-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
Political Hay
The Democrats’ Waving Hand
Super committee failure is preferable to Republicans allowing their focus to drift from the only issue that matters — government spending.
Although it scares me greatly to wish for the same thing as Paul Krugman, I, like that master of Progressive misdirection, am pleased that the “Super Committee” of Congress, assigned to find a way to reduce our debt and deficits, is on the brink of failure.
It’s not that I’m opposed to movement to fix our very serious fiscal issues. Rather it’s that the only possible deal from a committee which includes John Kerry (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is a bad deal. We should consider ourselves fortunate that Democrats weren’t smart enough to say yes to Republicans’ attempt to cave in on taxes. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) asked rhetorically “Do we look stupid?” In fact, they now do — though they’re probably not smart enough to realize it.
It’s taken years to screw up our finances this badly. Another 14 months isn’t going to make it that much worse.
Rather than take a bad deal — meaning any deal that increases tax revenue other than by increasing economic activity — Republicans must focus on repeatedly putting forward solid budget-cutting and entitlement-reforming legislation. The best path toward electoral success is to show the electorate that Democrats are utterly irresponsible with our national fisc and to remind voters that just as households cut back on expenditures when times are tough, so must the federal government.
Don’t forget, as Milton Friedman taught us, government will spend as much money as it takes in, plus however much more it can get away with. Thus the idea of raising taxes as budgetarily beneficial is simply a dangerous misdirection. Increasing tax rates — which always generates less increased revenue than the CBO’s static modelers predict — will reduce spending cuts by reducing the need for politicians to make hard decisions.
Again, Friedman: The true burden of government is not the deficit; it’s not even the taxes. It’s the spending.
Focusing on the budget deficit is like focusing on a magician’s waving right hand while he slides the card from his sleeve with his left. Of course he wants you to focus on the right hand, but an experienced watcher of magic won’t be fooled. If you want to get our fiscal house in order, therefore, do not focus on the deficit — the Democrats’ waving hand — but on spending.
If we’re aiming to cut 4 trillion dollars of deficit, for example, as the Simpson-Bowles Commission suggested, then a plan that is even one-quarter tax increases lets the politicians off the hook as far as finding a trillion dollars of spending cuts.
Rather than compromise with Democrats just for the sake of getting something done, let’s aim to oust Democrats from control of anything in Washington and then put a good plan in place.
I say this as someone who is generally a strong supporter of divided government.
But in most of our past, the minority party was the loyal opposition. Today’s Democrats (only the minority in the House, to be clear) are the tools of radical leftists from environmentalists to union thugs and of statists and parasites like teachers’ unions and trial lawyers. They are loyal to those special interests regardless of cost to the nation and should therefore be excluded from influencing power over important policy and regulation to the greatest degree possible.
It is the Republicans’ job to make voters understand that — a hard sale for a party that barely a decade ago was as unworthy of voter support as today’s Democrats are and which still hasn’t convinced many of us that their reborn fiscal sanity evangelism is heartfelt. (Every episode such as their trying to “compromise” with John Kerry makes their commitment less credible.)
As barely-convincing as Republicans may still be regarding the importance of spending restraint, persistent 9 percent unemployment is a harsh and effective teacher — better than any Republican other than perhaps Ronald Reagan could be, and even he had the advantage of coming out of the Jimmy Carter economy. Seeing the destruction of Greece and near panic in Italy and Spain also helps get the message across. American workers are finally learning the true bitterness of the crop sowed by Progressive, anti-capitalist, us-versus-them policy — the very crop that the Occupy Wall Street movement and the NLRB want to plant more of in our once productive economic fields.
Just as it’s not a “compromise” to take a teaspoon of poison rather than a tablespoon, congressional Republicans should not compromise with their Democrat counterparts. Instead, the goal must simply be to beat them.
For today, the left seems to think that a Super Committee failure will allow Republicans to be demonized as do-nothing, millionaire-coddling obstructionists. But John Kerry and friends are betting on the wrong horse. Super Committee Republicans came to the table offering increased tax revenue through soak-the-rich tax code changes that would, for higher-income Americans, limit deductions such as for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Karl Marx would have been proud that conservative “stalwarts” like Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) were willing to play into the class warriors’ hands simply out of a desire to reach an agreement — and Democrats still said “no.”
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (94) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/21/the-democrats-waving-hand
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Thatcher Legacy
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
Jack in Wi| 11.21.11 @ 9:38AM
When the Republican Party is led by people like Boehner, Mc Connell, Gingrich, and Romney what do you expect. The Washington elites just love to scratch each others backs.
coal carrier| 11.21.11 @ 7:25AM
How ironic, the picture shows the richest senator in our government, John Kerry, flapping his gums, as usual, pleading to raise the taxes of the so-called rich. I have three words for Kerry. Write a check!
coal carrier| 11.21.11 @ 7:32AM
And the guy sitting next to him was instrumental in pushing through Obamacare. The most expensive program ever devised by government. And he is going to cut costs?
Brian Mc| 11.21.11 @ 1:31PM
Is there a particular reason why my initial post has been deleted? I would like to avoid the embarrassment in the future.
kate| 11.22.11 @ 2:12AM
Maybe you are too smart.
They certainly let a lot of silly comments through.
idalily| 11.22.11 @ 3:27PM
Yeah Purp gets to post.
