Posted on 05/23/2011 10:47:11 AM PDT by 92nina
Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Republican Committee, is calling for a three-pronged approach for confronting the government's overspending problem ahead of the debt limit debate. Recognizing that Washington's spending addiction is both a short and long-term problem, Chairman Jordan is circulating a letter amongst his colleagues requesting three proposals form the basis for Republican bargaining on the debt ceiling. They are:
(Excerpt) Read more at fiscalaccountability.org ...
Take this article and others I found to the fight to the Libs on their own turf; put the Left on the defensive at at Digg and at Reddit and in Delicious and Stumbleupon
Thanks 92nina.
The broad idea - “Cut”, “Cap”, “Balance” - is a very fine broad idea, and worthy of using as a s6andard in formulating policy.
Unfortunately big broad ideas have not and have never been the problem, when it comes to either “cut”, “cap” or “balance”.
The real problem is ALWAYS the HOW TO when it comes to either of those, and with either of those that boils down to the details, and that boils down to which special interest is going to be asked to give something up and which special interest will be offered something to achieve the votes to get that done.
Personally I am in favor of cutting all that out of the equation by establishing uniform flat taxes with no exemptions, including a uniform flat tax to supply the revenue to eliminate the personal direct income tax entirely.
Unfortunately as much as I think such flat taxes would be best for individuals, the economy and the government I believe they have the least chance of becoming law because they will have the largest set of special interests arrayed against them.
Unfortunately it is that process of special interest horse trading in the development of actual legislation that I think has very good chances of defeating the very good broad idea of cut, cap and balance.
The only brake on the legislative ability to defeat the good broad idea is to first legislate the good broad idea itself with specifics that block the detailed budget process from getting outside of a box it is put in. That would force achievement of the broad idea. But sorry folks, guess what? You (and I) still won’t like the overall results that will come from the horsetrading that gets the later detailed tax and budget legislation passed, even when boxed in by a “cut”, “cap” and “balance” legal mandate.
Without the other broad idea of flat and uniform taxes, with no exceptions and no exemptions, you cannot make a tax code, or federal budget, that is NOT built on lobbying, corruption, economic and social engineering, as well as one that produces economic distortions that do not help the overall economy.
Add a fourth “flat” peg to the agenda, legislate all four together as legally binding on the tax and budget process, and we might have a real working revolution.
P.S. Someone tell the authors to write me for how to eliminate the direct personal income tax with a particular flat tax (and not a consumption/sales tax).
BALANCE THE BUDGET IN ONE YEAR
WE HAVE A 1,1OO BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT
A. INCREASE TAXES TO CLINTON LEVELS = 360 BILLION MORE REVENUE.
B. ACROSS THE BOARD SPENDING CUTS OF 20 PERCENT = 740 BILLION LESS SPENDING.
C. 360 PLUS 740 EQUAL 1.1 TRILLION DOLLARS WHICH GIVES U.S. A BALANCED BUDGET.
History and economics has shown that tax increases do not produce the additional revenue claimed for them, while tax-rate reductions often result in more revenue from the specific sources that received the tax-rate reductions, because the tax-rate reduction attracts a higher level of activity to that form of income; while tax increases often have the opposite affect - chasing activity away from that which gets taxed at a higher rate; resulting in less revenue, not more.
For instance California raised state gasoline taxes, hoping to encourage drivers to consume less gasoline, and that they would help reduce the states deficit with the higher tax. And, consumers did consume less gasoline, in fact they did so much reduce gasoline consumption that the total revenue from the gasoline tax to declined; by which the legislature complained that they would have to raise the tax again to make up for the lost revenue - idiots.
B. ACROSS THE BOARD SPENDING CUTS OF 20 PERCENT = 740 BILLION LESS SPENDING.
Statistics work nice for easy explanations, but they often hide reality. The reality of "across the board" cuts is like taking a butcher knife to something that deserves a scalpel. Frankly I don't believe defense spending should or ever can sustain "across the board" cuts, because some things are a higher priority than others, and should receive lower cuts, if any at all. Frankly, I feel the same way about defense spending in general, and I absolutely believe some parts of non-defense spending are far more deserving of being cut than others.
The real problem is not to have or not have "across the board" spending cuts. The real problem is not having a spending limit and then not getting people to concede that some things do have more priority than others. That makes the problem political, not conceptual.
Thanks for your reply. Still, it would balance the budget in one year, or close to it depending on how much you think the tax hike would effect it.
The last President to end up running consecutive surplus’ was Clinton and he did it with tax hikes and GOP led spending cuts. Attack it from both sides.
“The last President to end up running consecutive surplus’ was Clinton and he did it with tax hikes and GOP led spending cuts. Attack it from both sides.”
Let’s be totally clear:
“Presidents” don’t run deficits or surpluses. The United States Congress controls the Federal Budget purse strings and it is the Congressional horse-trading that is encapsulated into every Federal Budget’s eventual details and it is those details that easily shifts the balance, deficit or surplus-wise and not a President’s broad vision.
A. “Clinton” did not do it. Clinton did not do it by himself. If Clinton’s budget, with ALL his tax hikes and spending proposals had been accepted, the projected additional revenues from all his tax hikes would not have materialized, and his spending would have added to a deficit.
B. Without the GOP budget demands, there would have been no surplus.
Yes, Clinton was present. It was not “his” deal. It was a deal the GOP votes in Congress forced on him. Calling the “surplus” his is less than a half-truth, it’s a lie.
And that tiny surplus? Where did it really come from? Was it real?
It was not real. It was produced by Greenspan’s cheap money, the dot.com and hi-tech bubbles it created and tax revenues from people spending their stock-market-bubble gains. We know the dot.com and hi-tech bubbles represented economic fiction, as their stock-market bubbles burst and the economy headed into recession, plunging tax revenues with it, before GWBush ever took office.
When the GWBush tax breaks headed into gear, the economy started pulling out of recession.
Had 9/11 never happened, lots of things would have been different after that.
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.