See other Editorial Articles
Title: GOP Keeps Avoiding Its Fiscal 'Principles'
Source:
Creative Syndicate Real Clear Politcs
URL Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar ... keeps_avoiding_its_fiscal.html
Published: Feb 26, 2009
Author: Froma Harrop
Post Date: 2009-02-26 09:27:46 by war
Keywords: GOP, tax, budget, government
Views: 384
Comments: 23
How big should government be? The answer is: As big as it has to be -- and for small-government types, no bigger than it has to be. The whole debate about the proper size of government is a blind alley leading into a dead end. Government must grow at times of war or collapsing economy. It grows when there are lots of schoolchildren, elderly people or natural disasters. Government provides necessities that the private sector can't. We can argue over what constitutes a necessity. There was no joy in President Obama's discussion Tuesday night of the expensive economic-recovery plan. He told Congress that he asked for it, "not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't." It was because "a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years." Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Republican response to the speech showed a stunning disconnect from reality. First he called for a pile of new tax cuts, then warned that Democrats would "saddle future generations with debt." Future generations are saddled with debt precisely because of reckless Republican tax cuts -- and spending. Obama repeated his vow to cut the deficit in half, once the crisis has passed. And he spoke in real-world specifics of tax loopholes to be ended and higher levies on the richest 2 percent. Well, what about spending? There are fiscally righteous Republicans who fervently believe in small government and have the courage to vote against popular programs. They are but a handful. George W. Bush, working with a Republican Congress, embarked on the biggest spending spree since Lyndon Johnson, even excluding money allocated to defense and homeland security. A current Republican talking point, repeated by Jindal, holds that "our party got away from its principles." Sadly, the party gets away from its principles most every time it's in power. Bush wasn't a special case. Under Ronald Reagan, the U.S. government consumed the highest percentage of gross domestic product in American history, except for during World War II. In his first address before Congress, in 1981, Reagan made shocked reference to the nearly $1 trillion in debt his administration had inherited. He called the number "incomprehensible." But Reagan's rhetoric had no bearing on subsequent policy. By the time he left office, the national debt had more than doubled, to over $2 trillion. The national debt almost doubled under George W. Bush, from just under $6 trillion to nearly $10 trillion. The one fiscally honest Republican president in recent decades was the much-maligned George H.W. Bush. Deciding that the time had come for America to start paying its bills, the elder Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge. For that gutsy move, his party's tax-a-phobes reviled him. Their barbs multiplied for Bush's successor, Democrat Bill Clinton, who backed higher taxes for some upper-income Americans. That helped create budget surpluses -- a fiscal Eden from which America was ejected soon after. A recent New York Times-CBS News poll asked Americans whether it's more important for Republicans to stick to GOP policies or work with Obama and the Democrats. Only 17 percent preferred that Republicans stick to their policies. That's not much of a thumbs-up for the Republican way. Nobody likes the deficits being run up. Everybody gripes about some of the ways the money's being spent. But at the moment, only government can pull us out of the economic swamp. If Obama succeeds in cutting the deficit in half, he will have presided over a very big government followed by a much shrunken one. Both versions will have been right for their times. Clearly, there's no "one-size-fits-all" circumstances for government.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: war (#0)
I'm not sure if you believe the above nugget that was tucked away in the article you posted or not. If you do, please explain how "reckless" tax cuts have saddled future generations of Americans. Thanks.
Because every time that the GOP has cut taxes they've also spent like a drunken sailor who just bought a lotto ticket certain of the fact that he will win.
Tell me which tax cuts were "reckless."
Tax subsidies, which go beyond even cuts in my view, to export plant, equipment and employment to China and other cheap labor locales, are reckless, IMO.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Another "reckless" policy of the U.S. government is to tax Americans wherever they are in the world and yet allow foreigners to invest in our financial markets without being subject to taxation. To paraphrase Henry Ford, if people knew of this, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. “I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Did you know that you can't even visis Saudi Arabia unless you are invited in by one of their citizens. Perhaps that should be our policy overall. And definitely towards them.
Every "supply side" tax cut beginning with Reagan's has resulted in slower revenue growth. SO those ones.
