Redstate

You would be correct as usual, Crank.

My only guess is that they do not see that (reduction of government) as a winning issue in 2006, which begs a few other questions which I will leave to the imagination.

Maybe I'm just frayed on account of having my first final tomorrow, but it really rubbed me the wrong way. Hopefully soon we'll put the whole thing up so I can mock it appropriately.

Honestly, when I got done reading it, I thought to myself, "Is that the best they can even offer as possibilities?"

I wrote in the comments section of the email from Mehlman that the questions were superficial and condescending, and that not covered were pork spending; fiscal responsibility; transforming - not protecting - social security; securing borders from illegal immigration; responding forcefully to internal criticisms, etc. etc.

I said I would be active in primary and pre-primary activities to select senators and representatives that are accountable to the reasons we voted them in.

Interesting concept. Good luck. May the FORCE be with you.

neither party is going to cut the government.  Face it.  Unless we want to start a 3rd party that will in all likelihood just put the Dems in power, cutting spending will not be a decisive issue in how most people vote this election.  Since no one with a chance is going to reduce the size of government, it is very unlikely that it would be a determining issue in how people vote and was thus justifiably left off the survey.

Now, I don't know that that is how they reached their conclusion.  I'm certainly not saying it's a good thing.  It's just how it is.

One of the best hitters the NFL has ever had :)

Well, I'm having technical difficulties actually submitting the survey - so here's what I wrote in the comments section:

Dear Chairman Mehlman,

I'm not filling out this survey because frankly none of it excites me, and it ticks me off more than a little bit. There are two significant reasons that I'm a Republican party activist, and they are, in order, protecting the sanctity of all human life and reducing the size of the federal government. Now, I understand that not everyone shares the same priorities that I do, but given that this is a survey of putative Republicans, I'd hope the party could at least muster the awareness to throw those in as options.

I know where you are going to claim "wiggle room" on this; you'll say that "protecting the sanctity of every human life" goes under "appointing qualified judges." As far as overturning Roe v. Wade, that's correct, of course. But as we both know, protecting the sanctity of every human life goes a good deal farther than that - and even if it didn't, I'd be extremely disappointed that the party I have worked for can no longer bring itself to mention what used to be a central party plank in a survey designed to reach a friendly audience.

In a way, this entire survey stands for the problem that has affected the entire GOP mood - our elected leaders have lost both clarity and vision. They can't even speak in honest terms about the issues that matter to the people who go to the polls and get them elected. Instead, it's generalized platitudes that stand for nothing; worse, that stand for the drifting malaise that is gripping our party.

I don't know if you guys have noticed yet, but it's almost the end of April. There's not much time left to right the ship. The Democrats face a natural minority in the Senate, and the reality of being out of touch with what most Americans believe in. But whatever shortcomings they have, they are passionate and they are motivated to get to the polls and enjoy a victory at last. Please don't try to win this election on a platform that sounds like this, because honestly I'm wondering for the first time in a long time about my own motivation to go to the polls.

I just wrote a diary basically on the subject of the GOP abandoning fiscal conservatism. The link for that diary is:

http://goldwaterrepublican.redstate.com/story/2006/4/24/22427/7330

I am in disbelief that the party would not offer cutting government spending as an option. My letter to the chairman will be sent soon. I am so upset with this survey that I cannot even really collect my thoughts right now, so I will comment more later.

Unfortunately the 2007 fiscal year looks bleak as well.  The projected budge deficit 345 Billion dollars.  Pork barrel spending accounts for 27 Billion of this and the Iraq war if cut off right now would only save 50-70 Billion.  The real causes for the deficits are spending on Social Security, Medicare and Tax cuts.  In fact the only way to deal with deficits now is big cuts in these programs or tax increases.  :<

Let's face it, the party doesn't have to appease us, because they figure where else are we going to go? As bad the Republicans are at holding down federal spending, I've yet to see any evidence the Democrats are any better. Things worked pretty well from 1994-98, but that appears to have been a fluke of divided government and a number of Republicans who were actually willing to stand on principle. That's long gone.

Abortion. Hell, half that list could've been on the DNC survey as well.  "Protecting" Social Security?  That's my party's language, not the GOP's.

(That said, you know no one cares about your answers for this, right?  It's a hook to try to convince you to send a check back with your envelope.)

When Alito got confirmed, I didn't come over to Kos and rub salt in YOUR wounds.

Just saying.

and did we all learn from THAT lesson?

He'll just have the next 30-40 years to do it himself, through his rulings. :)

And he plays for my team! And he seems like such a nice boy!

we need a new and principled coalition who'll push an agenda that includes, as a priority, self-limitation and transparency thru NEW LAWS.

I don't like that option because it contains a built-in assumption that taxes are already low!  Some individuals would argue otherwise.  

Perhaps' making taxes lower' should be an option.  When most of the tax cuts are set to rise in a couple of years, it's rather concerning.  One would think getting a tax cut made permament in an election year would be something easy to do; oh well.  

As far as I can tell, the GOP is the party that believes:

1.  The price of gas has nothing to do with supply and demand, but rather, evil capitalists that must be put in their place.
   
2.  The border isn't enforcable, and we should just throw in the towel.  The refugees are coming, just open your wallet.
   
3.  There's no spending like government spending.
   
4.  Making the tax cuts permanent, well, whatever.

Right now I see no reason to show up in November other than Blackwell.  The rest, DeWine include, I'll skip.

made by many unhappy conservative figures. I believe WF Buckley was one.