W| 11.21.11 @ 5:52PM
He can't write a check unless it is co-signed by Teresa.
kate| 11.22.11 @ 2:31AM
Is this story about Kerry or Carrie?
Will these democrats never give up?
Philip Snelling| 11.21.11 @ 1:40PM
Also when the Republican's sign an agreement when coming into office not to raise taxes for the top 1 % rich.
Shamus| 11.21.11 @ 3:43PM
Democrats have blown up the budget with trillion dollar welfare programs. Some of these should be cut before anyone pays more taxes.
TrueBlue| 11.21.11 @ 3:54PM
Congressional salaries should be cut before a single cut to Defense spending, IMO. Even if it's a drop in the bucket in comparison there is no reason the congresscritters should be getting paid more than the men and women who risk their lives for this country.
Redstateboy| 11.21.11 @ 10:42AM
Perfect Brian Mc.. You nailed it brother! If one looks at the "Blue pages" of Federal Government listings in your local phonebook - it's insane. And behind everyone of those numerous, redundant, superflous agencies and bureacracies and departments; there are hundreds of thousands of well paid, well benefit public sector union employees. In Football it's called: "flooding the zone."
Conserdude| 11.21.11 @ 7:07AM
Great piece. Good riddance super committee. Automatic cuts is the best outcome. If leon panetta is correct how devastating that will be on the military, then let him and his commander in chief fix it as we call his bluff. The Democrats are so grossly ideological and irresponsible, they simply will bring this nation over a European cliff on spending rather than ever do anything to control it.
CrackerHound| 11.21.11 @ 12:17PM
....and over the cliff is where "they" want us.
Whomever is really running the show whether it is a Soros group or shadowy communists, we are being forced down this path so that a certain agenda can be implemented. The end result will be goodbye freedom and democracy and hello totalitarian global rule.
The funny part of this is that there are rather large contingents of Euro-citizens and Americans who demand that their governments keep spending/no cuts ANYWHERE! Is this stupidity or indoctrination?
Those who are ringing the alarm bells and trying to legislate cuts or reforms are demonized in the worse way....and the people are buying it.
Something is afoot and when it is finally revealed it will be too late.
The solution IS the agenda. This is how we will know what the plan has been along and it won't be pretty or good for the average citizen. We will be living in a world where poverty rules and society divided into class/political camps and rewards are passed out to the prefered class and the dissent is brutally punished...sound familiar?
carnot| 11.21.11 @ 3:14PM
welll.....I don't think that sort of world would be conducive to long-term health for the privileged class....just speculating.
c. j. acworth| 11.21.11 @ 7:25AM
The Supercomittee was always a fraud, a way for congress to kick the can down the road and avoid their constitutional responsibility to come up with a budget. I've said this before, I'll say it again, if Obama was any sort of leader, he would order both houses locked in their respective chambers with nothing but bread and water untill they DID THEIR DAMN JOBS! As for automatic cuts, start with congressional salaries and expense accounts. No budget, NO PAY!
By the way, as I type this, an AP headline is scrolling across the top of my screen: "Congress may try blocking cuts". Of course they will. Will they pay a price next Nov. if they do?
TrueBlue| 11.21.11 @ 4:08PM
The House HAS passed a budget, it got tabled when it hit the Senate. So the only people not doing their job are the Democrat-controlled Senate, a job they have neglected to do for more than 6 years.
Shamus| 11.21.11 @ 7:30AM
Things have actually worked out well from the standpoint of deficits, since it requires legislation to rescind the squestration. It's going to be hard to get anything done in Congress before 2013, so these cuts may well stick.
martin j smith| 11.21.11 @ 7:35AM
1: This so called super committee is a result of poor leadership in the Republican Ranks
2: The Socialists had never any intention of any compromise ever
3: Whoever is nominated as the Presidential Candidate cannot run in the foot prints of a John McCaine or any Bush. They must be forthright with the American People about what is and what must be done. Then do it !!!!!!!!!
George S| 11.21.11 @ 7:48AM
This attention to the so-called super committee is nonsense. The entire Congress has to "Aye" or "Nay" anything this distinguished body eventually decides. This isn't like waiting for white smoke to come up the chimney.
Chef Schnauzer| 11.21.11 @ 7:57AM
The Super Committee is a farce and heinous abandonment of duty by..... who else?..... life's losers - government parasites. It is the same mentality as 'zero tolerance' stupidity at schools. Jokers overpaid and over compensated to use their (albeit) limited reasoning abilities abandoning that charge from the taxpayer for some twisted notion of fairness. Hey, life's losers in government - life ain't fair jackasses - get used to it.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.21.11 @ 8:04AM
Was there ever any doubt? We had a precursor to the Super Committee. It was called: The Really Good, But I Wouldn't Call It Super, Committee. Remember? It was Bi-Partisan, with what's his name from Wyoming, and Erskin Bowles. They were gonna come up with ways to Alter the DNA of the TAX and SPEND Democrats, who, after all, Controlled EVERYTHING those days.
I know what you're thinking: "Here we go. Another Committee. Another Dog and Pony Show. Nothing will ever come of it. Nothing ever does."
But, then. Something DID happen. These guys actually put their heads together, and got something done. It was Thoughtful. It was Specific. And, for the 1st time in my lifetime, one of these things had done something that actually had THE PEOPLE in mind.
