Fiscal Responsibility on the Horizon? LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN !!
By BrooksRob Posted in Economy — Comments (79) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Good news! ok, at least the potential for something good and VERY important to our nation's future emerging: Fiscal Responsibility (what a concept!). This post and related information will take some time to get through, but I URGE everyone to do so. Learning about this critical issue is, if I may say so, an obligation of every American. If we blow this, we will face fiscal and economic disaster within a couple of decades, resulting in a lower standard of living and lower national security. Please find some time to learn about this issue, and I recommend you start here. And if you end up agreeing with me that this commission is badly needed, take action!
See article below re: proposed Congressional commission to address the HUGE problem of our national debt (and ongoing deficits) combined with our unfunded entitlement liabilities. Not exactly what I advocated a few months ago -- and not as good, IMHO -- but definitely much better than nothing. Two key differences in my suggested approach, per my post a few months ago, would be (1) the committee would consist at least largely of non-politicians, but rather economists and other relevant experts who know more and who are not, let's say, distracted by personal political ambition, and (2) the commission I proposed would produce not one, but several (or let's say, at least two) alternative plans, each with different trade-offs (among levels and types of taxation and levels and types of spending), but all with realistic assumptions and judged to be at least roughly equally fiscally responsible (particularly in terms of debt-to-GDP), and then let the political battle begin over which trade-offs reflect the priorities and preferences of the American people. I do, however, see advantages to their approach: if they can reach agreement on a single plan, it will already have been negotiated somewhat between the parties and therefore perhaps would be more likely to pass (without politically-motivated, fiscally irresponsible tinkering) and to pass sooner. On balance, I still prefer my approach, but I'm very pleased to see this development and hope very much that it moves forward.
Before the article, some background for those who haven't already seen it from me in previous threads:
As I've alluded to above, if we don't change course on taxation and/or spending (particularly current entitlement eligibility and benefits), we are most likely headed toward fiscal and economic disaster that will substantially harm our standard of living and also our national security (guns need to be paid for, after all). On this point there is widespread agreement among economists of all stripes, from right to left. They also agree that real, substantial -- and politically unpopular -- sacrifices will have to be made. Finally, they agree that the longer we wait, the worse the ultimate pain will be.
Please take a quick look at these charts and scroll down on those pages for the comments below the charts.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts%5fP/p9....
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts%5fP/p4....
Then please watch this excellent video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml
Then, if/when you have a bit more time, please read this excellent piece from an excellent non-partisan organization:
http://www.concordcoalition.org/events/fiscal-wake-up/fiscal-wake-up-cal...
Then, please read my post from a few months ago:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/may/01/providing%5fcover%5f...
And finally the article below:
(UPDATE: Per a suggestion re: fair use, I've taken out more content from the article vs. my originally post. As noted below, I separately added one line from the article as well for different reasons. As in the original post, link to full article is below.)
Commission would address federal deficit
Group wouldn't issue recommendations until a new president is elected
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:25 a.m. ET Sept 19, 2007
WASHINGTON - Two of the Senate's top budget hawks began a bipartisan bid Tuesday aimed at reining in a budget deficit that's expected to skyrocket because of spending on federal retirement programs.
The plan, by the Budget Committee's Democratic chairman and its top Republican, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, would create a study group to develop recommendations on how to tame the deficit. Both the House and Senate would have to approve the idea for the task force to come together, and its initial chances seemed mixed at best after the top Democrats in both the House and Senate responded coolly.
With the looming election year killing any chance for politically painful steps to reduce the deficit, the group wouldn't issue recommendations until after a new president is elected.
Under the plan, a 16-member study group made up equally of Republicans and Democrats would attempt to reach agreement on legislation to cut the deficit. If 12 panel members - including two Bush administration participants - can agree, the legislation would be submitted to Congress for a vote in early 2009.
The idea driving Conrad and Gregg's plan is that the politically excruciating steps required to improve the long-term budget picture can only be taken if there's bipartisan backing...