They supported a Kerry victory to stop the aquiesence, rubber stamp posture of the GOP congress and motivate them to return to principle and say "NO!". IOW, recreate the gridlock of the late 90s and force restraint...a time when government actually started shrinking and budgets wer balanced.

Without partisan desire to cooperate out of party-line loyalty, a Dem WH and GOP Capitol would have been a good for government.

Made sense.

A non-vote for a Republican is a vote for a Democrat.

spending needs to be cut across the board. we need innovation and guts...not just more tax cuts.

1. TSA - With Flight 93, that was the end of taking over an airline without a gun. Reduce the TSA to searching luggage for bombs, and a sweep for guns. No more strip searches of little old ladies, but feel free to strip search a young arab male.
   
2. New drug program. Noboday asked for it, so just cx the program.
   
3. SS - make opting out a new plan. I will be gone in a split second with any money you throw at me. I will even take 10 cents on the dollar.
   
4. Government schools. Make vouchers the law of the land. Public schools can compete for the vouchers.
   
5. US Government foreign aid. Cx all of it.

and best one of all

6. No valid SS number, no work. Taxes should increase with this one.

any others I missed?

Foreign aid is minimal compared to other boondoggles. Besides, it serves a good purpose.

Simply opting out of SS will not solve the problem of solvency...it'll actually make it worse. We need a feasible plan. I'm all ears. I like Charles Murray's plan personally.

public shcools aren't a problem. they just need to be funded differently. not sure how.

New drug program: agreed. but what do you do then?

No defense cuts or critical review of the  spending process? Remember this includes DOD plus indirect spending thru other depts like the department of energy. remember, were talking about over 450 bil in just the offical DOD budget alone.

Besides, what you listed would barley dent the deficit.

if you think that public schools are not a problem then we are doomed.

My Top Ten Issues

1)  Fighting Al Qaeda effectively and other Terrorist organizations

2)  Free Trade:  To both enrich the US, the World, and to incorporate the disconnected economies/people into the global market, thus removing much of the stimuli that fuels terrorism.  We are fighting a war against radicalism, mostly right now radical Islam, when a person living standards improve they don't go cutting peoples heads off or setting off bombs.

3)  A Strong Foreign Policy Engine:  A strong military that can neutralize threats, a strong engineering force that can rebuild countries, and state department people that actually know what they are doing and know how to perform their jobs.

4)  Tax Reform: Fair Tax, will accept Flat if business Taxes are removed, note I didn't say Tax Cuts.  Make a Tax policy which is simple and isn't a national or personal burden.

5)  Health Care Reform: Remove the tax incentives businesses get but individuals do not.  Prevent insurance from denying coverage due to genetic disposition, but allow insurance to charge more for life style choices like smoking.  Allow you to buy into an insurance policy and be able to transfer it anywhere, truly portable insurance.

6)  Energy Independence:  Not ethanol or some other subsidiary, (though I would support cellulose research) but true reform.  Allowing nuclear to become a greater power source in the US by building power plants.  Remove most of the different gasoline blends and build refineries.  ANWAR and offshore drilling.  If a hybrid is sold in the US force it to be a plug in hybrid so it can use our power grid and thus nuclear or coal.  Energy independence won't occur due to a magic new energy method, energy independence will only occur when there is choice in the market, choice in the type of energy used and a choice where we get our energy from including natural sources.

7)  Improving Education:  This is a mostly local issue and not a national one.  Reform education, break down the grip that teachers unions have, hire the good teachers fire the bad, focus on science and math, actually put technology and expensive technical knowledge into kids hands instead of investing on use less technology, just because its shiny doesn't mean the school district need it.  The answer here is improving utility not throwing money at the problem.

8)  A balanced budget:  Yes this means shrinking the size of government, and firing many workers in the various Government Departments.  Yes this means spinning off many public services into private ones.  Yes Congress this means getting rid of earmarks.

9)  Allowing business to be grow:  Don't overregulate it, nor increase their taxes because a business actually showed a profit.

10)  Judges: Judges who read the Constitution and Statues by their plain meaning, not by the selective writers intent nor by what the judges believe the document meaning should be.  This also means that Judges are going to have to reign in congress and the executive in some areas where those two branches of government have overstepped their bounds.

10 b)  If the Fair Tax isn't initated Social Security Reform:  This issue is only neccessary if the Fair Tax is implemented for the Fair Tax takes care of the problem.  I would like though for the social security funds to be transfered to the market which knows how to use them effectively unlike Congress who sees it as excuse to spend more.

Pretty much my issues can be summed up in two areas, the primary one keeping America secure (1,2,3 some extent 6) and improving our economy (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).  Judges are important because our government only functions and works best when its three parts are in check and not intruding on each other turf.  You can't mistake with judges they are lifetime appointments (as they should be), if you screw up with a president or congressman you replace them next election.

I am not a socio conservative.  If something is truly good it will survive and prosper for that is just the way society works in the long haul (in the short term it may be a different story).  Institutions survive because they act a good on society not because something is tried, tested and true.  If we make a mistake as an individual or collectively as a society we correct it.  Thus I feel the government intervention in such matters as silly and sometimes infringing on the rights of individual sovereignty and the rights to be free.

