 45, whatever, to place the funds into a self-directed fund, and IRA, 401, annuity or some such. Then at age 65 or so they are cash rich (millionaires most likely) able to afford healh care, able to afford retirement and make their own income and spending choices. Those older than the actuarial age will just have to live with the current system. This approach also phases out medicare since the younger group will have no need for other people to pay their bills.
Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 1:56PM
Newt mentioned that the thing to do is talk with the people under 30 (I believe) and see what kind of plan makes sense for them.
Mike Gabel| 5.12.11 @ 5:20PM
I like Newt and am willing to give him a chance. However, "listening to the 30 year olds" to reform Social Security is a cop out. Its akin to asking my 10 year old daughter if she would rather have ice cream for dinner instead of a balanced meal.
Newt needs to change his position to one of leadership and state that the only true reform for Social Security is private accounts.
Any other "reform", such as means testing, raising the retirement age, raising the Social Security tax or raising the taxability of Social Security benefits, is merely a broken promise by the government. A promise, by the way, that could never be kept because the entitlement is fatally flawed in design. Yes, it is a Ponzi scheme.
In addition to being a Ponzi scheme, it is also a wealth re-distribution mechanism. Any reduction in, or deferral of benefits for people who contribute to the plan makes it ever moreso.
Drunken Sailor| 5.12.11 @ 2:14PM
STeveA nailed it adn many of you misconstrued it. In simple terms
THERE IS NO PERFECT CANIDATE
We need to vet the canidates and support the ones we can agree with the most and have the best chance of beating Obama. And not neccesarily in that order. If I agree with candidate A and he has a 50/50 chance of beating Obama and canidate B I only agree with 60% of the time but he/she has a 75% chance, guess which one I am going with. Those of you looking for the perfect all around canidate are going to being staring at your TV screens in Nov 2012, scratching your heads trying to figure out how the Liberas won the White house for 4 more years.
It is the constant bickering of my canidate is better than yours that is going to kill our chances.
We should be able to disagree without the name calling and vile, right Clint/Tim?
Clint| 5.12.11 @ 2:28PM
Bullshit Swabbie.
That's How We Got Serial Traitors To Conservatism Losers Like Arlen Sphincter, Mike Castle & John McCain.
Drunken Sailor| 5.12.11 @ 2:41PM
No, we got them because it was "Their turn" in line. I'm not saying we shouldn't hold their feet to the fire. Just stating that people need to keep in mind there is no one perfect canidate. I bet you don't agree 100% with your favorite canidate. There has to be a balance or when can pick the most conservative canidate and still lose. They must also be able to pick up the Independent vote. Without a large chunk of it, either side is doomed.
Clint| 5.12.11 @ 3:10PM
Arlen Specter, Mike Castle And John McCain had track records , as Serial Traitors To Conservatism & The GOP Ruling Elite Played "The Lesser Evil", until Real Conservatives said, Enough Is Enough.
This Is Exactly Why There Is An Escalating Tea Party Rebellion Going On.
Check The Polls.The Indy's Fell Off The Obama Sled & The 2010 November Election shows that The Tea Party has changed the dynamics of electoral politics.
Drunken Sailor| 5.12.11 @ 3:30PM
I agree the Tea party has changed the rules. But there is still no one perfect canidate.
Albert| 5.12.11 @ 2:35PM
"Heritage eventually would completely end Social Security payments for wealthy individuals. This is a bad idea."
Frankly, Heritage doesn't go far enough. Social Security, like all other Federal redistributionist programs, is unconstitutional. The best way, and the only legal way, to deal with Social Security is to give it to the States. Let each State fund and operate Social Security independently. Get the Feds out of it. The Federal SSI bureaucracy is a colossal waste of money. Such programs can be far better adminstered at the State or Local level than by the Feds. The potential for corruption, and the reality of corruption, at the Federal level is why the Founders' Constitution prohibits such things as SSI.
John | 5.12.11 @ 2:46PM
I agree that a self-directed SS for younger (not 55 for sure) people is a possible option, but the tricky part is how to then fund all of those who have put into the SS all of their working lives. Maybe give them a choice of a lump sum with 5 % compounded interest -- make a lot of geezers instant millionares.
Regardless, the fraud and those who are gaming SS should be addressed first. I think if SS was scrubbed in this way one might be surprised how slovent the current system is. Perhaps a gradual lock-box could then be passed so the theives in Congress cannot touch the money.
