-
The Perfect Storm
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The Perfect Storm: Feb. 2006
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
A President Loses His Power
May 3, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Murder in the Old Dominion
April 2, 2013 | 136 comments
-
The Only Prophylactic Against Voter Fraud
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
The Campaign Spectator
Obama’s Tax Reform Trick
He’s all for it if it increases taxes by $1.5 trillion — and he expects corporate America to go along.
On August 2, President Obama lost a yearlong campaign to leverage public outrage at growing deficits and debt into a massive tax increase. Republicans in the House and Senate kept their no-tax-hike pledge and demanded and won a $2.5 trillion spending reduction in return for giving Obama a higher debt ceiling.
So now Obama has publicly signaled that he views “tax reform” as a possible Trojan horse for the $1.5 trillion tax increase he’s wanted all along. Obama did kinda tip his hand with a headline-grabbing promise that he would veto any tax reform that did not increase taxes. He will hold tax reform hostage to his demand for (cue Austin Powers) “$1.5 trillion.”
In other words, Obama hopes that he can attach his boat anchor of a tax increase to the very real public demand to reform both the individual and corporate income tax systems. (An added benefit for Obama is that the threat/promise of tax reform can shake campaign contributions from hopeful or terrified businessmen.)
Today the federal income tax code contains 3,837,105 words. This is before the 21 new taxes in Obamacare hit our shores. One hint of what is to come: the “General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 111th [Reid and Pelosi’s] Congress” is 747 pages long. The instruction book for the 1040 “long” form is 179 pages long. The “short form” instructions run 87 pages. The Treasury Department estimates the paperwork burden driven by personal and individual income tax forms cost Americans 7.6 billion hours, or the equivalent of 3.8 million Americans working full time (two weeks of vacation allowed). Compare this “conscript army” of 3.8 million with our present Armed Forces of 1.88 million—1.02 million in the Army, 330,000 in the Navy, 330,000 in the Air Force and 203,000 in the Marines. The entire civilian federal workforce is 2.2 million.
David Keating of the National Taxpayers Union authored a study that calculates that the value of those man-hours is $227.2 billion each year. Of that total, $115.4 billion is for the individual income tax. Economist Art Laffer built on Keating’s study and placed the cost at north of $431 billion each year—representing 30 percent of the cost of tax revenues.
Individual Americans are joined by the business community that views the 35 percent corporate income tax rate on American companies as crippling in international competition. The European average corporate income tax rate is 25 percent. The corporate rate in China is 25 percent.
THERE HAS LONG been a general consensus among conservatives on the ultimate goal of tax reform: government should tax consumed income one time at one rate. Taxing income at one single rate treats all Americans the same before the taxman. Progressive or graduated tax rates divide Americans into different classes that can be mugged one at a time. This has led to the strategy employed by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: the divide and conquer, “Richard Speck” theory of tax increases. If you cannot take on everyone in the room at one time, take them out of the room one at a time. Taxing income one time means watching you earn a dollar and seizing some (the flat rate income tax) or watching you spend a dollar and taking a cut (a national sales tax, popularly called the Fair Tax). Taxing income one time requires killing the death tax and eliminating the double taxation inherent in capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends.
Congressional Republicans enter the 2012 election with more unity and a clearer direction on tax reform than ever before. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal would not only reform entitlements, welfare programs, and discretionary spending to save $6 trillion over a decade, but would also lay out the first steps toward fundamental tax reform.
When the dust settles after the 2012 election, it is most likely that the Republicans will win enough of the 23 presently Democrat-held Senate seats in play to pass Ryan’s tax reforms through the Senate as well as the House. Yes, the presidential candidates all have plans of their own. And presidents are important when their own party has no coherent vision. But this Republican Congress needs a president to provide a signature, not a vision. In 2013 Congress will enact its tax reform agenda and any Republican president will sign the bill. And he will like it.
The Republican consensus around the first significant steps to tax reform are as follows:
First, both the top corporate and individual income tax rates must fall to 25 percent. American companies cannot be asked to continue to try to compete paying more than the European average. This has, not very surprisingly, the unanimous support of the business community. As a result, even Democrats give lip service to the importance of reducing marginal tax rates—on companies. Democrat support for lowering tax rates on big business appears at first to be out of character. But the modern Democratic Party is no enemy of big business—properly regulated, tamed, neutered, and fitted with a halter.
Republican tax reform would also bring the top individual rate to 25 percent. Here the Democrats, who can begrudgingly accept lower corporate rates, are bitterly opposed. That’s because small businesses, the self-employed, and entrepreneurs pay the individual rate, not the corporate rate. The overwhelming majority of small business income is taxed as individual income. High individual tax rates are high taxes on new, small, and growing businesses. These businesses don’t pay dues to the unions, they fight tort lawyers, they don’t have the staff to cheerfully absorb new regulations. They are Republicans, or worse, Tea Partiers.