Neither political party is willing to take risky steps, such as curbing benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare, unless the opposing political party is willing to support the moves. Three-fifths of both the House and Senate would have to pass any task force recommendations, which would be guaranteed an up-or-down vote.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued a statement saying Congress' existing procedures are adequate to tackle the divisive deficit issue.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., praised Gregg and Conrad for trying to tackle the budget deficit, but he worries that their approach would lead to tax increases.
(UPDATE: the following sentence was originally omitted because I didn't think it added much and I was trying to find something to cut for copyright reasons, but since someone fabricated a big stink about it for some silly reason -- and with all this important info on such an important topic, THAT'S what he and others chose to focus on -- here it is) "There are better reforms out there that don't lead to tax increases," Ryan said.
"We don't believe this issue can be addressed without it being totally bipartisan," Gregg told reporters.
Driving the debate is the looming retirement of the baby boomer generation, which will drive unsustainable growth in Social Security and Medicare unless some combination of benefit cuts and tax increases is enacted.
"We cannot ignore the coming crisis and hope that future leaders will solve this problem," Conrad said. "The time for action is now."
The group would be chaired by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and the recommendations wouldn't be due until after next year's elections.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20868193/
Finally, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR AND TELL THEM TO GET BEHIND THIS PLAN !!!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
And you have a better idea?? Without political cover, we'll get more of the same until some Big League sh*t hits the fan. And you'll be happy with that? Any chance you actually read & viewed all or most of the information I recommended? I assume not. But don't let that stop you from dumping on the whole idea.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Neil, you really should try saying something substantive once in a while. I know you said something embarrassingly absurd in that other thread today and had to run from my challenge by calling me anti-American (probably the most blatant cop-out name-calling combo I've ever seen on RS), but you can get back the courage to try real debate again. Maybe you're not quite ready to jump back in tonight, but I wish you a speedy emotional recovery.
I know, all I ever post are (nt) comments and navel-gazing meta diaries, I have much to learn before the Second Smartest Man in the Room™.
Hey, with Nick Danger back, you're trumped, end of story.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There may be tax hikes along with spending cuts recommended. In fact, some (hopefully modest) tax hikes are probable, although my guess (and certainly my hope) is that there will be a lot of adjustment on entitlement eligibility and benefits to reduce projected spending, and that that's where most of the fiscal improvement will come from. And if I have to choose between our present fiscal course -- which everone agrees is heading for disaster -- or this commission, it's a no-brainer. And again, without political cover, the politicians won't make the hard choices necessary and we'll end up in one enormous mess...with HUGE tax hikes later.
Don't you think we should approach this problem in a mature and responsible way (in terms of economic assumptions and acknowledging constraints on what is politically feasible and not feasible) rather than just sticking to erroneous "feel good" assumptions? I really, really don't get the mindset of some people. Yeah, I could just go around yelling "No, no, no! Not doing anything that might lead to ANY higher taxes. Don't like taxes. Taxes no good. Don't want to hear more!" But I force myself to deal with reality. If this is getting snarky, I apologize. It's not my intention. Just expressing exasperation over this issue and that taxes-revenues issue.
Is that government at all levels consumes far too much as it is. Maybe that's why there isn't going to be any willingness to accept tax hikes. There's no excuse for them in the name of "fiscal conservatism" or anything else. If I want a "fiscal conservative" to raise my taxes, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It's unrealistic to think that we can cut from that tiny Federal budget that is focused like a laser on only the minimum constitutionally-mandated expenditures instead of raise taxes, but it's entirely realistic to expect a blue ribbon commission to come up with any kind of decent plan. Not just a decent plan... a decent plan that will somehow magically restrain Congress's desire to spend everything they have and then some.
You can talk Congress into raising taxes... it happens all the time. You can't talk Congress into cutting spending.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
ok, then, zuiko, let's just forget the commission thing and keep heading toward that waterfall as if no danger is ahead. Good idea.
I got a line on where I might be able to buy some magic beans that might solve the whole thing.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Until Democrats talk about cutting entitlements and Republicans talk about cutting defenses.
Guns and butter is still the stock and trade of Washington. Sure here at RedState you talk a great game about cutting entitlement spending. And over at Kos they talk a great game about cutting defense.