I believe the idea of family and personal responsibility will preserve for those are truly good things that benefit the individual and society at large.  I understand why social conservatives do what they do; they truly believe they are doing what is best.  But I personally believe America is no accident, that there is something truly special about it, and that something is ingrained into its very fiber and can't be lost that easily.

A non vote or a vote for a third party is not the same as a vote for a democrat.  When you vote Democrat, republicans see that as a vote lost and can't possibly be returned.  A vote for a third party or staying home signifies that there is something wrong with that Republican's message.

Yes its a protest vote and yes it may get more democrats elected in the short term.  But in the end it tells Republicans they need to get back to what is important.  Is it a coincidence that the 1994 take over occured after the loss of 1992, a loss occured due to low turn out and Perot splitting the vote.  We lost the presidency and several seats in congress.  

Sure the Democrats screwed up and were corrupt in 1994.  And sure the Republicans were able to energize their base with the Contract, but would we have the Contract with America without as many people staying home or voted for the "non washingtion" candidate in 1992?

if Republicans stay home and Democrats turn out they win. Democrats take the House and they will pass articles of impeachment, not might, will; and they will probably pull a Vietnam and try to cut funding for the GWOT. Democrats take the Senate and Bush will never get another judge approved. Democrats take both houses and the opportunity for mischief is unfathomable.

Besides do you want the present Democratic Party deciding the fate of national security? No thanks. Protest vote, message vote be d*mned. No Democrats, even if we have to accept the Republican status quo, its still better than the alternative.

The only thing that can occur on your list is the loss of true judges being on the supreme court, and it only takes 1 possibly 2 senators for us to lose that ability.

There will be no articles of impeachment for that would be the stupidest things Democrats will do.  It will turn the moderates to the Republicans, galvinize the base, and increase fundraising for republicans.  It will be the death kneal of the Democratic party.  Sure most democrats, moderates and some republicans don't like Bush, but impeaching him is another story.

They won't cut funding for the war on terror for the same reason.  There is enough conserative news outlets now to tell everybody what a disaster that will be.  Sure people are tired of the War in Iraq and feel like we barely move on the War on Terror.  But people also know the altertantive is a disaster.

In 2008 this will be a different story than 2006, the presidency will be on the line, and there will be another house election, plus a third of the senate.  There is alot more risked in 2008 for a protest vote than there is in 2006.  You I am risk alot, but I want real progress in the issues I care about not this lack of anything besides Roberts and Alito since 2004 election.

You gain nothing unless you take a risk and stand up for what you believe in.

but the enormous, tangible damage that was done to:

(a)  The Office of the President of the United States

(b)  The Federal Judiciary

(c)  The US Military

(d)  The Intelligence Community

(e)  Fill-in-the-blank

Can be directly attributed to the unintended consequences of irrational reactions and casual dismissals such as this:

"Yes its a protest vote and yes it may get more democrats elected in the short term."

Please excuse me, if I refuse to play.  The stakes are simply too high, and the alternatives are unacceptable.

exactly who you're dealing with, or maybe you just give the democrats too much credit for rational thought, but personally, I would recind this statement, post haste.

There will be no articles of impeachment for that would be the stupidest things Democrats will do.  It will turn the moderates to the Republicans, galvinize the base, and increase fundraising for republicans.  It will be the death kneal of the Democratic party.  Sure most democrats, moderates and some republicans don't like Bush, but impeaching him is another story.

To re-live the 'Watergate-Glory-Days' is exactly what the democrats want.  The never-ending parade of hand-picked witnesses and experts deriding the Republican Party amongst allegations of BushLied™ will blanket MSM's air-waves throughout '07 and '08.  It took 20 years, the vision of Ronald Reagan and the 'strategery' of Newt Gingrich for the GOP to recover the last time that happened.

The Republican Party is a big tent, alot of times that saying is used to describe the vast diversity of the Republican party and thus conflicting ideas that exist in it.

But it can also be used to describe the vast variety of temperaments in the R party.

We are a diverse party, not just in the things we normally associate with diversity, ideas, race, sex, age, but we are also diverse in personality.  Some people just can't actively support a bad solution, even if their is a possiblity for something worse.  It may seem strange to you for your personality makes you who you are, and you may assume your beliefs are better but you aren't going to change those people of their personality for that is who they are.  The way to convince these people to retake up their arms (Republican) is not to play to their fears, for that isn't what motivates them but to play to their hopes.  These people while they may not be as dependable in temperament as you are still important for without them the Republicans lose elections.

In the end we shouldn't turn on each other, we should support each other and challenge the idea or lack of them on the Democrat side.  In the end I think we prety much want the same thing, lets focus on that goal.  Both sides the discouraged and the dependable want Republicans in office that enact true change and progress.

data entry person will know what to do with all that!

The thing is neither party is going to cut the government.  Face it.  Unless we want to start a 3rd party ...

It already exists.  There are some kooks in the libertarian party but the one thing they would do is cut the size of government, probably by a conservative estimate of 90%

Your logic doesn't follow.

Yes a large number of Democratic Congressmen and their fundraising base want exactly that.  They want a repeat of Watergate.  The flaw in your logic is that you assumed today is similar to Watergate.  Remember the Wiretapping/Survelliance story that broke out at the turn of the year.  A few days after the NYT broke the story there were polls that said 2/3rds of america was against the program for "bush is wiretapping domestic citizens."  Well A few days after that after Bush gave some speeches and the conserative media had its part there was a new batch of polls.  This time the question was "do you support the president listening in to foreign terrorist when they contact people in the US" this time there were 2/3rds of the american public supporting the president with a good portion undecided.

If the democrats want to go down that path let them, it will be the same thing in public opinion that happen to Republicans after Clinton's impeachment.

experiment is also a benificiary of bipartisan work. Once the focus goes off of villification and onto trying to fix a problem, things move forward. That's only possible when both sides know they have to deal with each other, when one can't steamroll the other.

A loyal opposition actually has a crucial job to do - keep the ruling party honest and true to their principles.

i got a DNC survey. It was truly pathetic. The options they gave were actually republican frames and half of the things I cared about weren't even listed. These surveys are all bunk. It's to make you eagerly check boxes and send stuff back (maybe a check, maybe not) but you soak up the "we're listening" message and behave as a good activist for a few more months.

In the end we shouldn't turn on each other, we should support each other

How are you supporting "us" if you don't vote?

The people that aren't voting or voting for the third party are neither helping the Republicans nor helping the Democrats.  Your energy would be more productive spent trying to convince independents to vote R, or encouraging turnout from other Republican sources.  When a follower of politics says he can no longer vote in good conscience for certain constiquents of the Republican party, he either means it deep down or he says it quickly without thinking about it, if he has seriously thought about it you aren't going to convince him otherwise.  You saying you will elect Democrats  isn't going to change his mind.  

Buckeye, the original commentor, already said he is going to vote come election day but he can't vote for Republicans who he believes have sold out his party.  You aren't going to convince him otherwise, those canadidates have to and the only way to do that is returning to their cause.

That person will return to the party when he believes the party has return to the beliefs he beliefs in.

The Bush tax cuts increased federal tax revenue.

Do you forget we were in a recession when they were first enacted?  The recovery, stalled by 9/11, but stimulated by tax cuts has increased federal revenue.  The key to reducing the deficit is to cut spending. Sound monetary policy to keep interest rates in check is also important.

If you increase taxes you will slow economic activity thereby reducing federal revenue and increasing the deficit.

To separate the two, to me, implies that my motivation for wanting a secure border is different from my motivation to want to win the war on terror. They are not. I love Mexicans, in a decidedly racist way I guess, because I prefer much of their culture and people above others. And in the situation faced be Europe, I'd rather our population be bolstered by Mexicans any day over Muslims in general, as they share a lot of our common beliefs as to what makes a country good. But they have nothing to do with the need for a border.

I can't fathom why you would bother searching shipping containers in ports or cars at the border at all until we have a functioning border. It's an act and a waste of money. And when you say it's unrealistic to deport them, you point out further the urgency of a working border, so we can avoid the problem continually compounding itself. I'm going nuts over this, and my struggles to LEGALLY allow my WIFE to immigrate into this country for the last 2 YEARS does not make me much more sympathetic to the plight of illegals.

Re:  Remove the tax incentives businesses get but individuals do not.

Why not the other way around? Give individuals the same tax break businesses get. It's kind of odd on this site to find anyone arguing "Let's increase taxes on businesses"

I am thinking along the same lines. In my state, the local republicans are if anything, more feckless than the national republicans. There seems no reason for me to get excited about the upcoming election.

  The very Idea that you must support the party no matter what is unsustainable. The most success we have had in recent years is with divided government. The Republicans have had a chance and have mostly blown it. If we don't exercise our only real power then they will never change.

1. Kill OBL
   
   
2. Balance the budget
   
   
3. Universal healthcare
   
   
4. Stop torturing people
   
   
5. Reduce fossil fuel dependence

That's a platform I'd support.

I don't like "Keeping Taxes Low." I would rather see "Lowering Taxes." They need top go much lower, not maintaining the high confiscatory rates that we are currently stuck with. Or better yet, move to the FAIR tax.

unless he committed an impeachable offense.  Did he?  Its time to get the moderate republicans out of power in the party.  The only way is to not support "moderate" republicans.   I too will vote for Pierce for senate and blackwell for governor in the primaries.  If both lose to party backed "moderates" I will not vote for dewhine and company in the general election.

Have zero tax and fund everything by deficit spending?  Surely that would increase government tax revenues aswell.  Even if the federal tax revenues are growing, the debt is growing much faster meaning a higher portion of the government budget is allocated to the interest payments on that debt and eventually taxes will have to be raised just to service the interest payments or the Federal Reserve will have to print more money leading to hyperinflation.   Canada has higher taxes but they've been doing fine in posting budget surpluses.  

As Gerald Ford noted as a Congressman in 1970, "The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

...enough with this abrupt inclusion of inconvenient political realities into someone's innocent little revenge fantasy.  

For shame.  :)

Win the war. Confirm the judges. Cut the taxes. Control the spending.

h/t Hugh

I would add Control the Borders.

Note that I didn't say they would impeach, I'm not sure that they would have the votes to actually pull that off. But I believe the would succeed in getting articles on impeachment out of committee and to the floor for a vote. My use of the term "articles of impeachment" was deliberate.

we were dealing with geniuses here. As rdbwiggins notes, the current crop of Democrat leaders are not the brightest crayons in the box. They are an obnoxious, obstructionist,  borderine treasonsous, collection of fools whose primary reason for getting up in the morning is so they can hate George Bush some more.

can't be convicted and removed from office unless he committed an impeachable offense. But articles of impeachment can be sent to the floor of the House at the whim of whichever party has a sufficient majority to get them out of committee. And a sufficient majority overall can get the articles passes and the president is impeached (recall that impeachment is the act of charging the officer, not convicting.)

that you pick the best horse in the race. Not voting is a bad idea for the reasons people have stated, the Democrats would wreak havok if they took control of Congress. If times were better I wouldn't mind teaching them a lesson ala 1992 and staying home, but there is too much at stake when we are at war.