A Republican Party that cuts the corporate rate and fails to bring down the individual rate at the same time is dividing its base to the advantage of the Democrats.
Step two is moving from long depreciation schedules for business investment in plant and equipment to immediate expensing. This would eliminate more than 1,000 pages of the tax code, as lawyers and bureaucrats would no longer argue about whether a new computer can be depreciated over five years or three or seven. Congress has taken baby steps toward expensing by allowing it for small businesses under Bush, and Obama actually proposed one year of expensing in the December 2010 deal to extend the Bush tax rates. This would greatly reduce the cost of capital and simplify the code, and it has had bipartisan support in the past.
Step three is moving from our worldwide tax system to a territorial system. The United States is almost alone in imposing a worldwide tax system on its citizens and businesses. If a Frenchman earns money in the United States, it is taxed by us and not by France. If an American earns a dollar in France, France taxes it and the United States taxes it. This creates a disadvantage for Americans working abroad compared to other nationalities. It makes hiring Americans abroad more expensive. It is particularly damaging for companies that find themselves paying foreign corporate taxes and—when they bring money back to the U.S.—American taxes as well.
About the Author
Grover G. Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (85) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Grover G. Norquist
More Articles From The Campaign Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/16/obamas-tax-reform-trick
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.16.11 @ 7:18AM
Your confidence that Republicans will not pass a tax increase does not hold up to the facts.
Raising the debt ceiling was in fact a tax increase since sooner or later taxes will have to be raised to pay off the increasing and burdensome debt.
Other than that a nice article.
coal carrier| 11.16.11 @ 7:19AM
The time has come for the American people to fire this incompetent fool who calls himself President.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.16.11 @ 8:38AM
You make the mistake of confusing "Incompetence" with EVIL. He's doing everything that he said he would do, in the Campaign. He intends to Fundamentally CHANGE this Country. And, if you're gonna do that? You have to TEAR DOWN what is already there. Nothing he does is unexpected.
READ HIS BOOKS.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.16.11 @ 8:53AM
I halfway agree with that. Those of us who were paying attention to what he was saying in his candid moments knew what he was going to do, but those who weren't paying attention are the ones who bought into his campaign slogans of "no tax increases on the middle class" and "go through the budget with a scalpal."
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 9:34AM
If you are under 30, you have no idea what kind of country you missed before Ronald Reagan ... if you are over 30, then you pine for the return to the country of your youth, before Ronald Reagan. Either way, the tearing down of the Corporatist Statist regime that Reagan installed does need to be dismantled before none of us have jobs, homes or anything else. As the 1% keep rising over the last 30 years, all of us here keep falling behind. Wake up. So you don't like Obama - and your alternative is what? The Koch brothers world, where you all are good little bundists that march to the corporate tune of screw the little guy in the hunt for profit at any cost?
Corporations and Business have their place, but they have no business running the government.
djtoland| 11.16.11 @ 10:46AM
Purpleguy,
I'm over 30, and I remember the 70's stagflation, that was the country before Reagan.
Is that what you want to go back to?
Drunken Sailor| 11.16.11 @ 10:54AM
He's for Obama isn't he? I think the answer should be obvious.
Buck Ofama| 11.16.11 @ 10:55AM
Your specious example is given out of context with no relevancy to anything. Go back to sleep.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.16.11 @ 10:58AM
As soon as you see "Koch Brothers", that should be the end of your reading. For, as we're supposed to believe that they are EVIL Incarnate, we're also supposed to believe that George Soros (The JEW who helped the Nazis exterminate his fellow Jews) is "Just a guy who lives in my neighborhood". If you get my drift?
Jobe| 11.16.11 @ 2:22PM
Purpleguy: Who do you think is running the government now? Obama receives more cash from business than any republican. It's not a matter of not liking obama, it is a matter of wanting to survive. This jackass, obama, will kill all of us with his hope and change.
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 3:08PM
I don't miss the pre-Reagan days. I don't miss Jimmy Carter's high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. I don't miss the Vietnam War started and escalated by Dems. I don't miss the Jim Crow laws and segregation passed and enforced by Dems. I don't miss Wilson and FDR's socialism wet dreams or Margaret Sanger's eugenics or any other crap of liberal utopian idiots. Liberal utopia is where hell is created. No thanks. I do miss Reagan and the prosperity he generated. I do miss Regan's guts, pro-business policies and tax cuts. I miss Reagan. And I'm sure all the people in the former East Germany miss him, too.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 5:20PM
And, so the Republican Myth of Reagan continues. Prosperity of Reagan's days? You mean1981? 1982? 1983? all those years in recession, greatest since the Great Depression until another Republican GW Bush gave us this mess. Or do you mean the 6 times Reagan raised taxes or the 14 times he raised the debt ceiling. Or maybe the 2.5 Trillion in debt he added to the National debt? Maybe you miss the US Marines running home with their tail between their legs after the Lebanon bombing? Or perhaps you miss the arms deals with Iran that we have to worry aobut now? Maybe you miss the assistance he gave to the Mujaheddin that turned into Al Qaeda and Bin Laden we trained. As if he defeated the Soviet Union by himself ... .. it was the containment policy of over 40 years by successive presidents capped by the world's changing economics that brought the Soviets down. Oh, and that containment policy? Defined by Harry S Truman, a Democrat.