But neither is going to happen! But don't worry, zuiko la mancha. Those windmills aren't going anywhere.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Flyer, which is part of a legitimate function of government and which is not. Additionally, which is threatening to bankrupt the country military spending or entitlements? Moreover, there have been several Republican led attempts to cut pork out of the military budget.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
It's also apples and oranges for another important reason. In theory at least -- and I believe in reality -- military spending is in large part an economic investment (as well as, of course, providing physical security), while entitlements represent mostly current consumption. Big difference in terms of economic impact.
Discretionary military spending gets heavily monitored. The Nunn-McCurdy Amendment sets very strict guardrails on how far a program can go astray with cost growth before they get hauled infront of the HASC and the SASC for twin dressings down and possible cancellation.
When Nunn-McCurdy gets extended to entitlement programs, I'll believe we stand a chance of getting a handle on them.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
lets hope he doesn't get the brush off that Bush got from both parties when he attempted to address the issue.
Fiscal responsibility will be shuffled well into the future (the underlying purpose of most "commissions" and "blue-ribbon panels" empowered by congress is to show that congress cares, justify congressional inaction and shift the responsibility to some future congress) unless the American people demand that congress stops spending money on the American people, because the American people certainly will not demand higher taxes on themselves.
The "Veto Pen" is direct, and absent (67) unabashedly conservative US Senators, it's clearly a more useful tool.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
I am indeed "excited", and we all should be, because this is a looming crisis -- or as the Comptroller General David Walker put it so well in that video, we have a cancer (that will grow if we neglect it) -- and the longer we wait to act responsibly, the greater the ultimate pain. It's clear to me that without political cover, it's unlikely that hard choices will be made. A commission is certainly no guarantee of good results, but it's our best bet by far.
editing this post.
Intriguing. Only one line was omitted.
"There are better reforms out there that don't lead to tax increases," Ryan said.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
ok, boys, before you have to go change your underpants, let's take an objective look here and be just a tad less presumptuous. I was looking for something to leave out, since I didn't want to include the whole article for copyright reasons, but it all seemed important to include, except for one line that seemed redundant. Did you happen to notice -- of course you didn't mention this in your gleeful "gotcha" -- that the sentence prior to one I ommited was this:
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., praised Gregg and Conrad for trying to tackle the budget deficit, but he worries that their approach would lead to tax increases.
The quote didn't really add anything to that, and I left it out for the reason I've just explained.
But I hate to spoil the party for all you guys whose a**es I've kicked all over the place and who would like nothing more than to think you've caught me in some sleight of hand. Well, it was fun while it lasted. Oops, too late. Now go change your underpants.
You know that is completely pointless to leave out a single sentence for copyright reasons. It doesn't magically become fair use if you leave out a sentence.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm telling you that's why I did it. I felt it was better than not omitting anything, and it seemed not to add much to the prior sentence. BUT, as you can see now, I've updated the post to include that line.
ABSOLUTELY AMAZING that on such an important issue, with all the important info I provided, THAT'S what you and other choose to focus on. Here we have one of the greatest threats to our nation's well-being, and you guys are all about pettiness. Really something.
“Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., praised Gregg and Conrad for trying to tackle the budget deficit, but he worries that their approach would lead to tax increases.
The quote didn't really add anything to that…”
(emphasis mine)
Correct. It did not lend support to the creation of a study group.
"There are better reforms out there that don't lead to tax increases," Ryan said.
However, it did advance the premise that there is a better way and tax increases should be off the table.
Note:
And now, almost the entire article is reprinted without permission.
Except this:
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Thanks for proving my point so well regarding your putting pettiness over serious discussion of an extremely serious issue facing our nation. Strangely, I think you're actually proud of yourself. [this is the sound of me shaking my head in disbelief at how some people actually think]
I don't mean for this to come out snarky or mean or whatever, but it seems that you cannot ever have a lengthy discussion without descending into some form of "I'm smarter than all of you, why don't you idiots listen to me."