And any self-directed SS fund has to go into an ultra- safe investment, like treasureis -- it is sacred money not to be gambled with; otherwise crafty polticians will want refunding losses for those who gambled in the market and lost as they suggested during the recent crash.
RWinks| 5.12.11 @ 2:57PM
Quin, why do you continue to parrot these bogus numbers? All of these "cuts" are to projected future spending. Nothing is being cut. Stop using Enron accounting.
The Republican House passed budget for 2011 is $200 billion higher than the Pelosi passed budget for 2010. Boehner claims it "cut" spending with a straight face. Projected future spending that is less than previous projected expenditures for some future date are not "cuts". They are Bull-$hit. "Savings" that are supposed to materialize 5 years in the future will not save this nation.
Any Representative who votes for 2012 Budget outlays 0f more than $2.7 trillion is simply not serious about the Obamaggedon facing us. My own "conservative" Representative voted for the obscene 2011 budget "deal". "It's the best deal we can get". We know exactly what would be happening if the House was controlled by the Dems and the situation were reversed. The Dems would be intransigent and Reps in the Senate and WH would be capitulating because "It's the best deal we can get".
All of these proposals project $2 trillion in additional deficit spending between now and the election. To call this "winning" is beyond fantasy.
Chef Schnauzer| 5.12.11 @ 3:19PM
All of the party hacks (think Newt, Romney and the like) and all of the lazy journalists who refuse research and get correct numbers (most of them have voided their 1st Amendment protections via incompetence) and facts - what is their slogan? "Preserving most of the status quo by lying slightly less"? Enough of this crap. As the dollar implodes and the handouts diminish hell is going to break lose.... and pointy headed elitist and government parasites are going to be standing around like Lucy and Ethel when one of their schemes backfires. Stop arguing about which incompetent does slightly less damage than the other incompetent and face the reality that the jig is up, all that is left is for Mutual Networks's Cora Rubenstein to sing "The Partys Over" and close the show.
Oldefarte| 5.12.11 @ 3:53PM
Quin, I would disagree only with several points. Social Security could be easily fixed by eliminating the $100000 salary/income cap and therefore making all salary/income subject to SS taxiation on a reverse-graduated declining basis of course. Also the government should be forced to repay the $trillions that has been historically stolen/''''borrowed''' from SS as well. Next, Republicans should force the elimination for the present time being any consideration of income/revenue adjustments, ie tax reforms; as the critical economic/financial problem currently is governmental excessive spending. Tax reform/reductions etc should wait for a later day's consideration, and to do otherwise IMO is PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. After percentage reductions for the bedget/debt have been instituted, the next step would/should be an immediate long-term, substantial auditing-review of each/every governmental program/expendature for consideration as to its/their necessity/worth etc in relation to the historical and present excessive spending problem. Any/all programs/policies that could/should be eliminated/reduced etc should be effected. The problem with governments is that once a legislated program get placed on the books, it is thereafter re-funded annually with no review as to its continual need going forward, and is therefore a potential waste of taxpayers' hard earned money confiscated through taxes!!!!!!!!!
Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 4:06PM
You've just gotten my vote!
George S| 5.12.11 @ 6:22PM
Why hasn't that been done before? The answer is: there is no political benefit. Every office holder lives for the next election -- not to please voters who have yet to be born. That's why we are in this mess -- the can keeps getting kicked down the road because it is politically cleaner to continue the benefit gravy train and not raising the necessary taxes to pay for it. Simply borrow or print money, everybody happy, everybody reelected (that's why there is an 80% reelection rate historically).
To effect the changes you outline you have to identify an immediate political benefit or no one will do it. Even Ryan's plan shifts things into the future. He is not King for Life -- he, too, has to face the voters in 2012.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.13.11 @ 1:56AM
All entitlements should be means tested to keep rich Democrats like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Bill Gates from getting benefits.
If Democrats want to raise their taxes why don't they just file standard tax returns and refuse to itemize?
martin j smith| 5.12.11 @ 4:07PM
Republican leadership must confron Obama and his friends on several things: Class warfare being one of them. Another would be failure to improve employment levels the devaualuation of the Dollar among many other things. Until these kinds of policies are debated and Obama's policies are challenged I do not share your optimism. I should add that the issue of illegal immigration--which in my view is totally a political matter to increase Democrat votes --along with the failures along the borders of Arizona etc. These too must be confronted and challenged.