First off I dispute your claim. It is bullshit. Second the purpose of taxes aren't to increase the governments revenue. In fact their revenue should be less and they should be forced to live with in it. The purpose of taxes are to provide for legitimate functions of government such as what is laid out in the constitution. Building roads, defense and stuff like that. Not Social Security, welfare and stuff like that. When you give people an incentive to be lazy that is what you will get. Lazy people. Lazy people don't produce. We need producers making products to sell to the world. We don't need lazy asses getting a check off someone elses labor.
FACT: The pace of revenue growth in the 80's lagged the three previous decades. FACT: the pace of revenue growth in the Booosh years lagged the 90's. HIstorical Budget Tables [pdf]
Wha...chuckle...huh? OF COURSE taxes are meant to increase revenue.
The taxes AND the spending are all repugnant to the Constitution of the united States of America. I will participate in neither.
Chuckles, are you any relation to boteye ?
Artilce II Section 2 USCON: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law... ~snip~ What does the above emphasized mean?
I'm the twin who lived...he's The Dick who didn't...
What taxes and what spending?
1) A tax cut is a tax cut is a tax cut. They don't come with names like "supply side" tax cuts. 2) Tax cuts are good, whereas tax increases are bad. 3) a tax cut, when offset by an even larger spending spree, causes the cut to cease functioning. 4) Reagan's tax cuts increased federal revenues, but a net deficit occurred b/c of uncontrolled spending, not b/c they didn't work as advertised.
Sure they do. Tax cuts are good, whereas tax increases are bad. Me Tarzan...You Jane. a tax cut, when offset by an even larger spending spree, causes the cut to cease functioning. Wha...huh? The "function" of an income tax cut is to decrease the pace of the income based revenue stream to the government. There is NO OTHER effect that can be a certitude other than that one. You can ANTICIPATE that it MIGHT result in increased economic activity but that is NOT a certitude. Reagan's tax cuts increased federal revenues A growing tax base increased revenues. Clinton's tX increase increase rvenues. Static tax rates increased revenues. The fact is, that those tax cuts SLOWED the growth of revenue to the givernment which you and I agree is a good thing IF the giovernment doesn't need the revenue to fund its liabilities which is anything that that it spends.
ALL paycheck deductions are an affront to God and liberty. If FedGov needs money, then they should slap 95% tariffs on communist chinkernese imports. Of course, that will force goods mfg's to re-open American factories and spur PRODUCTION, the real engine of capitalism.
_________________________________________________________________________ blah blah blah. statist
What have I typed that is factually inaccurate?
I'm agnostic. And in the God/Man dynamic, man has been affronted by God far more often. As for an affront to Liberty. I will agree for the same reason that tehg Founders did. Income taxes provided a steady revenue stream that inevitably was going to be used to build a maintain a war machine.
...as well as supporting a welfare class of people who need government to provide sustenance and direction to their lives. If somebody isn't truly able to fail without a safety-net then they don't have liberty and freedom.
_________________________________________________________________________ That was something that the FOunders never contemplated.
Future generations are saddled with debt precisely because of reckless Republican tax cuts --
#2. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
If you do, please explain how "reckless" tax cuts have saddled future generations of Americans.
#3. To: war (#2)
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
#5. To: All (#4)
#6. To: Sam Houston (#5)
#7. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
Tell me which tax cuts were "reckless."
#8. To: war (#7)
Every "supply side" tax cut beginning with Reagan's has resulted in slower revenue growth. SO those ones.
#9. To: Old Friend (#8)
First off I dispute your claim. It is bullshit.
#10. To: Old Friend (#8)
Second the purpose of taxes aren't to increase the governments revenue.
#11. To: war (#0)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#12. To: war (#10)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#13. To: Old Friend (#8)
The purpose of taxes are to provide for legitimate functions of government such as what is laid out in the constitution.
#14. To: Rotara (#12)
Chuckles, are you any relation to boteye ?
#15. To: Rotara (#11)
The taxes AND the spending are all repugnant to the Constitution of the united States of America.
#16. To: war (#7)
(Edited)
Every "supply side" tax cut beginning with Reagan's has resulted in slower revenue growth. SO those ones.
#17. To: Jethro Tull (#16)
They don't come with names like "supply side" tax cuts.
#18. To: war (#15)
What taxes and what spending?
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#19. To: war (#17)
#20. To: Old Friend (#19)
#21. To: X-15 (#18)
ALL paycheck deductions are an affront to God and liberty.
#22. To: war (#21)
Income taxes provided a steady revenue stream that inevitably was going to be used to build a maintain a war machine.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#23. To: X-15 (#22)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest