Posted on 02/23/2015 12:18:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
One of the more memorable moments during the last presidential campaign was a GOP debate in August, 2011. Fox’s Bret Baier asked the eight candidates if they would agree to $1 in new taxes for every $10 in spending cuts. Not one person raised his (or her) hand. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Richard Nixon—all tax hikers at one point or another during their presidencies—would have raised their hands, and might have been booed off stage. That’s how much the Republican party has changed.
Which brings us to Jeb Bush. During his eight years as governor of Florida (1999-2007), “King Jeb,” as some opponents dubbed him, cut taxes big time—$19 billion in all—and this in a state that had no income tax to begin with. But Bush, like his father, isn’t opposed to bringing in new revenue if the times call for it.
“If you could bring to me a majority of people to say that we’re going to have $10 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue enhancement — put me in, coach,” he said while testifying to a Congressional committee in 2012. Which explains why he’s never signed the no-tax pledge that has been shoved down the throats of most other Republicans by Grover Norquist, the never-elected-to-anything anti-tax bully. Sign my pledge, Norquist threatens quivering Republicans—or we’ll campaign against you. The only major candidates with the cojones to reject this extortion have been Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
“I ran for office three times. The pledge was presented to me three times. I never signed [it]. I cut taxes every year I was governor,” Bush said. “I don’t believe you outsource your principles and convictions to people.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
It is not impossible. It requires the courage to CHANGE. Change fiscal policy and current structure. The political winds may blow against that reality.
Part of the Democrat narrative is that the GOP has moved very far to the right, driven there by extremists.
This article, without realizing it, illustrates why that narrative is a lie. GHW Bush, cited, succeeded Reagan in part because of his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. When he broke it, his base rebelled and he was punished for it by being kicked out of office. Which was nearly 25 years ago.
The reason why GHW Bush had to make that pledge was because in 1980 he’d run in the GOP primaries as the next successor to the Liberal policies of Richard Nixon. Which the near victory of Reagan over Ford in the 1976 primaries and his actual victory in 1980 represented an explicit rejection of.
As to Reagan, yes he raised taxes. But because he was already well defined as a fiscal conservative, and indeed emplaced as the leader of the Conservative Movement, his actions in that regard were seen and accepted as tactical in nature to support victory on Conservative principles on a strategic level.
So, iow, the writer if this piece has zero idea of what they’re talking about.
Jeb Bush will HAVE no success without the “far Right.” Unless he courts the lib vote, which RINOs have been known to do.
Opinion: The far right Normal Americans fears despise Jeb Bush’s success dedication to illegal alien foreign nationals and his plan to grant them amnesty
Until then I'm suspicious of Mr Brandus,his motives and his political leanings for having used such an explosive term in the heading of his piece.
That, plus a sprinkle of sugar, was my late father's favorite dessert, but then, he grew up during the depression.
It would require the abolition of the Federal Reserve Corporation and either the US ISSUE Money directly without Interest Attached or go back to a Gold Standard to prevent Government and Bankers Counterfeiting(inflation), however I do like Karl Deninger’s ideas a lot over at marketticker.org (1 dollar of capital) google it . . Not to mention abolishing every entitlement program we have. All of it is paid for with DEBT passed on to future Generations.
Our monetary system is one of Debt Slavery, there are some well worth reading articles at mises.org about Debt based monetary systems using fractional reserve banking. Or you could try “The Creature from Jekyl Island” as a good start.
NO GOVERNMENT DEBT CAN EVER BE PAID DOWN. (under our current monetary system.)
Or he was Scandinavian, who only eat white food.
I do not fear his success. I will not be vested in his failure. He will not get my vote. I will vote for any one else, including romney again, but not jb
Nope, English/Welsh. Being adopted, I’m Austrian/German.
Then a POTUS Bush wouldnt cut spending as congress has to do that.
He can only sign the bill.
Given the Fed creates $$$ no one really wants to cut spending if it includes anything they don't like.
They just claim they do.
Going back to the Gold standard or GEOS (Gold equivalent oz) would be the first step in right direction for the fundamental fixes necessary. I also believe that taxation would need to have to revert back to the states via representative apportionment. Taxes are apportioned by the numbers of senators and representatives and the states are then free to raise taxes to meet their federal tax bill how they so desire.
As for entitlements ... like I said, all spending needs to be capped at 17% GDP.
As for entitlements”
ABOLISH them, leave it to Private Charity, it worked well.
Entitlements are how we got here.
Yep. Agreed.
“Turning down $10 of spending cuts because it came with $1 of tax increases would be pretty stupid, unless the candidate is against spending cuts, like a Dem.”
Nah, I see it as a trick question. You never agree to such stuff ahead of time, because then they will want to hold you to the tax increase, and never deliver the spending cuts.
Well they all fell for it,
they all said they would turn down $10 of spending cuts for $1 in tax increases, and that told everyone they really don't think deficits are a problem, even though they were claiming they did, they passed the phony concern test,.
:: Part of the Democrat narrative is that the GOP has moved very far to the right ::
Narrative?...yes.
Reality (which the media occasionally dabbles in) is that the GOP hasn’t moved enough to the LEFT to please them.
Therefore...well, you know the rest.
Nota Bene: The LEFT is moving so far left that any ideological statement by the GOP appears to be psychologically incoherent; whitey is crazy!.
Can you say “channeling Stalin?”.
Where is that contrasting “wiped” photo of Stalin on the Volga bridge...?
Jeb Bush success means electoral failure.
It was a silly question. First it was just a hypothetical and there are so many major issues to deal with why pose rhetorical questions that have no basis in reality? Things don’t work that way. Even if they did work that way the question was unclear - do they mean to say that we will have a balanced budget after this? Do they mean that we will get there by cutting 90% of the deficit and adding 10% to revenue? Why would someone favor this approach to a balanced budget instead of taking a look at all spending and trying to eliminate that which is superfluous, redundant, obsolete, corrupted, etc? It seems to me that the underlying assumption in that question is that “government spending is a necessary good” which is far from an accepted fact. The foundation of the question should have been attacked as absurd on its face and the GOP candidates should have gone for the jugular: We reject the notion that spending is inherently good, and accept only that which is constitutionally necessary. GOP loses a lot because they let the opposition frame the debate. It’s just a good thing that the Democrats are also inept.
Ha, ha. I'll just counter offer that I'll take $8 in spending cuts and no increase in taxes. See, I'm willing to compromise.
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.