In theory, the primary system allows us to pick the best person to represent the GOP in the general election.

But the GOP establishment seems to take sides in these primaries and heavily funds incumbents and discourages other canditates who would challenge the incumbent's record on conservative issues. Hence the Spectors and Chafees and Dewines go unchallenged, or challengers are shut out.

The solution as I see it is to direct our money and time at specific candidates we like rather than just handing our money to the GOP establishment for them to distribute. The internet is perfectly suited for this.

I believe the folks at Kos have reached a similar conclusion on their side of the fence.

1. Kill OBL

Because that would end the terrorism? It would sure make us all feel better, but he is not the only terrorist. His death would not end terrorism.

2. Balance the budget

I like this one, but it wouldn't make my top 5. I am all for more fiscal responsibility, but I would like the budget balanced with less spending. Many would prefer to pretend you could balance it with more taxes.  I'm not implying you believe this, but the budget will only be balanced when spending is cut at least to the level of revenues.

3. Universal healthcare

I don't want anything to do with Hillarycare. I don't want socialist healthcare.  Check out the Health Savings Accounts.  I saved thousands my first year changing to a Health Savings Account.

4. Stop torturing people

I'm not sure to which torture you are referring, but if it is listening to Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean drone on and on and on, I am all for ending this type of torture. However, I know those on the left will just tell me if I don't like it, change the channel.

5. Reduce fossil fuel dependence

I know President Bush is trying to push this, but I don't really see much of a government role (aside from encouraging it through reduced taxes). The free market will produce better alternatives than government regulation.

My point is that the Bush tax cuts increased federal revenue.  That point is indisputable.  Of course 0% would be less than optimal as would be 100% or a top marginal rate of 70% which is what they were in the `70s.  If your mission is to maximize federal revenue then you want to find the maximum point on the Laffer curve.  This point varies widely depending upon who you talk to. It is very likely dependent on economic conditions.  During a very robust period of economic expansion a tax increase will tend to put the breaks on the economy, but there will be a lag during which increased revenues will be observed.  During a period of recession, a tax cut is often necessary to bolster the economy.

I don't even believe that federal income tax rates should be set at the maximum Laffer curve point.  Who says that we need to spend all the money we can squeeze out of our economy.  We need spending cuts, not an ever growing, self promoting federal bureaucracy.  

The idea that a budget surplus is good removes the focus from where it ought to be, reducing the overall size of government.  The evil is not the tax cuts, which are to me an unqualified Good Thing.  The evil is in increasing spending in response to, or in anticipation of, increased revenue based on the tax cuts.

Cut both spending and taxes.  Cut them radically, severely, until it hurts. Do it now, before (as you rightly point out) it's too late.

Compare the per capita GDP of the USA $42K to Canada which is a very European $32K to get an idea of the effect of higher taxes on an economy.

While you're at it note the relationship of a nation's GDP to how much of its wealth is redistributed.  This is a handy tool (presuming we can still believe the CIA).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html

Of the G8 countries, which represent 68% of the world economy, ours is the highest per capita GDP, Russia's is the lowest at around $11K. Why do you think that is?

than I could muster

...collection of fools whose primary reason for getting up in the morning is so they can hate George Bush some more.

Just like he can get impeached regardless of whether you or I think it was an impeachable offense, he can get convicted/removed the same way.

It's kind of like the old story about three umpires asked for their definition of a strike:

#1: "Over the plate between the letters and the top of the knee."

#2: "Over the plate between the armpits and the bottom of the knee."

#3: "It's a strike if I call it a strike."

I always wonder why no one ever seems to point out the Dems hypocrisy when it comes to cigarette taxes. They don't want people to quit smoking, they just want to maximize the amount of taxes extracted from the people who do.

I'm willing to go for a duct tape diet.  Cut the taxes.  Cut the taxes until revenue goes down.  It appears to me that our congresscritters don't do anything to reduce, or even control, spending until there is a national outcry against the deficits.  Then they pass something that resembles spending control.

by funding "essential services" from the sin taxes they are expressing a tacit agreement with the Laffer curve.

but I am assuming that the Senate will not convict in the absence of rational evidence. I'll admit thats perhaps an irrational assumption but I'm going by their track record, a Republican Senate didn't convict Clinton even thought he evidence of perjury was well founded.

the benefit of thedoubt. As mbecker908 has pointed out to me I tend to be too kind when dealing with our Democratic Party "colleagues."

If I do, they'll probably think that means I support the Senate Amnesty.  

This was your claim.

If you increase taxes you will slow economic activity thereby reducing federal revenue and increasing the deficit.

I pointed out a nation where increased taxes don't lead to a budget deficit and now you're pulling random economic figures which have nothing to do with your original claim that higher taxes will create budget deficits.  If you're going to claim that lower taxes lead to more wealth creation, then you should have made it originally.