They presented their findings to President Charlatan, with great fanfare. Whereby, the America Hating, Marxist POS took HIS Committee's Recommendations, and promptly threw them in the trash. All of our instincts were correct. It was a BAIT and SWITCH from the beginning. Enter: Super Bait and Switch.
I am not so Altruistic with these Republicans as you are, Ross. If they had any GUTS? If they had displayed anything even remotely resembling a BACKBONE? There wouldn't have been a Super Committee. The "need" for it, would never had occurred. Like Charlie Brown kicking the football, they were too scared of being blamed for OBAMA'S DEBT. They were afraid that they might upset the Independents. It didn't matter that they had just been given an HISTORIC VICTORY at the Polls. They were afraid. And we got a DOWNGRADE.
What they should have done, was to give the Democrats EVERYTHING THEY WANTED. They should have said: "We can't get a deal with the Democrats. We want Spending Cuts. They want Huge Tax Increases. And, if we fail to reach a compromise, there will be massive cuts to our Country's Defence, and massive cuts to Medicare. So. We have chosen to Protect our Defence Budgets and protect Medicare for our Seniors. I will vote with the Democrats. They will get their massive Tax Increases. And, make no mistake. These are THEIR Tax Increases. We'll try it their way. And when the SH*T HITS THE FAN, one more time, maybe THEN, the American People will wake up and see that TAX and SPEND is not the way to get things done."
But that's Me.
Bob K.| 11.21.11 @ 8:04AM
The only issue that matters is defeating Obama.
Now maybe we can get back on course.
Mike Hawk| 11.21.11 @ 8:26AM
The Stupid Committee was just another Liberal con job and Speaker Bonehead in usual RINO establishment fashion rolled on it. It was never designed to work and bothe McConnell and Bonehead have to go. Why they haven't yat learned that working with Democrats is a will-o-wisp is incomprehensible. They were warned. Now they will pay the price. This was predictable ans was predicted.
Jeff Perren| 11.21.11 @ 8:39AM
$1.2 T in deficit reduction over 10 years averages to $120 B per year (ignoring dynamic effects). That in itself is a joke when the ANNUAL deficit is larger than the total. The idea of cooperating with Democrats to solve, even partially, the economic situation generated by D.C. is worse than a joke; it's a farce.
Observe, unfortunately, that no Republican hitting the airwaves about this today has said anything about the link between freedom and prosperity, reductions in spending and protection of private property from confiscation. Probably they haven't the understanding; almost certainly they lack the courage.
The entire effort was doomed to fail. Only a complete change in philosophy in D.C. will begin to solve this problem. That won't happen with the current crew.
VonMisesJr| 11.21.11 @ 8:55AM
Plato rightly quipped "that you get the government you deserve." To their chagrin, Greece, Italy and Spain are finding out the hard way.
Save perhaps Cain or Newt, it does not appear that many Republicans are actually serious about fixing the problems. They simply point and recite "but look, were better than those guys." Romney still defends RomneyCare, McConnell wants earmarks revitalized and Boehner is busy "insider trading" with Pelosi, Kerry and Moran.
So buy gold and silver, build a food pantry and be realistic and determined. It is going to get very ugly before it gets better. But eventually it will get better, even for Greeks, Italians and Spanish. Their governments will be deemed insolvent and the welfare state will end. And when the progressives policies in DC completely implode, I will have my gold, silver, food and determination.
Anthony| 11.21.11 @ 9:14AM
Even tingly legs Matthews is finally seeing the light on Obozo, yet Boehner and his feckless band of cowards can't make the case to the American people. Cower, cave, compromise and capitulate, that's the R leadership in action.
What is it with Rs, is there nobody with guts, balls, and the ability to put a sentence together to make a simple case? Is staying in D.C. more important than the fate of America????
You bet Gingrich is looking better, because for all of his many faults, and there are many, when the guy is properly channeled and on his conservative game, he's good.
We just need to keep our foot us his ass to keep him from straying.
oldfart| 11.21.11 @ 9:28AM
For all the people out there who are burdened by the wealth that they have accumulated, by whatever means, who want to ease their hearts, rather than place additional hardship on those of us who are just getting by in this economy, I would suggest they mail a check to the following address:
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Here is the link that give the details.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Also, there is a saying “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”
Perhaps it is time for the Congress to show true leadership and agree to give up their salary for the next two years and go on the same Health Care Plan they want us to have. In addition: No pension unless you have served at least five years and participate in Social Security.
That dear reader – would be a true Profile in Courage and leading from the front!!!
oldfart| 11.21.11 @ 9:32AM
And raises have to be voted on every 4 years in the general election by the people. No longer will they be able to vote themselves a raise.
Bill| 11.21.11 @ 9:44AM
Asking liberals to reduce the debt is a complete joke. They want to get Obama re-elected, they never care about the debt or the future of this country. No deal with the liberals. Let Obama fail, and thus we win back the WH in 2012. That's the only we we can take care of the debt.
Bill| 11.21.11 @ 9:50AM
I PROPOSE:
1. Embrace the Tea Party plan to cut $7 trillion debt
2. Pass the Balanced Budget amendment (BBA), restricting on tax-hike and spending
3. Abolish several departments and agencies (commerce, energy, education, EPA, FDA, FEMA,USDA)
4. Abolish the public sector unions (SEIU), that's gonna be a hard sell, but with 242 conservatives in the House, we should be able to accomplish demolish the unions
5. Eliminate the Death Tax and the Capital Gain Tax.
6. Repeal the Obamacare.
7. Defeat Obama and all the Democrats in 2012.
1ConservativeUSA| 11.21.11 @ 10:07AM
Per the article:
"Super committee failure is preferable to Republicans allowing their focus to drift from the only issue that matters -- government spending."
