Speaking of Madeline Kahn, maybe the Republicans should adopt her attitude in dealing with Obama on this debt deal. I mean if you heard the presser he had yesterday, it's beginning to sound like "Ground Hog Day" in the White House. Boehner and the boys have to be tired:
Short piece on the cost of regulation over at Investor's Business this morning: "Less Regulation = More Jobs." If you don't read the whole article - remember the money line:
Federal regulations cost the economy more than $1.75 trillion in 2008, about 14% of the size of the economy.
To understand how massive that is, consider that the regulatory burden for each U.S. household is more than $15,000 a year while private health care spending per household is $10,500 annually.
That was in 2008, BEFORE the on-going implementation of Dodd-Frank and the disaster of Obamacare. Speaking of that - Obama and the parrot Dems keep yelling that the Republicans should "compromise" and "bend" on taxes. Really? How come Obamacare is not allowed into the discussion when it is an estimated $14 TRILLION torpedo aimed at the centerline of the U.S. economy?
Look, Obama and his minions have already raised taxes...how soon we forget: Taxes Upon Taxes Upon Taxes. No tax ever created a job.
For all the caterwauling in Washington over the debt, in 50 state capitols, the Governors and legislators are trying to figure out how to address a collective $112 Billion dollar debt - without the ability to print money. New Geography has a comprehensive report on their efforts that is worth a browse: "Enterprising States: Recovery and Renewal." The states are the laboratory of our republic and some like Texas and Tennessee are being innovative and forward-thinking while some, like California, are dying. The whole report is available from the U.S. Chamber by clicking the picture below:
That's it for today.
Rumble on!
2 comments:
Uh... interesting...
There is quite literally no way to balance the budget w/out raising taxes. GOPers forget (or decide to pretend to forget) that Reagan raised taxes. HW raised taxes. Clinton had higher tax rates (and a balanced budget, with a surplus... thanks W). Or go back. What was top marginal rate under Eisenhower? (Look it up. I'll wait.)
In fact, tax rates are at historic lows. And the Buffets and Gates's of the world are quite famously in favor of higher taxes on their bracket.
Look, balancing the budget is a good idea, but pretending that somehow the very idea of a 1% or so increase on the uber-wealthy is going to end the world as we know it is laughable. You can cut every program in the bedget. Eliminate SocSec, Medicare, etc etc. That would do it... at a horrifying social cost. Or... we can remember that we are, in fact, all in this together, and let the people who are already fantastically wealthy HELP OUT. If you want the American dream to survive, the people who have already achieved it need to play ball. Simple as that.
The GOP refuses to even contemplate this. A failure. You cannot simply cut our way out of this. Cannot be done. Want deficit paid down? Increase revenue. Trickle-down doesn't work. Proven time and again. Especially these days... if you are a billionaire, you buy your yacht from Italy, your cars from Germany, your appliances from Scandinavia... the US gets nothing from that. Nothing. And the big money stays offshore anyway.
Rich people need to pay more. Not a lot more, but a Clinton-era level. Those were great years for most of us. Were you the one person who didn't groove on the economy in those years? Pretty cut and dried...
So... refusing 'on principle' (I would call that principle 'stupidity', but that's neither here nor there) to even converse about the possibility of returning to tax rates PROVEN successful by actual historical experience... this is why the GOP is going to lose again in 2012. Is isnt about 'winning the game' or 'making Obama look bad', it is about 'creating a stable future'.
Until people like you stop pretending that a discussion along these lines is unacceptable... no progeress can be made. And guess who we plan to blame come voting time? (Not Obama, that's for sure...)
Sadly we do recall that both Reagan and HW raised taxes. That you raise these increases is an important lesson - Reagan bragged in 1982 that he got $3 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increase. He never got ANY of the cuts...zip, zero, nada. The Democrats promised the cuts if the Reps would just give a little teensy weensy tax increase. It's like Lucy with the football with the Republicans playing Charlie Brown.
The reference to Eisenhower is interesting and well pointed - what did Kennedy do when he came into office to get the economy going?
The reality is you could tax the "rich" 100% and you would pay for about a month and a half of government operations. If you want a fair share, how about the 48% of people that pay NO income tax? The reality is the "rich" create companies that create jobs. The government does not create wealth.
The problem is that the government has got itself into so many things where it doesn't belong with, I will admit, the best of intentions - and we can't afford it anymore. It's time to pare it back and you can't do that by facilitating more spending.
Long term, the best solution would be a simplified tax code - preferably a flat tax, where everyone has skin in the game. Won't happen, because if everyone were vested, Democrats (as currently configured) couldn't get elected.
Post a Comment