Yeah, I know, you won't bother taking any advice from me since we've had it out in the past. Oh well, what can I say, I tried.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
No, that's just your perception when I present sensible arguments with which you disagree, that cause you discomfort, and that you try to refute but are unable to do so, nor to defend your own arguments when I challenge them, and the same applies to some others on RS. And like some others, you seem unable to see this dynamic for what it is, and utterly unable to see the blatant double standard you apply to me vs. yourselves and others in terms of tone. And if several of the usual suspects chime in to agree with you here, it doesn't change the reality.
And yet, whenever this happens it always involves you. Ever wonder why? Well besides everyone else not being "sensible" or "rational" or whatever condescending phrase you wish to use.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Quite simply, it happens to me because (1) I have some libertarian social views that conflict with the many (probably most) here, (2) I challenge some Known Facts here even on some issues on which I'm conservative (e.g., The Bush tax cuts' impact on revenues). Some people (like you) have trouble with reasonable, intelligent debate in some such circumstances, and you lack objectivity in a number of ways, including your double standard on tone. Just because there are several people like you here doesn't mean I'm doing anything inappropriate or wrong.
But here's a suggestion: let's bring this relatively unimportant side-discussion to an end. If you have anything substantive to add to the very important topic of my post, please offer it. Otherwise, please find some other thread.
Some people (like you) have trouble with reasonable, intelligent debate in some such circumstances
Just can't resist can you? Pity. So how's the weather 6 years ago, you never answered that.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Enough. ok? Please offer substantive comments relevant to this thread, or please don't comment further here.
Fix your blog and remove the copyrighted material. You've had enough time to do so.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
I was already in the process of doing so prior to returning and seeing your comment. Done. Regardless of your motives, I don't want to either cause RedState any trouble nor provide a pretext for anyone to attack for their own purposes.
Pancakes and Ducks!
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Thanks for adding to the pettiness, Darin H. And I'll note that your comment above was made PRIOR to my comment here http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/sep/19/fiscal_responsibilit...
Amazing. Here I am trying to draw attention to a hugely important issue and providing very useful and important information, and some of you are entirely consumed with pettiness. You guys do care about the future of the country, right? Perhaps even more than getting in little petty jabs at some guy who beat you in an argument or two (or more, if we're going to be accurate)?
and not your theft of someone else's property. That's as far as it goes. The comment wasn't for you, it was to draw attention from a moderator.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Uh, yeah, right, Darin. That's reeeeeally believable. Yes, of course it was to get the attention of a moderator, but your motive was pettiness and unwarranted vindictiveness, so don't bother pretending to have some noble objective. You just gotta be kidding. Tell you what -- why don't you just find some other thread, since you obviously have nothing important to contribute to discussion of this very important topic.
Many of us ROUTINELY flag these kind of copy and paste diaries...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Um, sure, Neil. Just a coincidence that you and a couple of others have been sniping at me all day (or, in your case, at least since you got embarrassed on that other thread).
Fair Use is a paragraph or two, not an entire article sans one sentence.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
RedState can get into trouble for letting you post copyrighted material without the owners consent. I have almost 3 years here, and if you want to bother checking through my posting history, I have more than a dozen "Fair Use Violation" alert posts under my belt.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Copyright violations are *not* theft.
They're copyright violations.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
So far the comments on this thread have not exactly been anything the RedState community can be proud of. Can we please end all the pettiness and limit comments to serious, substantive points regarding this very important issue? Is that too much to ask? If all you have is pettiness and snark and nothing substantive and relevant, please take it elsewhere.
BrooksRob ... This really isn't personal - even though I am very certain you'd say it is and nothing will change your mind.
But. You. Are. Obnoxious. Beyond. Belief.
Let me be clear here. You don't actually win most of the arguments you engage in. You basically overwhelm because most people generally don't have the time and energy to go at it with you (in particular) for the whole day.
Arguments with you just involve a whole lot of "referee" calls (from you); "red herring!", "ad hominem!", "cop-out!", etc.
You generally dismiss rather than answer other people's questions even as you demand they answer yours, you assert for others what their motivations and thought processes are, and beyond that you set up your arguments based on strictly on your own premises without considering the possibility that you are not exactly the paragon of objectivity and that your premises are not shared.