You do realize that Paul Volcker appointed by Reagan does not share your enthusiasm for Reagan's Voodoo Economics? You also need to realize that David Stockman, Reagan's own Budget Director said the economic policies of the Reagan administration were nuts and didn't work.
But you sure must miss the Clinton Days when we really had a roaring economy, don't you?
I wonder though, since you went back some distance in history if you miss the usurpation of the Constitution the first Republican president achieved? Suspension of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law? Would you miss the liberalism of Thomas Jefferson and the Progressivism of Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and many other of the Founders? These were not conservatives, they were progressive, liberal minded forward looking visionaries. Just like progressives today...
The Knife| 11.16.11 @ 5:48PM
Just like progressives today...
Progressives are close minded folks who shout down people they don't agree with. Progressives hit up big corporations for money so that bad things won't happen to them. This is right out of the Mussolini playbook. Progressives promise much and deliver nothing. Progressives first stole the name Liberal and absolutely ruined it as a description and now are doing the same thing to the word progressive. Purpleguy is either a know nothing or is in on the scam in some way. I am thinking know nothing. If not he does a great imitation.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 5:57PM
Okay, well your ramblings don't even make sense. No facts, just a bunch of blather... Come back when you can support your opinion ... and stop the ad hominem attacks - they are childish.
Nick| 11.16.11 @ 6:06PM
Pot calling kettle.
jan| 11.16.11 @ 6:28PM
I seem to remember that during the (BJ ) clinton the congress was A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.
PS, Mao called himself a progressive so did Billary, thank god for the founders you mentioned.
go live in No. Korea a while, schmuck
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 7:17PM
Truman's containment policy was CRAP. It led to Korea, Vietnam, and every other never-ending troop action we've been in since. Win a war or don't go. As for Lincoln,
I don't give a crap what your conveniently selected economist "experts" say about Reagan or his policies. Bad mouth Reagan all you want, but it doesn't change the fact the economy was a helluva a lot better than it was under the liberal before him or the liberal we have now.. Our foreign policy wasn't a joke and the Soviet Union was brought down.
And it's the height of hypocrisy for a liberal to mention the Mujuhadeen when Clinton had Bin Laden on a silver platter but was too busy getting his rocks off to do anything about it. If Clinton had done his job, 9/11 would not have happened. I don't blame Clinton for that. Hindsight is 20/20. But for you to do this convenient picking and choosing select facts so that you can bash Reagan is nonsense. We could both do that all day about the other side, as my post made clear. The point is: we are NOT better off now than we were under Reagan's leadership. We WERE better off under Reagan than we were under Carter, your selective economic analysis notwithstanding (an analysis, BTW, that makes no mention of Congress or their part in this highly selective history).
Obama couldn't lead baby ducks with popcorn. Face it, lib. Your hero is a joke and Reagan would kick his skinny ass. We're done.
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 7:18PM
As for Lincoln, slavery was wrong, wrong, wrong and the antithesis of all the Constitution stands for. The end.
Negro X| 11.17.11 @ 3:46AM
Another non answer from the leftist automated rant generator.
Purpleguy| 11.17.11 @ 3:53AM
Please feel free is enjoy all my lefwing rants below. Today is special because I have full access to my controller which will allow me to make more dramtic mindless rants than usual.
c. j. acworth| 11.16.11 @ 7:48AM
"In 2013 a Republican congress will enact it's own tax reform bill and the president will sign it."
I sure hope so, Mr. Norquist, we'll see. This is why I don't like to argue about which candidate's tax plan is superior, or which one can "get through congress." None of the plans currently out there will get through as they have been presented, all will be modified to a greater or lesser extent in the sausage machine. My own preference is a flat tax on income, but almost anything would be better than the mess we have now.
Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 8:25AM
Hear, hear. I think one good question that could be ask is "what would you sign that is in legislation right now?"
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 9:35AM
Won't happen ... Corporatists don't want that ..