Republican leaders do not engender much confidence when they behave as cowards. This DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAVE TO GO OVER THE TOP. They just have to be straight forwards
and HONEST FOR A CHANGE.
jjheinis| 5.12.11 @ 4:49PM
The fundamental problem that American neoconservatives have is they believe that they believe that America has no responsibility to its citizenry. Though America claims to be a Christian country, neoconservatives are firm believers in Social Darwinism and untrammeled "free enterprise" which does not exist as well as the belief that government is evil as is taxation. Christian principles are given short shrift and are replaced by the boomer "Me-first and I care nothing about anyone else"
George S| 5.12.11 @ 6:36PM
What is the responsibility that we have? Do we get up and go to work just so others won't have to? The reason we go to work is because of greed and the freedom to enterprise. That is what puts food in supermarkets, brings electricity into your home day and night, fills your gas tank so you can travel where and when you please, motivates the discovery of life changing drugs, heats your home, and all the other necessities and conveniences that make our short lives happy. Imagine none of the above, you'll barely live till the age of 40 because you'll need to slave all day just to survive. Life spans in the 70's and 80's are the result of free enterprise. I cannot think of anything else (extending life and easing discomfort) that can trump that in term of responsibility to our fellow man.
Mike Gabel| 5.12.11 @ 5:08PM
Conservatives must be aggressive against this tyrannical leftist group, regarding reducing government spending, the deficit and the debt.
One thing I can't understand is how any conservative can call for means testing, or anything other than private accounts for Social Security reform. I am a contributor to The Heritage Foundation, but I am extremely disappointed in their postion here.
Privatization is the only true reform; the reform that removes the government from the retirement planning business by getting its hand out of our pockets; the reform that promotes liberty, self-reliance and personal property rights.
We must educate our citizens regarding our founding principles, personal finance and the power of compounding.
Erling| 5.12.11 @ 6:23PM
Boy, if this is winning, then "we have always been at war with Eurasia."
PCPSmoker| 5.12.11 @ 7:56PM
Be more credible if could admit Boehner is the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong job
Replica Handbags&wallet; | 5.12.11 @ 10:56PM
That may be some inspirational stuff. Couldn’t know that opinions may be this varied. Thanks a lot for all the enthusiasm to offer such handy information here.
puma pas cher | 5.12.11 @ 11:28PM
good week!
Stop NationalDebt | 5.13.11 @ 10:10AM
Polls say folks supposedly care about the debt but then don't want spending cuts so I think talk of victory is premature. "POLL REVEALS: Americans Are Still In Deep Denial About The Deficit" http://read.bi/h6QDGR If they realized how bad it is politicians would need to act.
There won't be change until the public truly gets how bad things are. The public yawns when it hears $trillions thinking "big number, but its a big country". since they have no perspective. We need to rephrase the issue:
The federal government will need >$1 million per household to pay its IOUs!
> $116 trillion ="official" debt plus money short for future social security, medicare, etc
Even its "official debt" of $14.2 trillion is $123,754 per household!
Details at StopNationalDebt.com with links to contact congress & complain.
So be among the first to join the new Facebook cause "Stop National Debt" : http://www.causes.com/causes/6.....ional-debt
since if you don't spread the word, who will?
We need to spread the word virally to educate non news-junkies.
Jim Kress | 5.13.11 @ 10:44AM
Plans are not actions. $350 million in "cuts" is not the $100,000 million promised. The breach of the Debt Ceiling is a clear capitulation to Obama.
The Left is NOT in retreat. This is NOT "nit picking" or "backbiting". Boehner and the RINOs are clearly on the Left side of this war and are attempting to slay the real defenders of Liberty through actions like those listed above as well their malicious redistricting efforts to eliminate TEA Party office holders as well as possible, additional TEA Party success in the future.
The RINOs have declared war on their Liberty loving base and have joined forces with Obama to enslave us all.
Jim Kress | 5.13.11 @ 10:48AM
The moral imperatives asked of us by the Christ are our PERSONAL responsibility.
These moral standards are between each individual and God, not the government and God. Using government force to steal from some of us and then distributing that stolen property to others DOES NOT SATISFY the Christ's imperatives to us. As a matter of fact it offends Him, since so called "charity" resulting from theft is a clear violation of the "Thou Shall Not Steal" Commandment and is a sinful act.
We are accountable only to God for our charitable and moral actions, not the government. This is yet another area where the government has no business getting involved.
It is an individual responsibility, not a collective one.