The debt has gone up faster than GDP growth.  If you're going to claim that the solution is lower government spending to deficit,  shouldn't government spending have been reduced prior to cutting taxes?  I know basic Keynesian economics,  and that lower taxes and increased spending help during a recession, but in expansion periods of the economy,  the government's focus should be in paying off the debt that it incurred.  So is the current economy healthy or doing poorly?

If tax cuts stimulate the economy and increase revenue, then an increase in the deficit is attributable to spending increases.  The fact is that spending has outpaced revenue which causes the deficit.  Tax cuts aren't the problem, at least at the levels at which they were implemented.

Take a look at the budget, http://www.federalbudget.com/ wealth redistribution (Health and Human Services) is the largest line item in the budget outpacing Defense during a time of war.  If that is not an indication that spending is out of control I don't know what is.

To answer your specific questions

If you're going to claim that the solution is lower government spending to deficit,  shouldn't government spending have been reduced prior to cutting taxes?

no they should have been done at the same time

So is the current economy healthy or doing poorly?

It is healthy by any realistic measure unemployment, real GDP growth, inflation.

A deficit growing unchecked does indeed have the potential to change all this, but so does another terror attack such as 9/11 or worse.  To me that is how our economy is the most vulnerable.

They don't run on "We'll cut government by 90%!"

They run on "We will ensure that the government comes clean on Area 51 and the Kennedy Assassination and whether these two incidents are linked!"

came down to legalizing marijuana for the libertarians?

If the Libertarians ran on a platform that was vaguely like this:

"We'll cut government by 90%, legalize pot, and totally go isolationist", they'd get more than 1% of the vote.

The problem is that they always get some total nutcase to run who talks publically about how "prisons shouldn't have weightrooms. Criminals come out of prison stronger than when they went in! Under my proposal, they'd be confined to their cots 22 hours a day! They'd leave the prison in no state to ever commit a violent crime again!"

And don't get me started on that guy who turned purple from his silver intake.

The problem isn't the small-l libertarians, it's the Big-L Libertarians who are the only ones with the desire to run for office. And when you put them in front of a microphone, they start talking about aliens or fluoride in the water.

Also, Harry Browne did a lot of damage to the Libertarian Party in the days following 9/11 with a series of "I told you so!" essays. "If only we had been more Libertarian and Isolationist, this never would have happened. See what happens when you don't listen to us!!!"

All in all, the Libertarian Idea is a wonderful and delightful one, but the party itself is run by people who are absolutely friggin' bonkers.

Are red states, which actually are the benefit from transfer payments from the blue states,  all of a sudden going to reduce government activity that benefits them?  If you're seriously looking for someone to cut the size of the government,  wouldn't voting for a Democrat or voting for a Republican from a blue state make more sense since they have incentive to reduce the transfer payments?

Are red states, which actually are the benefit from transfer payments from the blue states,  all of a sudden going to reduce government activity that benefits them?  If you're seriously looking for someone to cut the size of the government,  wouldn't voting for a Democrat or voting for a Republican from a blue state make more sense since they have incentive to reduce the transfer payments?

I find that often the best policies (IMHO) are not consistently liberal or conservative...often it's a blend that brings balance. this can be good and bad.

While I hope the Mass. Health Plan yields goods results and is then adopted by other states, a perfect example of a bad blend is the Prescription drug benefit.

Bottom line, I like it when both sides have to struggle. It brings out compromise and often better results...but not always.

His added info Was irrelevant.

However, if you know hwo Canada's Debt is doing, then you also know how their spending is going.  How much of their federal revenue is spent as compared to ours?  On What?  Why?

The bottom line is that our government WASTES so much money that tax cuts or increases don't do much.

Cut spending.

Tax-cuts or increases are irrelevant to this discussion.

I agree that public schools are riddled with problems.

My family has lotsa teachers:

My brother and sister-in-law-small town (GOP)

My cousin's wife-small town and my girlfriend-city(Dem)

My sister-city: left-leaning nonpartisan.

They all feel the problems, and I agree, are more prevelant is poor urban schools. The poor social skills and upbringings of these kids is demoralizing and requires more attention. No consensus on how though. Small town schools are relatively peaceful and easier to manage.

Private schools tend to do well because you're less apt to find this bad social element. The kids tend to be from stable middle class families and backgrounds.

Troubled, overrun and somewhat corrupt innetr city schools need help. I'm not sure what the answer the is. I'm skeptical about vouchers. I think the better schools will actually suffer if these other kids migrate there. It ignores the core social problem.

Maybe we need the armed forces to populate these schools as educators and administrators as a public service (ala Army Corps of Engin.)...the strength and discipline they instill may help

Sorry but i just have to know:

I'm also a member over at Dkos, but I have been unable to post anything because of the lack of an intuitive interface for replies.  How does it work?  Can you give me a step by step procedure I can follow?  Or do I need to drop to me knees and make an admin happy?  Or what?

1. Of course it won't end terrorism.  But every time I see his evil mug on tv it just infuriates me.  In 2001, were someone to have said that he'd still be at large, sending out video tapes of filth, 5 years down the line--would you have believed it?  Not me.
   
2. Kudos.  Glad that we're eye to eye on this.
   
3. I don't want Hillary care either.  Though I'd settle for the same health plan she currently enjoys via my tax dollars.
   
4. Cheeky, if perhaps disingenuous.  I think you know exactly what I mean.
   
5. There's always been a government role in innovation.  From the patent system to interstates.  It doesn't have to come via regulation--you and I both agree on that.  But there are also times when the "market" needs a nudge towards the greater public interest.