This is a succinct statement of the core problem faced by our nation. All other conversations are secondary.
Conservatives are right to walk away from any deal that raises taxes because it is a (not so) backdoor approach by statists to retain control over We the People. However, tax increases or tax reform have nothing to do with addressing or solving the problem of governments that spend too much money.
In other words, all other issues can never be resolved unless we reduce the size, scope and spending habits of federal, state and local governments.
Profligate government spending (and the resulting national debt) is indeed the gravest threat to our national security and to our economy. Cut the spending and return to a responsible, limited and representative government and these problems will become easier to resolve.
John Navratil| 11.21.11 @ 10:09AM
Mr. Kaminsky,
Good piece, but it gives too much credit to the Republicans. The Republicans were handed their hats by a disgusted electorate who ushered in the current band of kleptocrats - proving once again that the enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend. That disgust is still there.
Those of us who have had to vote Republican with clothes pins on our noses are in no particular mood to reward the party but, rather, to throw the bounders out. Despite the calls from some quarters to form a new party, conservatives have generally opted to reclaim the Republican Party for conservatives. The Old Guard REpublicans know this. I expect the specter of Arlen to present a lot of "reformed in November only" Republicans to the voters.
The real fight, for conservatives, is going on right now. We are aided by the present unpleasant circumstances.
Al Adab| 11.21.11 @ 10:21AM
The committee was designed to fail. It provides cover for the Congress since cuts now occur on autopilot. The members escape responsibility for doing - or not doing - their jobs and every constituant group can be molified since no vote of record will ever be taken. The process is a sham and nothing else. It is this type of avoidance of responsibility that needs be the criteria for re-election. Where are the men and women of courage who will cast votes to right the ship?
Drunken Sailor| 11.21.11 @ 2:50PM
Al, I would also like to add that we should not be surprised the Dems helped kill this. Obama is running on a "Do Nothing Congress" strategy. If the Dems had reached a deal, it would have compromised his strategy. Party comes first you know?
Redstateboy| 11.21.11 @ 10:47AM
We've become a Nation addicted to the Government check.. TAS just posted Friday a piece.. A person today can rangle the system with SSI benefits, ADC, WICK, Food Stamps, etc., etc. and gain an income of $36,000 a year!!
Paul from SA| 11.21.11 @ 11:37AM
It's the spending, stupid. Republicans need to be reminded of that. It's not the deficit, it's not taxes. It's the spending.
When the gov't spends, it removes that amount of potential capital from the private sector. What happens when the gov't spends my money differently than they way I would spend it?
That's why they should be required to conduct a disbenefit/benefit analysis rather than a cost/benefit analysis before any gov't spending plan is approved.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 1:02PM
That's old economics, before Globalization. Catch up! We don't have a capital shortage, we have a demand problem. The business world is sitting on Trillions of dollars and not hiring anyone. why not? No demand for their products.
Drunken Sailor| 11.21.11 @ 1:56PM
The business world is sitting on Trillions of dollars and not hiring anyone. why not?
4 words: Obamacare and unknown consequences
carnot| 11.21.11 @ 3:18PM
how about Obama won't let them spend it? see pipeline
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 9:21PM
And you think all the government shutdown rhetoric caused by the R's is making everyone feel certain. One thing is certain - Obamacare isn't going anywhere. Since they don't create jobs, jobs, jobs like they promised, even with extension of the Bush TAX cuts and the 2% FICA TAX cut, the R's are going somewhere - back home.
Paul from SA| 11.21.11 @ 6:50PM
Yes, the old liberal meme. It's 'demand' stupid!
Wrong. It's supply stupid!
Most labor inputs occur during the supply-production phase when wealth is created. Think about a car. When I demand/buy a car, roughly one job for a salesman is created. But how many labor hours and jobs are needed to produce or supply the car?
I'm a supply-sider. That's where the wealth is created.
Job creation correlates with net, private, busness investment, not demand or spending or consumption.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 9:27PM
That is a* backwards ... what do you think ... build it and they will come? How stupid. If my goods or services are not in demand, i have no incentive to make more, let alone hire more people to make more for sale. And, btw, all the economists are in agreement with me, including David Stockman, Reagan's own Budget Director. I think he knows more about it that me or YOU! Dont you agree?
As far as your car example is concerned, when you buy a car, a salesman gets a commission, yes, but the car dealer places an ORDER for another car from the FACTORY which produces another car. More cars selling (demand) means more cars are needed - hence the factory has to produce more, and ultimately, HIRE more people to meet the DEMAND.
Let's make it simple for you - There are a lot of people being hired for temporary jobs right now for the holidays - why? Because the DEMAND is growing for more clerks, stockboys, etc.in the retailers. When the demand drops off, so will those temp jobs. Now do you get it?
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 10:13AM
Purpleguy,
I'm so glad that Edison, Gates, Jobs, Bell, etc. didn't think like you think. Does you world have any room for entrepreneurs - even if they are just painting a neighbors house?
Paul from SA| 11.22.11 @ 12:15PM
Job creation doesn't correlate with demand, corp. profits, consumption, spending or taxes.