In the end it's a tedious annoying chore getting into a debate with you. It always devolves into a shouting match because you simply refuse to try to comprehend the other person's point of view/reference and your rather arrogant assumption that the world must operate in a way that matches your rules for consistency.
By the way, let me echo Neil and say that I hope one day you get into it with Nick. Unlike most of us here, he likes to hurt people and he'll probably stick with it until the end of the world.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Completely wrong across the board. Every one of your points is diametrically opposed to the truth. But I won't refute all of them because (or even any of them), as I've said repeatedly, I REALLY want this thread to focus on the important topic of my post rather than this sideshow.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
We're not going to get any of it because the people don't particularly want it.
The bad effects from over-leveraging are certainly going to happen, and nothing will be done until then. This is simple political reality.
Even so, I expect it will take someone with the rhetorical ability of Reagan to connect fiscal profligacy in people's minds with the specific disorders that result. That means that even when we're in the middle of the trouble, it's unlikely that the right things will be done about it.
However, we've been through a decade-long period of extremely low interest rates around the world, which has enabled the Federal government to borrow massively at interest rates which are basically quite sustainable at current growth levels. (And don't forget, I'm the guy who expects US growth to slow, and remain slow, going forward.)
As far as the probity of economists goes: the unaccountably low rate environment was famously called a "conundrum" by Greenspan, and Bernanke recently admitted he can't explain it either. (I forget the words he used.) All we know for sure is it probably can't continue (we think).
If the government is to borrow, someone needs to lend. So far, people are only too willing to do so. That will change long before the government gets into real fiscal trouble, the kind that seriously disrupts people's lives. Investors are human. After the last two months, one hesitates to say they're not stupid, but on the other hand there are only so many margin calls you have to meet before you're out of the game.
And by the way: Wu Xiaoling was for real earlier this year, when she said that China would stop lending to the US Govt. They've been quietly but steadily cutting down their exposure all year. Hasn't dropped the bond market any. In fact, the middle and right-hand side of the yield curve are even lower now than earlier in the year.
I'm certainly not saying that the prognostications of economists are anything close to consistently accurate and precise, but I do think that when there is a very broad confident consensus among economists of all stripes on some matter of economics, we should probably give that consensus view significant weight (in terms of probability that they're right vs. an alternative view to which almost none of them subscribe) as we make policy decisions. If there's one thing that they can agree on, it's that our current path is unsustainable, meaning that our current course is heading for fiscal and economic disaster. And if there's another thing they agree on, it's that the longer we wait to change course, the greater the ultimate pain will be. So I think it is sensible to conclude that the wise thing to do is to get moving now on such changes.
As to politicics, yes, it is certainly very difficult to get the public to accept sacrifices that are in its best interest (taking their medicine), which is why I've been advocating (previously and via this post) some means of providing political cover for the politicians. It may not end up working, but it's a better bet than if we do not create such a mechanism, for reasons I've explained, as have the Concord Coalition and those quoted in the article in my post.
As for interest rates and the abundance of willing creditors, again, there is simply no way that our current course is sustainable (I'm not saying you necessarily disagree. I'm not sure). As just a crude analogy, a credit card company can keep raising my credit limit, but that doesn't mean I can keep borrowing all I want forever while only making minimum payments. (yeah I know, the Federal Government can "print" money, etc, but as you know, that is very far from a panacea for obvious reasons).
Your first paragraph contains nothing you haven't already said many times before.
To your second paragraph, I must respectfully tell you that the world works the other way around. Politicians appoint panels of experts when they need cover for inaction, not for action.
The only thing that experts, management consultants, lawyers, or any other rocket scientists can ever do is to tell you what not to do. Actually doing something, especially something unpopular, requires leadership, not expertise.
To your third paragraph: the credit card company will keep lending you money until the precise second when they judge you're overextended. The same will someday happen to the Treasury.
At that point (and not before), taxes will go up. And at that point, we'll have a productive debate about which entitlements to cut.
COOOOOOOOL! As I was writing this, my copy of Greenspan's new book just landed on my desk! I'll catch all of you later.
I know you and I have discussed this before and we're both covering ground we covered in that other thread. While I'm unsure, I think we agree on some things, but please let me know if you agree:
1) Our current fiscal course (tax rates, discretionary spending and structure of entitlements) is unsustainable and will lead to HUGE problems for our economy within a couple of decades.