The best govt. shrinkage occured in the mid to late 90's. It wasn't starve the beast tactics. It was by reigning in spending...and it was done with tax levels pretty similar to current ones. the major difference was just a percentage point or two on much higher incomes and capital gains.

Problem now is that repealing those cuts won't even balance the budget. Spending needs to come down.

We need cuts and spending control measures. PERIOD. Rethinking revenue streams for even better growth wouldn't hurt either.

. . . is that the greatest fiscal challenge facing the country is the cost of entitlement programs which are on autopilot thanks to (a) demographic changes as the seventy plus million baby boomers move towards eligibility, (b) automatic cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, and (c) increases in the costs of health care (which are largely due to technological improvements and the costs of treating ailments in the last few years of life).

Gridlock IMO means that there won't be a movement by either party to fix this problem until those baby boomers hit retirement age and at that point become vested in the status quo.  Think it's tough to make the case for reducing the rate of growth for these programs now?  Wait until the baby boom generation is getting their benefits and it will be d*** near impossible.

I'm sure you are referring to studies that show that because of population density the per capita largesse of the federal government is greater in red states and the per capita receipt of tax revenue is higher in blue states.  It gets starker when you compare red districts to blue ones.

Frankly, I don't care.  Reduce spending and things will take care of themselves.

How is this for an idea? Declare the next budget to be 10% lower than the projected receipts. In 2007 receipts are projected to be $2,344 billion and outlays are projected to be $2,656 billion. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=200&T
opic2id=20&Topic3id=23

Revise the 2007 budget so that it is .90 X $2,344 billion= $2,110 billion (I rounded up since what's $400 million anyway) Distribute the money just like it was done in 2002 when the outlays were about $2,000 billion.  Depending on real GDP growth this yields deficit reduction of about 2% of GDP which compares nicely to the halcyon days of Clinton deficit reduction (the surplus in 2000 was 2.4% of GDP) Henceforth adjust outlays for inflation only and continue to grow the economy. Surpluses will continue to grow relative to GDP.

If we continue to spend a larger and larger % of our GDP on wealth transfer, the more we will look like Canada, and the Europeans which will lead to having per capita GDP of $30K rather than $42K.  Then we'll be in real trouble.

If it backfires on them (as it did for Republicans when they impeached Clinton) so much the better.

If not, then President Cheney can finish off the term before he heads off to retirement and the new Vice President will become the front-runner for 2008.

Pres Cheney would choose a Dem for his VP. Reid and Pelosi and company would helpfully submit a list he could choose from.

The comment to which you replied was entitled "another point" I addressed the issue of the relationship between deficits and spending and revenue in the above thread.

Your point was that tax increases caused deficits.  I pointed out that spending more than you bring in causes deficits.  This is a valid point when consensus agreement suggests that there are conditions under which decreasing taxes leads to more government revenue.  In these cases reducing spending is the key to reducing deficits.

My point about per capita GDP in not irrelevant when my point is that higher taxation leads to lower economic output which make growing your way out of the deficit very difficult if not impossible.

Why so difficult? Was it my tone? Yea, I guess it was.  Sorry...for the tone.

do you really believe taxes don't figure into the equation one way or another?  Pardon me while I measure a response to that!

Continues to increase, effectively exponentially, Input doesn't matter.

So, yes, I Do believe taxes don't figure at all, let alone prominently.

Get SPENDING (output) under control and taxes will start to matter again.

a higher rate gets you a bigger slice of the pie.  A lower rate gets you a smaller slice of a bigger pie.

Revenue has never been higher.  Thus the deficit cannot be explained in terms of 'the tax cut'- congress spent more than they took in, end of story.

Of course, you could (and arguably just did) say 'yeah, but if they'd just left rates high, revenues would have been higher'.  This is a nice theory, but it ignores the relationship between low taxes and economic growth.  How much would the economy have grown?  Revenue, remember, is tax rates times the size of the economy, and taxes make a big difference with regard to the latter.

Fundamentally, it all comes down to this: if you're complaining about deficits, don't talk about the tax rate cuts, talk about the revenue, because that's what we're spending.

...and revenue has never, ever been higher.

it repeals all income-based taxes, including corporate.  What he's saying is that if we stay with the income tax (and go with the flat tax) he'd want the corporate income tax repealed.

This makes sense because when a corporation pays income tax (and what it costs to comply with it) those expenses are passed along- essentially, corporate income taxes are a mandate by which government turns businesses into tax collectors.  The result is added overhead, hidden taxes, and artificially elevated prices, which is bad for the economy coming and going.

In the end, only individuals pay taxes.  Our tax system should acknowledge this.

Please take a look at the yearly relationships between federal receipts and outlays and then see if your assertion holds.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=200&T
opic2id=20&Topic3id=23

Spending is increasing not exponentially but more closely to linearly.  I agree fully that spending is crucial, but to ignore the role of taxes misses a huge part of the equation.

Unless you are arguing that the Laffer curve has a plateau rather than a hump, taxes will always matter.  I would certainly like to agree with you and say let's cut taxes by 50% and simply enjoy the resulting prosperity, but I don't think it is realistic

a stickler for word meanings, "exponential" increases in spending would soon surpass all the wealth ever created.