Margie| 5.13.11 @ 11:58AM
"We are accountable only to God for our charitable and moral actions, not the government. This is yet another area where the government has no business getting involved."
Spoken like the true Libertarian.
Sorry, but we have something called the rule of law here.
Your Libertarian fantasy of no laws in the name of "individual freedom" and USING Jesus to do so is despicable.
Storage Steve| 5.13.11 @ 12:34PM
I know this will get some mad but I don't see this country changing without a minor meltdown. I won't vote for someone who is against my core values. This means there is a chance I won't vote. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to allow something to fail so it can be rebuilt rather than allow a slow death that will not allow it to be reborn. This country is great but that is because most people will rise to the challenge to rebuild but it is also the MO of the American People to watch things get bad before we rise up in anger. I think this is because we are free so the everyday problems do take precedent over the future until the future looks bleak for the everday survival.
Margie| 5.13.11 @ 1:12PM
Hi Steve,
I don't vote against my own core values by voting anything other than Republican in order to ensure the defeat the Democrats.
That's how I look at it, and my conscience bears witness to the truth of the matter.
Yes, our country is going down fast, and we need to make sure we vote for the best candidate~ and that is NEVER a Democrat.
All is not lost, yet. But if we go third party~ or vote for someone who cannot possibly win, we will ensure another Obama dictatorship and more ruin.
The worst Republican out there is better by far than this man. And at least in electing a Republican we will also have a Republican administration.
God bless you.
Storage Steve| 5.13.11 @ 1:24PM
Margie,
A slow deterioation of our country will leave us without those who remember how it happened. I think that's what the DC pols want. It will then be harder to reverse course. We are running out of time and cannot just say the repub is better than the dem. Sometimes you need to tear down a structure before you can rebuild it again. The foundation of this country is strong but if we allow us to slowly wallk toward socialism then they will ammend the documents that give us a strong foundation. Pain is not something people want but there will be pain for us to tunr this cart around.
Margie| 5.13.11 @ 1:34PM
Steve,
I am not one who buys into the "slow walk to Socialism" story.
And a story it is! So, by not voting Republican you think you will be helping the cause? Cause to what?
Obama the Socialist has taken down our way of life and done more harm faster than any other President in history, right along with the other huge failures like FDR and LBJ.
I don't share your mindset that we ought to punish ourselves by allowing Obama to get re elected and thereby heaping more pain and destruction. We're on the brink and yet you seem to want more?
All in the name of what?
It boggles the mind.
Storage Steve| 5.13.11 @ 1:55PM
To wake us up. It doesn't matter if the repubs win if we continue down the trail. Most people are not willing to give up their share of $$$ from the gov't wether it be in welfare or money to your district for pork projects that shouldn't be authorized by the federal gov't. Right now we borrow from others to keep spending which means that overall the gov't sends out more $$$$ to its citizens than the citizens pay. I know certain groups get more than otheres and some don't pay at all but the people overall get more than they pay. This is why we will not change until we default and stop borrowing. You say I'm looking for pain I see it as I'm looking to save my children from pain. As I am the adult I have the responsibility to protect them. I don't believe we can pay our debt by raising taxes as that money will right now just get wasted. But when we finally see the light (and it will be painful) I and other Americans will be more than willing to pay off our debt but this will first take the gov't to be reduced and control to the states.
Margie| 5.13.11 @ 4:50PM
Why not elect Republicans and continue holding their feet to the fire?
That's why we have elections, and a Constitutional Republic.
Why must you and anyone else throw their vote to the Democrats instead? You talk about slowing down the slide to Socialism.. but then you'd rather speed it up.
It makes me wonder whose side those who think like you are, are on.
Or what spirit you are listening to that you actually believe that re electing Obama is the way to go. Just sit back and let it happen because there is no perfect candidate. Well there is never ever going to be that.
Does a warrior fight or does a warrior give in and give up and say, oh well, may as well let the country go quickly because by electing a Republican we're just slowing it down.
There aren't any Socialists in the Republican party last time I looked~ that's bilge that's spewed out by the Left, including Libertarians who want their cult leader elected.
And Americans ARE seeing the light. More are voting realizing that their vote counts and that if they really DO want to stop the SLIDE into Socialism, they need to HOUND OUT of office the DEMOCRATS, not the Republicans.
Getting involved in helping to get conservatives nominated and elected who run in the Republican party is the logical and right thing to do, and what my own conscience and my God wants me to do.
I shall do it to my dying day.
I hope you'll join me.
God bless you, sir.