Posted on 12/26/2007 11:07:05 PM PST by Kurt Evans
Wouldn't it be fun to do a money-dance around town, throwing borrowed hundred dollar bills to passersby, while arranging to have others pay for the adventure?
That in essence has been the Republicans' two-step: Spend money you don't have, and cut taxes so you have even less -- then let future generations foot the bills...
Unlike Washington politicians, state officials don't have the luxury of spending more than they have. As governors, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee both raised revenues to cover shortfalls in their state budgets. For the sin of fiscal responsibility, the Republican free-lunchers taunt them.
The Cato Institute has whacked Romney for balancing the Massachusetts budget, in part by raising a bunch of fees. Romney has responded that the fees generated $240 million in new revenues, which were a mere drop in an oceanic $3 billion budget gap that he closed largely by other means.
The Club for Growth is bashing Huckabee over his tax policy in Arkansas. As governor, Huckabee raised more taxes than he cut. At the same time, he turned the state's $200 million budget shortfall into an $844 million surplus and repaired some roads that were in terrible shape. The biggest tax increase was forced by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling on the state funding of school districts.
You'd think a record of balancing budgets under very difficult circumstances would be a point of pride for a candidate...
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
They must have never heard of Arnold and the state of California.
“That in essence has been the Republicans’ two-step: Spend money you don’t have, and cut taxes so you have even less — then let future generations foot the bills...”
This moron is apparently unaware that tax *revenue* has gone up considerably — thanks to the Bush tax *cuts*. Same thing happened under Reagan, not to mention Kennedy.
People who don’t know these dirt-simple basics are not worth paying any attention to.
I’m already familiar with Froma Harrop. The Sioux Falls paper carries her columns. I’ve often disagreed with her, but the article I posted above makes some good points.
“RussP” wrote: “This moron is apparently unaware that tax *revenue* has gone up considerably — thanks to the Bush tax *cuts*. Same thing happened under Reagan, not to mention Kennedy.”
Deficit spending at the federal level temporarily stimulates the national economy, but in the long run it leaves less capital available for the expansion of business in the private sector. In any case, it’s impossible to get the same effect at the state level.
Sure it does, if you agree that confiscating even MORE money from taxpayers in order to fund the growth of big government makes more sense than cutting spending.
Even President Reagan couldn’t cut spending with a liberal legislature.
President Bush didn't even try when he had a republican majority in both houses.
He pushed through humongous spending of his own while the republican congress did their best to set new spending records, relying on the president to just rubber stamp their spending binges.
He didn't disappoint them, either.
I am not a Bush basher - just a disappointed voter still pulling shards of broken glass out of my hands and knees and trying to make amends with all the family members I convinced to vote for Bush.
Here is the difference between the two parties:
Republicans' Two Step Plan: "Spend money you don’t have, and cut taxes so you have even less"
Democrats' Three Step Plan: Spend money you don’t have, raise taxes, spend more money you don't have.
This is a Hobson's choice for conservative voters.
Is there a true conservative in the herd running for the nomination?
It is difficult to tell because what they say and publish is often at conflict with their records.
I read it all and didn’t see a thing about cutting spending.
I saw the same thing you did. No call to cut spending.
Since the tax cuts didn't increase the deficit in the first place, that's irrelevant. They were tax RATE cuts. They were not revenue cuts.
Did spending increase too much under Bush? Yes. But the tax rate cuts stimulated economic growth and therefore caused tax revenue to grow. That helped keep the deficit lower than than it would have been had the Dems blocked tax cuts and increased spending.
The article is just plain wrong in it’s claim that the Republican tax cuts increased the deficit. It is based on the same sort of non-thinking demagoguery that the Democrats and the mainstream media thrive on.
If you don’t understand that concept, you do not understand basic economics.
Froma Harrop and her Demi pals in the media are pretending that the AMT creep is "money in the bank" for the federal government. It's not. It's a tax hike. Period.
The plan (accepted by BOTH parties, BTW) is for the AMT to eventually replace the tax code completely, raising taxes enormously, and it won't be ANYBODY'S fault.
An older Congress "accidentally" passed the original AMT tax bomb, so it ain't OUR fault, sez any current Congress.
We have a similar deal in our state - the legislature years ago passed an "automatic pay raise" schedule for themselves and future slimebag legislators.
If they don't vote against the automatic pay raise when it's scheduled to take effect, OH WELL.
It's not THEIR fault - they WOULD'VE voted it down, but they were too busy doing that one important thing that they were doing. So you mean, ignorant taxpayers can't blame them!
BTW - Froma's pious hypocrisy is a wonder to behold. I remember this liberal little tart from the impeachment wars. She was enough to gag a maggot then, and she's only grown riper with age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.