Job creation correlates almost perfectly with net, private, business investment.
Think! When is the wealth created?
Demand doesn't create wealth.
Paul from SA| 11.22.11 @ 12:22PM
Otherwise, we could just borrow, print money and distribute it around to the masses and that will create economic activity and mutliply and create jobs.
Oops! That doesn't work. That's what Obama and the Democrats believe.
I'll repeat. Job creation doesn't correlate with demand. Sure, you can find some exceptions in our service ecomony, but please check the data.
Job creation doesn't correlate with demand. Can you understand why?
idalily| 11.22.11 @ 3:32PM
You seriously believe this? So, what, in the summer of 2009, boom, nobody wanted televisions anymore? Nobody wanted cars? Or dinner out and a movie? And therefore, millionaires sat on all their money (how dare they!) because suddenly there was no demand? That's your take on what got us here? That has to be the most absurd look at economic recession I have ever seen.
Mimi| 11.21.11 @ 11:40AM
The day this comittee failed, was when HARRY REED appointedthe best known partisan Democrats to the Comittee.....Patty Murray, Chris Van Hollen and oh yea John Kerry....give me a break!!! Patty now going to the MIC...." It's them, those mean old Republicans..their tax pledge to GROVER Norquist" She was almost beat in the last election...but maybe the good people of Washington can NOW impeach her. All politics is her game!
We can't raise taxes, revenues go down when you do....The economy has been harmed enough. Our Guys Better get out there and start in earnest to state their case!
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 1:03PM
No revenues don't go down when taxes are raised. that's Republican legend BS propaganda - but you drank the Kool-Aid alright.
John Navratil| 11.21.11 @ 1:56PM
Purpleguy,
Do revenues always go up when taxes are raised? How did that luxury tax on boats and cars work out? What happened when capital gains taxes were lowered by Reagan.
The tax rates change, exemptions change, GDP changes. One thing that doesn't appear to change is how much can be gotten from the economy before the economy quits giving.
http://nationalpriorities.org/.....-perc-gdp/
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 9:30PM
Reagan closed loopholes in the tax code, and that was a good thing .... tax cuts don't do anything. If so, why didn't the 300 billion in tax cuts from the stimulus help? Or the extension of the Bush tax cuts (in fact they didn't stave off the Great Recession , did they), and now add the FICA tax cut of 2% more... still no big surge in the economy. Why? because tax cuts don't work especially when people aren't working ... how could they when they aren't paying any tax since they are not working?
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 9:50AM
Purpleguy,
Simply... spending and regulation is killing the economy. To flip your argument, how can tax cuts work when spending increases. As your idol, Milton Freidman, said "All government spending is a tax".
Doctor Right| 11.21.11 @ 2:49PM
Yes, they do.
Personal spending declines when taxes go up. So does investment.
That causes revenue to go DOWN.
Simple economics.
Educate yourself before you venture onto a Conservative website to argue with those who are smarter, more experienced, and better informed than you are.
Otherwise, you look stupid. Or, like a Lib.
Stupid...Lib...what's the difference?
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 9:39PM
You don't have a clue... Go back and do some homework. We are now in the middle of the largest tax cuts we've had in almost 100 years and they aren't working ... estate tax is at 0%, cap gains at 15%, still not working, tax rates are at the Bush tax cut levels still, and no workie.
Economics is not simple, even though you all want it to be black and white, it isn't.
All you want is to kill the government to drown it in a bathtub. But with the stock market fluctuating wildly and declining when the R's keep rocking the budget with "No new taxes" pledges, how does a wealthy person make money? How can a business plan when they don't know what else the R's are going to do to shut down the government? That's certainty? And, how in the h* can Grandma know what's going to happen to her Social Security and Medicare with all the scaring the Ryan's on the right do trying to dismantle her livelihood?
Good grief, the country's in deep trouble and you people don't want to give any more or even take a little more from the wealthy to help? What's wrong with you all? This isn't a d* football game - there is no winner/loser - we either all win together or we all lose together - do you not get that? Call me names if you must, which is sooo childish, but wake up ! I'm sure you would never volunteer to serve your country, would you?
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 10:00AM
Purpleguy,
If 24% of GDP isn't enough spending, what is? Why was Keystone XL stopped? Why do we expatriate jobs with the highest corporate tax rate in the world? Why can't Boeing build planes in its $1Billion plant it built in S.Carolina? Why do we think we can add a $.15 cut-tree tax to promote Christmas tree sales? Don't hide behind "economics isn't simple." Econometrics is not simple, but this is simple "macro".
A half-billion to Solyndra, another half to Siga. This administration is taking our tax money and pissing it away to its cronies and still they want more taxes. Perhaps it is you who should get a clue.
idalily| 11.22.11 @ 3:22PM
Still waiting. Asking AGAIN. How is it morally right to tax the wealthy at a higher percentage than everyone else? You call others stupid, yet you still can't answer a simple question.
Oh, and what little endearment will you use today when you call me stupid in your replye (which still won't answer the question)? Will it be Sunshine? Or Dearie? Or Hun? Or will you invent a new one? Just curious, HUN.