The Knife| 11.16.11 @ 5:54PM
All that is left of the left are corporatists. The state owned stuff didn't work out that well so they all migrated to the fascism of Mussolini. There are a couple of flea bitten students and professors in our university system that still find Marx intriguing but the entire party apparatus of Europe and the Democratic Party in America is about shakedowns. Like the Mafia they hope the host stays healthy so they can continue the nice lifestyles. Unfortunately they are killing the host in Europe and America. You are a parasite Purpleguy.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 6:02PM
hahahahaha ... and WHO do you think is funding Karl Rove and Americans for Prosperity and the Koch Bros? And, I'm a parasite ? You believe these Corporate Pigs and their minions - Walker, Kasich, Perry, Christie and a host of others?
George Soros| 11.17.11 @ 3:54AM
Purpleguy,
Well done my useful idiot as a reward you my cleanse my anus.
Pecos Pete| 11.16.11 @ 7:56AM
Income tax regulations can not be simplified if a tax is on income. Why? The government has to define the content, or calculation, of income.
Eliminate tax regulations by eliminating the income tax. If that's the goal then we are left with property taxes and sales taxes as the methods for generating revenue for the government.
Property taxes are subject to human error (and graft) involved with appraisal of property. Property taxes also require that the owner have adequate cash flow to pay the tax else the owner must sell the property. This is a device historically used successfully by unscrupulous politicians to steal property from the poor.
That leaves sales taxes. A transaction tax, without exclusions, at point of purchase eliminates regulations and bureaucrats. The voters control the tax amount by either referendum or by removing politicians from office. Simple.
c. j. acworth| 11.16.11 @ 8:30AM
The problem I have with a sales tax is its regressivity, it hits low income folks harder since they have to spend a higher % of their income. Perhaps if coupled with some sort of rebate for those below a certain income level? I'm not trying to start a fight here, Pete, I'm just pointing out that no plan is "simple" in practice, and any plan will be modified to get it passed. To repeat, I'm willing to look at any plan that will promote economic growth and pay for the constituional functions of government.
c. j. acworth| 11.16.11 @ 8:40AM
The CONSTITUTIONAL functions of government.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.16.11 @ 8:56AM
Exactly. A 1% flat tax would cover the "constitutional" functions of government.
Pecos Pete| 11.16.11 @ 8:49AM
c.j.: Good discussion. I suggest that a sales tax on all transactions is not regressive because those with more money don't sit on it. They both spend more and invest any excess. Tax the investment transaction at the same rate as when buying hamburger or a Rolls Royce.
richard ryan| 11.16.11 @ 9:59AM
When the American economy is running on all cylinders, if one is unemployed and able-bodied, they are unemployed by choice. National sales taxes treat everyone equally. For those who need food or are truly disabled, we exempt food purchases from the tax for those using food stamps. I think if you are depending on your fellow citizens to pay for your food and shelter, maybe you shouldn't be spending and buying that much to begin with.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 9:39AM
Yes, and it's a regressive tax hitting those that can only afford food, medicines and the bare necessities of life, while leaving the overwhelming rich 1% more of their money to do as they will. Since the rich consume more of the resources of this country (more public services like fire, police, roadways, etc.) they should pay more than the regular joe.
A national sales tax with some allowance for lower incomes or less tax on food and medicines might be doable however.
djtoland| 11.16.11 @ 10:38AM
Purpleguy,
How do you figure that the rich consume more public services like fire, police etc?
Also, I would like to point out that the rich DO pay more taxes than the regular Joe, in percentage as well as absolute value.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 10:49AM
but not if we go to a flat tax system they won't ... that was my point. As far as what they consume - what do they own? 1 house, 2, 7 like John McCain, 11? just that alone consumes 7 or 11 times the protective services than the rest of us. If they own businesses, add that to the pile of things needing protection, water, sewer, electricity, roads, bridges, etc., etc. Get the point? They have more, they cost more, they should pay more % of their income for all those extra goods & services the rest of us help pay for. And, some rich people are truly thankful that they are able and can pay more with the blessings that have been bestowed upon them.
Drunken Sailor| 11.16.11 @ 10:59AM
water, sewer, electricity (Don't know about you but I pay bills for all of these), roads, bridges, etc., etc. (I thought Gas taxes were supposed to pay for all of that?) Regardless a flat tax of 1 % hits everyone the same regardless of if it's 1 % of 10K or 1 % of 100K. Those who have more, buy more and pay more tax. Am I missing something here?
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 5:27PM
Yes, the 10K earner spends a larger % of his income on the necessities of life, food, shelter, medicine. Therefore 1% of his income takes a larger impact on his living standard then on the 100k earner(which should be the 1Million earner for comparisons) That is the problem and why a progressive income tax is fairer.
On the other hand for the $Million earner, they have the benefit of many possible deductions to their income tax and could end up paying the same % as a lower earner.
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 3:12PM
Please explain why it is morally right that wealthy people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the less wealthy. How is that sort of inequality fair in liberal la-la land?
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 5:38PM
You could ask someone smarter than I ... "“If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further,” Buffett said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour” “But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it.” - Warren Buffet.
Now, naysayers may not agree with Warren Buffet, so may I serve up someone else much smarter than all of us:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometric progression as they rise” - Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States. His meaning is clear on equality... progressive !
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 7:22PM
I'm not asking someone smarter. I'm asking you. And neither you nor Buffet have explained why it's fair to tax wealthy people at a higher rate. And Jefferson also suggested we cleanse the tree of liberty from time to time. Do you REALLY want to go there? Make your case. Why is is morally right to discriminate and punish the successful.
You do not make poor people rich by making rich people poor. It. Does. Not. Work. And it's wrong.
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 3:17PM
Also your argument is crap on its face. Businesses may cost more in services, but they also pay more in taxes and fees at all levels--fed, state and local. And those businesses owned by these rich corporatists you sneer at provide JOBS. What part of JOB CREATION do you liberals not get? Poor people don't hire people. Companies do. Why is this so hard for liberals to understand?
Butch| 11.16.11 @ 4:53PM
Where I come from, the majority of fire and police services go to the poorest areas of town. The poor are also the recipients of numerous direct government payments and subsidies for food, medical, and other expenses. I've never received anything.
Purpleguy, I've lived on the same 12-house cul-de-sac for 30 years. One summertime Friday 15 years ago we got are street re-paved. All the men were out on the street barefooted the next Saturday morning. None of us had ever actually gotten anything from the government before.
I don't mind that, or, really, taking care of the truly needy. But don't tell me it's the "rich" who cost the government the most. It just isn't so.
Butch| 11.16.11 @ 4:54PM
Above was for Purpleguy, not Idalily.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 5:47PM
First of all it's not crap, and some do pay their fair share. And, yes, they provide jobs who's pay is deducted from their taxes, so that's a wash. No one I know of sneers at jobs, so stop listening to Rush Loudmouth's lies.
Job creation is easy to understand for anyone, even on the right, but perhaps you can explain to me why when corporations are having record profits, they aren't creating jobs with all that extra money? I mean more workers would be more buyers = more sales and more profits... so why don't they? Do you even know?
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 7:27PM
You still seem to have no understanding of how jobs are created. CORPORATIONS create them. When you sneer at corporations, you sneer at job creators. And who are these corporations that are having record profits, hmm? Why don't we ask Obama, Reid and Pelosi? Because it sure ain't the corporations out here in the hinterlands. We're barely hanging on. Uncertainty is what's preventing job creation. Uncertainty due to an incompetent leader, a severely divided and ineffective Congress, the zillions of regulations Obama is enacting and the looming spectre of that nightmare Obamacare.
BTW, what does Rush have to do with this discussion? Can't a lib ever resist making a straw man argument? Try using intellect and critical thinking instead. I know, it might hurt, but do TRY.
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 3:30PM
I agree, Pete. The only way we'll ever truly control/cut spending is if the 49% who pay no taxes start having to do so. Everyone has to have skin in the game or we'll never get back to fiscal sanity. It starts with elimination of capital gains tax, death tax and income tax replaced with a point-of-sale sales tax (except on unprocessed food). Add reform and eventual elimination of SS and Medicare, elimination or at least reduction of the minimum wage, and a balanced budget requirement. If we did those things, we'd see prosperity and job creation like we haven't seen in decades, GDP would soar and we could pay off our debt. Hey, I can dream.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 5:51PM
Capital gains and the estate tax are for the more wealthy - how would you replace that revenue? Oh, when you threw in Soc Sec and Medicare, now you're just a nutjob .. no sense responding to you any longer. Come talk to us when you're retired and say the same Sunshine.
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 7:37PM
NO, NO, NO. And you accuse me of having no economic understanding? Saints preserve us. Why can't libs develop a basic understanding of what captial gains is? It is not a wealth tax. It is a tax on the sale of an asset. Many people at many income levels pay capital gains taxes. Estate taxes are double taxed. You DO understand that, right? They are taxes I paid on income I EARNED by my hard work and initiative, and they will be taxed AGAIN when I die and have the audacity to leave MY already taxed money to MY children. It is wrong, it is unfair, and it punishes the thrifty and hardworking of our society. It is morally wrong. Period.
And why am I a nutjob for proposing we gradually eliminate SS and Medicare? They are NOT SOLVENT. They will NEVER be solvent. Demographics dictate this. Do the freaking math.
Yeah, go ahead, withdraw from the debate when you have no cogent argument. Typical liberal.
martin j smith| 11.16.11 @ 8:11AM
What will our fearful leader of the House John Beohner do ? And our also fearful leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell do ? Watch as they sweat the clock and the stupid committee.
Indy| 11.16.11 @ 9:13AM
I share your concerns, both are weak leaders, they constantly put their cards on the table for all to see...the Dems giggle themselves to sleep as the media carries the water driving the class warfare message.
Tax reform is needed and it must impact all brackets, everyone must have skin in the game. One bad outcome of the Bush tax cuts was increasing the number of people who pay no taxes and get "rebates" the Earned Income Credit has expanded to the point beyond reason.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 9:41AM
Good point that is often overlooked. But the Bush tax cuts will be history finally next year and we can get back onto a more stable fiscal policy - wars winding down, revenue increases, other spending cuts and the trend could be in the right direction ...
Indy| 11.16.11 @ 2:59PM
Do you really believe all of the Obama Tax Cuts will be allowed to expire (you can no longer call them the Bush Tax Cuts, they were extended under full control of the Democrats - in fact, they made the tax cuts larger by reducing payroll taxes, a direct increase to the unfunded liability of SS)?
The Democrats will not let the Obama Tax Cuts expire, they preached and the media piled on that those tax cuts only benefited the wealthy 1%. Those of us who are informed know that everyone benefited from the the tax cuts initially proposed by Bush and extended by Obama. Rumor has it those cuts are on the table to be made permanent as part of a deal by the Super Committee, I predict they will be extended for the majority of Americans - except for the rich.
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 3:20PM
You mean the Bush tax cuts that kept more of my hard-earned money out of your greedy, avaricious hands? Those Bush tax cuts? Keep your greedy hands out of my wallet, jerk.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 5:55PM
No, we need it all to feed our lazy, good for nothings that just live to soak you for all you've got... they are called homeless Veterans - and you call me a jerk?
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 7:41PM
Again, a lame ass argument devoid of critical thinking. The typical liberal "Conservatives are EVIL and don't CARE!!!" No, we simply dare to believe we ought to keep the majority of of our hard earned money out of the hands of greedy avaricious people who would take endlessly from us. You didn't even ask my opinion of vets, BTW. You assumed it. Jerk.
Dick Nome| 11.16.11 @ 8:14AM
That "debt reduction deal" was a stinker from the start. Another cave-in by Speaker Bonehead. If we don't get conservatives in office next year and get the Establishment RINOs off our backs, the debt will continue till the whole house of cards collapses. It's unsustainable and right now the DC demagogues don't care.
Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 8:27AM
Adding to Grover is the "unknown consequences" of lowering and simplifying taxes - we reduce the amount that all companies spend on taxes and loopholes and such and remove those occupations which add no value to products.
That lowers prices, levels the playing field, and helps bring about a freer market.
It also reduces things like subsidies and the government "picking winners" of companies that need to go under.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.16.11 @ 8:34AM
I say, give him what he wants. Give him his Tax Increases. Then hang them around his neck.
The Republicans are THISCLOSE to caving, on the Stupid Committee, as it is. But, they're trying to "Negotiate" a Number. That would be a mistake. That would put their fingerprints on these Tax Hikes, right along side the Democrat's.
John Boehnor. Let me tell you what to do.
Give him what he wants. Call a Press Conference, an announce that "No Deal can be reached. We want Cuts in spending. That's why the American People put us back in the Leadership of the House. The Democrats don't wanna Cut ANYTHING, except DEFENCE and MEDICARE. We're in a position where, we can only get one Bad Deal or Another. We can only choose one way or the other. We can let the President and the Democrats have THEIR Tax Increases, and let me stress, these are THEIR Tax Increases, or we can Protect our Military and Medicare from being GUTTED. We are choosing to keep our Country's Armed Forces STRONG, and to keep Medicare from being decimated.
The Democrats have chosen HIGHER TAXES. And when it all hits the fan, because of these Tax Increases? We'll all know who to Blame."
Wow. That was easy.
Don't listen to Grover. His whole existence relies on a complicated, bifurcated Tax System. He's not in to a FLAT TAX, because that would put him out of a job. Wouldn't it? But, that's what we need. And, until we get one, we'll be subject to the whims of Corrupt Men and Women, who won't ever rest, until they have EVERYTHING WE OWN.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.16.11 @ 8:41AM
Everything this man does is underhanded and evil. He is the most nrfarious president ever.
I hope he looses in a landslide!!!!!
Then let's put him on trial for his violations of the constitution and put him in jail!!!
RCV| 11.16.11 @ 8:12PM
He will be re-elected, I promise you.