2) The sooner we change course, the less the ultimate pain will be. Better to start reducing our debt-to-GDP via reduced spending and/or increased taxes (preferably much more of the former than the latter). Better to begin phasing in reductions in entitlement benefits and eligibility to reduce the shock to individuals and the economy. Otherwise the ultimate pain will be much greater and can play out in a number of ways, including creditors to our Treasury demanding much higher interest rates, (causing substantial recessionary pressure), much higher taxes, and much more sudden and draconian cuts in Medicare and Social Security on which many elderly depend to varying degrees. In other words, it would be much wiser for us to change course sooner rather than later.
3) Politicians generally lack the integrity to be completely open and honest about the problem and the need for sacrifices, and are generally disinclined to propose politically-unpopular sacrifices on the scale that is needed to address the problem.
4) Experts can be useful to make recommendations from the perspective of their respective areas of expertise. Leaders must first of all put those recommendations in the context of those respective perspectives (say that five times fast) and, of course, leaders are the ones who have to make things happen.
Please let me know to what extent you agree with the above.
Where we apparently disagree is on whether a commission makes it more or less likely that the politicians will take a wiser course of action. Yes, sometimes commissions are set up to kick the can down the road rather than make tough decisions today. But I've given my reasons why I think providing political cover is the key factor here and why it makes it much more likely that the politicians will act responsibly and do so sooner. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
I look forward to any comments you have on Greenspan's book. Hopefully you'll post something.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
And is probably missed by people who never expected to miss him!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I like his approach to the problem. However, I simply would not consider tax rate increases until two years after spending cuts have been made, and even then, I would only agree to a tax rate increases if shown beyond a reasonable doubt that said rate increase would
a) not harm growth to a significant degree,
b) would increase revenues to a significant degree,
c) entitlements are means tested so that not great increase in revenues is needed, and
d) lower income workers are not harmed
and I'm sure I will think of other reasons not to have a tax increase
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
anyone even understands our convoluted tax system to know when it is overly perturbed or when it reaches an equilibrium. The equations that would even come close to projecting its future behavior are certainly non-trivial and probably non-linear to boot.
Before we will even be able to forecast the effect of any proposed change to it, it needs to be simplified to the point of being linear and trivial. Maybe not as simplistic as the old Libertarian Ideal of the postcard sized 1040, but something along those lines.
If you have to hire an accountant and a lawyer to figure out your financial position, you are already being chisled by the government before they withhold the first dime.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
when in the midst of a robust economy and steadily expanding GDP, quarterly tax receipts signal that a steep decline in future revenue collection is eminent.
Unless we reach that point, taxes are too high.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Our economy does not operate in a static environment, and tax rate/revenue collection is not zero-sum.
The problem that often confounds economists and so-called "experts" is the fact that a viable formula which can accurately predict the dynamic effects of the human psyche on a fluid economy does not exist.
Simply stated: There are too many variables to accurately define a constant from which to base the calculations.
- Although it's not a literal description of tax rates/revenue collections, history has shown it often applies:
- "Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi." - Isaac Newton
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
What we do know is that to give ourselves the best chance for economic growth and efficiency is less taxes and regulation, ie
freedom.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
you're really not getting it, rbd. My guess is you don't want to and still won't even if I explain (and my diary itself and links within it provide an explanation anyway), so I won't bother.
The solution to solving our impending fiscal trouble does not include raising taxes, which would more than likely lead us straight into a crippling recession and compound the problem even further, but to cut the federal bureaucracy in half, slash entitlement programs and privatize social security, making each individual, except the most indigent among us, responsible for their own well-being and retirement program.
Your solution codifies socialism while providing funding for its advancement, and will in reality, expand the size of the federal bureaucracy and place the entire burden of maintaining said expansion squarely on the backs of the American taxpayer.
However, your are right in one respect: You will never convince me that raising taxes is the solution for anything.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
a tax increase now, for future, possible spending reductions that never materialize. Sounds like 1990, and just about every other time this has been tried, and has never succeeded.