Always Question| 11.21.11 @ 11:57AM
Right on target. We don't face a revenue problem, but rather a spending problem. According to the OMB's own numbers, Federal spending has grown from approximately $2.2 trillion in 2000 to more than $3.7 trillion in 2011, with nearly $1.62 trillion of that being borrowed (i.e. deficit spending). The numbers are easily available for anyone to see, and the message is stark - SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL, AND TAKING MONEY FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO FINANCE MORE SPENDING AT AN EVER INCREASING RATE IS INSANE. There - now I feel better.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 12:57PM
Incorrect - we pay the lowest taxes now since the 1950's ... so that argument about spending is baloney. What is true is that revenue needs to match the spending we decide is needed, period. If you want to spend, you have to raise revenue, something Republicans don't believe in - they believe in "Charge It". After all, Reagan said "deficits don't matter" and so Reagan and the Bushes ran up 10.7 Trillion on the National Debt Credit Card and just borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent. Now with a Democrat in the White House, you hypocrites are all up in arms after a Republican hands over the worst economy since the Great Depression to the Democrat. The American people still blame Republicans for this mess, and after 2010 did not produce the Jobs,Jobs, Jobs the R's promised - they're done. 2012 can't come soon enough for me.
John Navratil| 11.21.11 @ 1:39PM
Purpleguy,
Typical Bull!
When 'W' was inaugurated, the net public debt was just shy of $6T. In the six years of Republican controlled Congress he ran it up by another $3T generating howls from the conservatives. Nancy Pelosi go hold of the budget and ran in up another $1.9T in two years (that's twice the rate of W's profligacy) and Obama/Pelosi/Reid have, in the last three years added $5T (triple the rate of W) and as much as was added in W's two terms regardless of whether you assign any responsibility to Pelosi.
We can agree that 2012 cannot come soon enough.
Al Adab| 11.21.11 @ 3:04PM
John N:
You make a good and often overlooked point. The Conservative movement opposed Bush and the GOP Congress on spending. It is a great help to our opposition that so many confuse republicans with Conservatives, they are not the same.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 9:44PM
Johns numbers are off, since GW added 5.7 Trillion to the debt - but the icon of conservatism, Ronald Reagan added 2.2 Trillion to the debt (and raised the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years) and Papa Bush added 2.8 Trillion to the debt. So borrowing and spending is a Conservative value I guess. Taxing and spending may be a Democratic way of providing what the public wants, but they pay their way. Apparently, Conservatives, not just BushBoy, don't pay their way. The evidence is clear, indisputable and can be found by anyone with a computer in 10 minutes. All this blather about spending is so much politicking. I thought the Super committee was to reduce the deficit, not worry about maintaining tax cuts?
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 9:02AM
Purpleguy,
My numbers are not off. They've been referenced by me before and are not hard to find.
That "icon of conservatism" had a Democrat Congress headed by Tip O'Neill. Reagan proposed a balanced budget each and every year which was promptly proclaimed "dead on arrival" by the august Mr. O'Neill. Remember, the President signs or vetoes, but does not write the budget.
Bush, on the other hand, had control of Congress which is what made the conservatives so angry. We've been screaming about out of control spending since the 70's. Read me on the topic of the 1974 Budget Impoundment Act which compels spending everything budgeted - that is when the debt began in earnest.
At the rate the undivided Democrat government was going, the debt would be well over $20T at the end of a second term. Hence the "shellacking." More to come!
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 9:47AM
Purpleguy,
Here are a few of links from the White House. The page of budget data links is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
The debt spreadsheet (Table 7.1) can be found here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/site.....st07z1.xls
The debt limit authorizations can be found in Table 7.3 off the main page (TAS only allows 2 links per post)
You will find the 18 debt limit increases signed by Reagan totalled less than $2T. Of course that was when $1,000,000,000 was real money. The addition to the debt in his term was $1.7T.
While we are looking through the tea leaves, notice that the period from 1974 during which the Republicans held the Congress (end-of-year 1994 through end-of-year 2006) the total debt increased by $4T (as against a total $15T). Of that $4T, $2.8T was during the 'W' Presidency. By way of contrast, Clinton managed to increase the debt $1.2T in his first two years of undivided government. It increased by $1T during the remaining six years of his term (divided government).
Do you notice a pattern? If not, let me be perfectly clear. If you give the White House and the Congress to Democrats, spending goes through the roof. When you give undivided government to RINOs it only gets through the ceiling. Vote for conservatives to save this country.
Al Adab| 11.21.11 @ 2:04PM
Purp:
At this remove it hardly matters who is at fault. There is more than enough blame to go around and anyway, you won't catch Conservatives defending republicans for their overspending. That said, the deal here is that the committee is and always was, a sham. What we need are people who have the courage to stop the borrowing and debt spending and who have a willingness to vote to do it. Folks from either side who seem to think that social programs are of higher priority than enumerated power ( mandated) spending are simply in need of a lesson in fiscal management and the purpose of government..
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 9:47PM
Agree with your first statement, but your enumerated power is simply cherry picking. You like some transgressions from the Constitution, just not all of them. A lot of what you rail against that are not "enumerated" have been settled law arguments by the Supreme Court... We'll see what they do on the individual mandate - what Newt Gingrich supported not that long ago as a personal responsibility issue.
idalily| 11.22.11 @ 3:25PM
Settled law and enumerated powers are two different things. Jeez, do you really not understand the difference?
Peppermint Tea| 11.21.11 @ 12:02PM
Bill, after reading a related article on entitlements on AS, you seem to be avoid the elephant in the room: I love your 7 points, but is SocSec also on the table? If not, we will still be slaves.