Thomas Wilbur| 11.16.11 @ 8:44AM
Property taxes can be imposed fairly, though in Chicago, 'fixing' is business as usual. Reason is - you can look up tax assessments online and compare yours to similar properties. So the natural self-interest of millions of taxpayers comparing property assessments tends to keep things honest. I used an online system 25 years ago in CA for a RE investment firm. Nowadays, you can combine tax lookups with images from Google Earth to capture any visible improvements - and you get a self-enforcing, inescapable tax system, suited to funding local govt since revenue increases with value. Almost the only viable tax in primitive economies as well.
David W| 11.16.11 @ 9:05AM
Republicans apparently have it in their blood to "compromise". They HAVE to compromise otherwise no one will like them. Of course, that's what the democrats play on - make them compromise a little, which means they move toward the democrats' position every stinking time. We need real tea partiers in the senior positions for the House and for the Senate. Maybe then they will have a semblance of a spine and won't continue to cave.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, and the rest of the Klan (and I mean to use that word) are taking this country into the ditch, over the cliff, into the sea, and down to the bottom of the submarine trench. If they are successful we will never be able to recover. When will Republicans (especially the elite ones) recognize that?
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 11:04AM
It's called "Democracy" and "Politics" . Politics IS the art of compromise - the sooner you yokuls on the right get that, the better off our country will be. You cannot have everything your way like a bunch of 10 yr old boys. Get over yourselves and think of the good of the country - not your own selfish self.
fmm| 11.16.11 @ 11:17AM
The problem with your statement is that it is exactly backwards, which is known as projection of ones own beliefs. The lefties want everything their way and they want it now like a bunch of selfish petulant kids. No compromise is possible given their mindset.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 12:21PM
Hmmmm, do you listen to the news? The Republican House and Senate Minority are the ones saying "No" to everything toward creating jobs - tragically thinking that by holding the economy down, they will win the next election. The public is on to their game, they are so wrong.
Drunken Sailor| 11.16.11 @ 12:55PM
Are you refering to the Obama job plan that even the Dems couldn't pass or all the bills the Republican house put forward to stimulate jobs that Reid won't bring to a vote in the Senate?
The Knife| 11.16.11 @ 5:57PM
This kind of repetition of an Obama talking point demonstrates that purpleguy is a know nothing. He repeats what he is told and never thinks for himself.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 6:07PM
They said it themselves, or didn't Fixed News play that for you .... Mitch McConnell himself said after the 2010 election ... "our #1 goal is to defeat President Obama in the next election". Ol' Turtleface spilled the beans and the whole country is on to them. This is no talking point, I heard him say it myself. The Senate Minority Leader? Really? And we are all suffering so they can win the politics game ... nice people you elect, I must say.
Bob S| 11.16.11 @ 9:07AM
You fail to identify a significant reason the tax codes cannot be reduced. Just estimate the number of JOBS created/saved to support the tax industry. Think of the boost to consumer spending every year by sales of tax software.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 9:29AM
You've had your 15 minutes of fame, go away. You aren't accountable to anyone and yet you expect to hold the entire Congress and by default the country accountable to you regarding the nation's tax policy. Your time is over, even hard core Republicans see the nation is in trouble and needs more revenue. The lives of millions of people are at stake and the gutting of the military is on deck and you keep spouting about taxes like they are some unnecessary evil. Go away and count your pledges, for they are dwindling day by day.
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 3:22PM
No, trillions in additional government spending is what's EVIL here. Keep your hands out of my wallet.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 6:09PM
Only until some is spent on you ... then you will sing a different tune ... oh wait, the government spends plenty on you ... but you must be dumb if you don't know that.
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 7:52PM
What government money is spent on me? Go ahead. Name it. Bring it on, little girl.
Liberals love entitlements like a drug pusher loves crack. Slip the money out of people's paychecks to sugarcoat the drug and they'll never notice how we're getting them hooked. Now we have generations that are absolutely dependent on the government and when we suggest weaning society off this opiate, liberals scream, "You want the drugs, too!" and blame the addicts, not the pushers.
I've worked my way through my whole life since I was 14, paid for my own college, was never (thank heaven) out of work for more than a month in my life, and no one ever ASKED me if I wanted to be part of this SS/Med bullcrap. I was never allowed to VOTE on it. I've just been paying in since I was 14 years old. But now, I would happily let it all go down the crapper if the government would let me opt out and I didn't have to pay any more. But they won't. We now have exactly what we fought a war to escape: Taxation Without Representation. Thanks, liberals for perpetrating the immoral, despicable myth that other people "deserve their fair share" of my earnings. You have succeeded in putting us in insurmountable debt to NO purpose. Poor people are still poor, all the public housing projects you made me pay for are slums and ghettos, and you have created generations of dependent, entitlement addicts. Thanks a lot.
Mr Nobody| 11.16.11 @ 10:45AM
This was the plan all along. One has to remember that democrats are tax and spenders and no single government entity has done such a whirlwind job of it as this one.