Why don't we handle these things in the state primary elections and caucuses?  Are we too afraid to nominate somebody other than, oh, say McCain for instance, because we're afraid our true conservative candidate will lose in the general election?

Doesn't it make more sense to nominate true Conservatives and take a chance on their winning rather than to nominate the same old Rinos and lose whether we win or not?  Better to nominate somebody whom a Conservative can feel comfortable voting for than to nominate someone who will encourage the "stay home to send a message" action that truly will elect a Democrat.

Please understand I don't mean a litmus test for anything other than the fortitude to argue and vote for border security, ANWR drilling, and the like.  G-d, even somebody who'd just campaign on those issues would be a change.

way too uninformed.  I'll just laugh at your joke.

I didn't want to go through the math (let alone have the time for it).

But the fact still stands that Spending is Increasing faster than Receipts.  period.  Get Spending under control and Receipts start to matter again.  

It still amounts to just a checkbook.  If you spend 110% of your income when you only make x dollars, and then you start making y dollars and instantly start spending 125% of your  income...

you have to log in for one thing. Then it's very similar to this site. Just hit the reply button, and a fancy flash-style (it's not flash tho) response window pops up. You type, you format, you preview, you hit post. But if you're not logged in, there won't be a reply button in the first place.

If you say that what we spend is intentionally set at some percentage level higher than receipts, then I will grant you your point. However, under this scenario it really doesn't matter if the money is wasted or well spent.  Depending on how much more is spent than taken in will determine how sustainable the practice is.

Even under this scenario though, GDP is critical because it relates to how significant the problem is.  Being $500 in debt would have been a huge issue when I was a kid making minimum wage.  It would be much less of a problem now. Taxes are critical because, like it or not, it is how the federal government raises revenue and because they have an impact on GDP.

My reaction was to your saying my GDP data was irrelevant and that taxes do not matter.  Upon these points, we still disagree.

Was and still is, that all info on tax-rates, GDP, etc, is pretty irrelevant when you can do a simple graph with spending and receipts over the last several decades and see that even though revenue has Increased dramatically, spending went up More than Revenue did every single time.

While our current debt, and even our projected debt over then next decade or 2, is a pittance compared to our GDP, Until and Unless we get Spending under control, it doesn't matter because we can't pay any of it off anyway.

once Spending comes under control, then all of that matters to this debate.

but it is largely ineffective.  I will vote for every nonestablishment candidate in the GOP primary next week and Blackwell will route the establishment candidate, Petro (granted, Blackwell has held statewide office for years, but he is the dependable conservative).

There is a time and place for the Suz Szu strategy of one step back and two steps forward.  I agree with the earlier comment that there would have been no Contract with America in 1994 had it not been for the GOP being held accountable in 1992 (I did vote Bush 41 by the way).  

Some days I'd rather spend the next two years in the woods cleaning house while the Dems self distruct so we can turn the corner and finish the job in 08.  Yes, I do worry about the short term price that may come at, particularly in the GWOT.  But considering Bush will be there between 06 - 08, I think that worry is over rated.  Continuing to reward the GOP Congress with no accountability will only make them more blazen in the years ahead.

I think 06 - 08 is already baked in the cake regardless of what happens.  It is all about positioning ourselves for 08 at this point.

not-so-straight line.  You said

"Some days I'd rather spend the next two years in the woods cleaning house while the Dems self distruct so we can turn the corner and finish the job in 08.  Yes, I do worry about the short term price that may come at, particularly in the GWOT.  But considering Bush will be there between 06 - 08, I think that worry is over rated.  Continuing to reward the GOP Congress with no accountability will only make them more blazen in the years ahead."

I got a letter today from Rick Renzi, my Representative.  It was a  response to my postcard to him, asking him to support Rep. Peter King's English language bill.  He basically said, "Gee, that's nice, but it doesn't look promising, etc., etc., etc."  Well, duh!  If nobody will take a chance on supporting it, of course it doesn't look promising.  This from a man who has a big district in the state of Arizona.  If anybody should be behind the English language, it's our Representative.

Here is the crooked line:  I doubt that Renzi will avoid re-election in November.  He ain't the greatest, but the Democrat looks worse.  OTOH, he has only two terms under his belt so far, so his loss wouldn't be critical to the Repub party.

We have a decent majority in the House, so that's where we could allow some losses as an example without allowing the Dems to gain control.

So here's the idea.  We (somebody) should target a certain number of Republican Representatives to withhold votes from.  Representatives who are RINOs, who don't stand up for Conservative values, who wouldn't know a Conservative ideal if they tripped over it.  They'd be easy to identify in the Senate, but the Representatives are much more anonymous.  That's why it would require somebody very politically savvy to run this plan.

The organizers would publicly name Representatives Joe Rino, Bill Rino, Frank Rino, etc., as targets.  We'd call on their constituents to withhold their votes for these men, perhaps suggesting a write-in candidate in order to evaluate how many voters co-operated.

This plan would need to be made public to have the desired effect.  After all, if Joe Rino and his friends don't know what hit them, the rest of the House won't learn any lesson from it.  

Obviously, Joe and his friends would have to be carefully selected for maximum effect and for minimum overall damage.  If executed properly, it would deliver the message that if we elect them, they need to stay, and vote, Conservative after the swearing-in ceremony.  It would do what all the disaffected Conservatives who want to stay home hope for, yet it wouldn't result in a Democrat majority.

Only a dream, I suppose.