PolishKnight| 11.21.11 @ 12:40PM
Gentlemen, we're forgetting that even as these abstract economic policies are important and educating the public is useful, the way to reach their hearts and even address the issue of high unemployment head on is via social policies, namely illegal immigration, K1-VISAs for companies to save money on tech labor, so-called affirmative action and diversity policies which forces employers to hire on race and gender, and offshoring policies that encourage companies to relocate factories overseas.
Sadly, most Republican back-scratchers don't see anything seriously wrong with the above since it helps their short term bottom line. Remember what Lenin said about capitalists selling the rope to hang him with? The cheap labor that they're buying will vote socialist the moment they are able to.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 12:53PM
"Don't forget, as Milton Friedman taught us, government will spend as much money as it takes in, plus however much more it can get away with." - Your mother taught you that long before that weasel-head came along ... only she meant people. Oh, that's right, the government IS the people!!!
Paraphrasing Herman Cain "Blame yourselves, not the government."
John Navratil| 11.21.11 @ 4:20PM
A point please?
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 9:48PM
If you don't have enough money - get a job - or 2 - or 3... you know, like Herman Cain would say.
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 10:01AM
Good advice!
Redstateboy| 11.21.11 @ 1:31PM
Hey Perp... we've passed an historic moment.. (save for me pointing it out) no one is replying to your comments. You are now officially the court jester of TAS.
idalily| 11.22.11 @ 3:26PM
Other than go find a job, what advice to remedy their situation would YOU offer poor people? Seems to me finding a job is actually very wise advice. Are you saying they should NOT go find a job?
Bill| 11.21.11 @ 1:09PM
Peppermint Tea, I never excluded Social Security Reform initiative. My proposal came right out the Gov Rick Perry's reform agenda. He has a comprehensive plan to overhaul the Social Security program, including privatization and giving more power to the states. Going forward, Rick Perry also vows to reform the tax code and to balance the budget. We must embrace his plan, along with Ryan's Plan, the road map to solve the ongoing fiscal crisis.
PolishKnight| 11.21.11 @ 1:23PM
That kind of suggestion reminds me of someone trying to solve their massive personal debt by "consolidating" their credit cards.
While that's useful, it doesn't do anything to "fix" the bigger issues that got us here in the first place and as I said above, they are mostly social and policy issues that the Republicans has either rolled over on or jumped into bed with the Democrats.
As long as the Republicans overlook losing voters via illegal immigration, H1B visas, and offshoring (hello Carly Fiorina!), what difference does trying to slightly scale back the Federal government make? As the author notes, it's like a teaspoon of poison versus a tablespoon. And never underestimate the left's ability to manage or take advantage of a crisis caused by a collapsing economy (most of the oligarchs in the former USSR are KGB and former communist party heads.)
The challenge is this: these severe social and policy issues are not for the faint hearted or those hoping to ride a conventional campaign into the white house with minimal press fuss. Someone addressing them would be sure to get double barrel attacks from the mostly leftist media and even dirty tricks similar to what happened with Cain. Consider what happened with Dan Quayle's statements about family values. That was about as tame a comment on a social problem (unwed motherhood) and he was crucified by the media. It was an opportunity though to address the fundamental scourge that unwed motherhood is: The massive crime, the cost of the welfare state, the problems with tracking down the fathers to pay for it all, and the fact that these women represent what is at the core of the typical Democrat voter: Selfishness, irresponsibility, and hypocrisy. How can someone demand the state to support them as a parent when a parent's job is to support their children?
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 10:14AM
???
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 10:14AM
That ??? was misplaced. Sorry.
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 10:16AM
Something is not right with the TAS site software. How can this reply be to me when it predates mine by almost 24 hours?
John Navratil| 11.22.11 @ 10:17AM
As was that comment misplaced by the software.
Oldefarte| 11.21.11 @ 1:33PM
Ross, you have delivered yet another brilliantly written article......bravo and thanks! Your central message is profoundly accurate [regarding the magician's hand waving and attempt to deceive by the Democrats], but I would like to add supplemental arguments regarding same. Democrats are far from stupid, and they're more politically astute than possibly anyone else and the rest of us. Democrats know full well how things work and politically manipulate same to their advantage subversively to the profound ignorance of us all. Democrats know that they have control of that stolen taxpayer credit card, and they will not relinquish same unless it is extracted forcebly from their cold, lifeless hands. Democrats use the political system to generally extract taxpayers' [ie '''''millionaires' and billionaires'''''] funds via taxiation and to thereafter use their gained political power as governmental officials to pay the governmental benefits [ie WELFARE] to their indigent constituents [governmental welfare recipients], with the threat thereafter to vote for any/all Democrats under pain of having same benefits removed if not so voted for. The STUPIDS [the rest of us, not Democrats] have historically been suckered into going along with Democrats' con-magician's slight-of-hand game of hide-the-pea for decades, and now we/this country is faced with the reality of the Europeon-styled governmental defecit/debt [and impending governmental bankruptcy] resulting from decades of same [governmental spending on welfare]. These Democrats will not turn loose of that credit card, and as you/Ross accurately proclaim, the one/only solution is for the rest of us to take it away from them, and we do that by VOTING FOR ANY/ALL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES ON 11/4/12 A ND BEYOND!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill| 11.21.11 @ 1:47PM
The debt commission is just window dressing and does not address the core and fundamental problem which is the bloated federal bureaucracy. Why go after programs that take back from the public and can be used by the Democrats to slam the Republicans, go after the true culprits. If the debt problem was being addressed correctly it would result in the downsizing or elimination of departments and many employees. I would anticipate that enough redundancy, waste, duplication or worthless services, would be identified that their elimination would quickly bring the budget into balance. It would certainly cause an uptick in the unemployment number but I would expect that the unemployed in the private sector would not shed a tear.