First they spent all the money, code-named "stimulus" which had a negligible and debatable (some say criminal) effect on the economy, and then they voted in the biggest entitlement program to ever grow legs at some theoretical but entirely unknown cost and now they have to figure out a way to pay for it.
This is the bad face of America in general. It closely parallels the sub-prime mortgage mentality and is built on a foundation of hope. Buy it first, figure out how to pay for it later. If you can't pay for it, then walk away and leave others holding the bag. In essence, it's an entirely irresponsible way to govern a nation, let alone buy anything.
So they spent all the money, borrowed to spend more and no one really knows where it went though I suspect there are some public sector unions that are financially fat as well as the UAW and SEIU, which of course just slush-funds money back into the socialist party. It's a neat trick but people are catching on.
But the modus uperandi of the socialists is to spend it now, then figure out how to pay for it later. They probably live their personal lives the same way.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 10:50AM
If Democrats are tax and spenders, then are the Republicans borrow and spenders? Hmmmm, which puts the country in debt more? They created the debt (10 Trillion of it) and then blame the Democrats ... classic bait and switch.
Drunken Sailor| 11.16.11 @ 12:57PM
Now that is funny considering that today the national debt pass the 15 trillion mark. 5 trillion additonal dollars in 3 years under Obama's leadership. 2 of those with Democrat controlled Super majorities.
Indy| 11.16.11 @ 2:51PM
and when was the last time the Senate passed a budget? Anyone, anyone?
925 days +
Remember the Dems have controlled the purse strings since 2007 really they still do because a budget was never passed, our government has failed us for years and we are at the mercy of the "Super Committee" this will not end well. While Rome burns the government is run by CR and the liberal media cheers our President and misleads the public.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 6:10PM
the CR is an extension of the budget you fool... stop believing the R talking points.
Indy| 11.16.11 @ 7:18PM
Oh please, I'm not going to waste my time, I've got more productive things to do. I don't believe either party nor the media, I do my own homework...both the left and right have spent our future and our children's future. GOP spending is high school league, the Dems are Pros on steroids, neither has the guts to do the right thing for our country.
$15 Trillion in debt today, factor in the $1Trillion + deficits projected over the next ten years and top it off with massive unfunded liabilities...it is simple math but go ahead and blame it all on the GOP at least I have the sense to see both are at fault.
Purpleguy| 11.16.11 @ 6:16PM
I'm sorry, but you are uniformed. 1.4 Trillion was the budget deficit handed over to Obama in January 2009 by Bushie boy to start with. But add 5.7 Trillion from Bushieboy,2.8 Trillion from PapaBush, and 2.2 Trillion from Reagan of that 15 Trillion .. and what do you get? A Whopping 12.1 Trillion by Republican presidents ... so don't tell me who's the America killers by drowning us in debt - it's the people YOU vote for. Idiots. But you won't hear any of this on Fixed News or Rush Loudmouth. Have you ever listen to MSNBC and Fixed News at the same time... ? They don't even cover the same things. Just like this site never mentioned all the GOP losses last Tuesday nite - they think you are all so stupid you won't know. God, and you support these liars and cheats? Sad, very sad.
martin j smith| 11.16.11 @ 1:28PM
What will the republican leadershit do ?
Oldefarte| 11.16.11 @ 4:21PM
As I've said previously, tax reform and/or tax cuts are not needed at present; but instead drastic lowering of governmental spending. It's that simple, we have a SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE one. Instead of Grover's suggestions, the more important ones are Paul's [governmental reduction plan, including eliminating five present departments etc]. If spending is reduced by same, then governmental borrowing of capital is also reduced, thereby freeing up same for loans to private businesses to expand their purchases of plant, equipment, employees etc. Tax reform/reduction can wait for another day/time. Some version of the Paul Plan needs to be initiated ASAP after 1/1/13 when hopefully a new Republican president takes office!!!!!
idalily| 11.16.11 @ 7:53PM
THIS.
RCV| 11.16.11 @ 8:11PM
There are few people in public life to whom we ought to pay less attention than Grover Norquist. His influence has led the current Congress to have a lower positive rating in the latest Gallup poll than communism! The moronic no-tax pledge he has sold to Republican legislators has stymied efforts to get us out of this deep recession, will result in catastrophic cuts to our military, and has poisoned the atmosphere in Washington so badly that our elected representatives are unable to come together to address the serious problems our country faces. Why anyone pays attention to this unelected nonentity is beyond me.
Nick| 11.17.11 @ 12:40AM
RCV,
Don't believe the hype. The cuts in the Defense budget can be rescinded, in 2013.
There is no need to raise anyone's taxes. Just freeze spending, or, actually cut the budget, in real dollars. This is what is needed.