HOW TO SLASH THE DEBT IN A WAY THAT CAN BE EASILY EXPLAINED TO TAX PAYERS AND CAN MINIMIZE THE ABILITY OF THE DEMOCRATS TO FIGHT THE ACTIONS.
As part of the process in identifying federal programs and departments that should be cut or eliminated, the Republicans should use the same criteria that insurance companies must meet in Obamacare. Specifically the maximum that is allowed for admin expenses is 20% of the premiums collected and benefits paid out. Given that the government does not have to meet a bottom-line profit to stay in business, let alone grow, I would suggest that the admin expenses for government programs be limited to 10% of the benefits(if they even exist) provided. Each department should be required to build a ”Zero-based budget” plan to justify both its existence and spending programs based upon measurable objectives and returns. I expect this would cut or eliminate many departments, and duplicate and useless programs. This is a process used by many businesses and I cannot understand why so many of the Republicans in Congress who have a business background do not jump on it as an accepted and proven way to address the debt. I also expect that there would be much waste found in the administration of the “entitlement programs”. By removing this it could make a major contribution to dealing with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security running out of money.
Dave| 11.21.11 @ 3:05PM
"It's taken years to screw up our finances this badly. Another 14 months isn't going to make it that much worse."
Wrong. The things that the idiot-in-chief can do through his furious 'executive order' activities (currently performed daily) could destroy America in 14 months. Maybe even 14 weeks.
PolishKnight| 11.21.11 @ 3:55PM
Indeed Dave. It astonishes me thinking of this from the other side: How ineffective Republican presidents have been with all the power they have.
For starters, it would be trivial to deport every illegal alien. I laugh when I hear someone claim it's "impossible" to do so yet it's seemingly easy for government to pay for their childrens' educations and hospital care. Simply have FBI hit every state and hospital for their records and run a full deportation every 2 weeks by state.
Next, start enforcing diversity and affirmative action but instead for... white males. Encourage, say, school districts that are unrepresented with men or white males to be sued and denied federal funds. Watch the wise Latina try to argue her way out of that one.
Sadly, most republicans will get to office and then say: "OK, we won't raise taxes especially on millionaires because that would be giving in, stop federal funds for abortions, and hold off on gay marriage. There! How are things going?"
Not terribly well.
Ross Kaminsky | 11.21.11 @ 9:31PM
I accept your point, Dave. Allow me to clarify: Another 14 months of Congress not doing much won't make it that much worse. Obama will continue doing everything he can to "fundamentally transform" America -- from a success to a failure.
Simon Templar| 11.22.11 @ 6:03PM
Another 14 months of congress doing nothing will guarantee the bastard's reelection. That is precisely what the Dems are counting on.
You need to stop talking to yourself and start talking to those outside your neighborhood and start listening to what the average guy sees and hears about all this mess and who he has been taught to blame.
ReasonableViews | 11.21.11 @ 3:53PM
The GOP is clearly dying for a meaningless hill in this war. They ought to just agree to raise taxes 5% on millionaires. It's a purely political move, and it raises very little money ($45B at most on a deficit of $1,300B or so). They are losing the public relations war for a Pyrrhic victory in the millionaire tax battle. http://bit.ly/vwnZIz
John Navratil| 11.21.11 @ 6:42PM
ReasonableViews,
There is nothing reasonable about class warfare, especially when those being attacked are attacked for political points, alone.
Now, if we could add a 5% tax on Congress...
shipley130| 11.21.11 @ 5:02PM
That headline is very tempting, but I will keep it clean. Congress and Miss America have something in common. They know who to wave that hand.
John Navratil| 11.21.11 @ 6:44PM
They are also, generally, well-intentioned air-heads.
Simon Templar| 11.22.11 @ 6:12PM
There seems to be a rather general view here that all this is just happening by fate, stubborness, and a conflict of ideology and objectives.
It is not. It is by design, it is by objective, and it is by collusion. The sooner you wake up to that fact, the better we all will be and just maybe conservatives and their GOP elite can formulate a proper and effective response and start winning in this little game that is being played at the literal expense of all the rest of us.
POST American| 11.22.11 @ 11:48PM
--GLOW-ball-ist CON-solidation
----Cult-your--ALL degradation
------the Globalist RED China world TREASON OP
------------------------------=------------------------------
-------psycho-pathic USURY and EUGENICS------
-------------------------let loose---------------------------
NOW, one and all, onto---
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
Brian Mc| 11.21.11 @ 6:55AM
"Oust Democrats from control of anything in Washington"...? You would need to dismantle 75% of the bureaucracy leeching off the un-constitutional leviathon that has been perpetrated on we the people over the course of the last three generations! It's not the spending. It's the programs, agencies, administrations, services, and departments that demand the spending. Remove them...problem solved. And spare us the pick axe; pass the dynamite.