O'Neill's days at Treasury numbered

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | Nov. 17, 02 | Robert Novak

[Taxman]

You noticed that, did you. The left is desperate -- they will do anything they can, as you note, to try and drive a wedge, any wedge, into Dubyah's administration.

If I were to advise Dubyah, I'd advise him to stay the course. In respect of Paul O'Neill, Larry Lindsey and the economy, anyway.

I do have a few nits to pick with him, but not in respect of his economic team.

That is not to say that I won't have some criticisms later -- his team damn sure better produce, now that the House and the Senate are in FRiendly hands!

1. Make the 2001 tax cuts immediate and permanent.
2. Eliminate capital gains taxes.
3. Eliminate the marriage penalty.
4. Eliminate death taxes (part of #1, but it needs saying anyway).
5. Eliminate corporate income taxes.
6. Eliminate the taxes on all savings accounts.
7. Move swiftly and surely to have a National Retail Sales Tax up and running by July 1, 2005.
8. Abolish the IRS concomitant with getting the NRST up and running.
9. Repeal the 16th Amendment.

[Taxman]

Good points, all.

We out number them. It is a simple numbers game. The pols you mentioned will not be in office forever, and it is likely that we can send one or two of them home on this issue in the coming elections. Once a few of them are "diselected" because of their tax and spend policies, the rest of the crowd, to whom keeping their job is paramount, will have a change of heart.

We have got to get a large enough number of Americans supporting this idea that every pol would realize that it would be political suicide to oppose it.

Then, We the People win!

[Taxman]

Glad you came around to our way of thinking. Lotsa others have too.

You can help us by signing our petitions at http://www.salestax.org and http://www.votr.org.

Every signature gets us one signature closer to that "critical mass" we need to convince the pols that this is the right thing to do for America.

Ask your FRiends, relatives and business associates to sign on with us. We can do this, but we need more help.

[irv]

say yes to the National Sales Tax.

And end up with BOTH a sales tax and an income tax, because, as mentioned above, the chances of getting rid of the 16th Amendment are somewhere south of nil.

Flat tax, all the way. And NOW!

[churchillbuff]

---if they would be forthright enough to get specific in their criticisms...something more than questions of style.

He has consistently failed or refused to speak forthrightly and coherently in favor of tax cuts. This may be because he doesn't believe in them, but even if it's a matter merely of inept "style" as you put it, that's a disqualifier as well, because in the public arena, when you're trying to push the president's policies, STYLE COUNTS.

[Banjoguy]

Larry Kudlow

[Sonny M]

Personally, I want Forbes in as treasury secretary. He believes in tax cuts, is a proponent of a flat tax, though I know he has also talked about a national sales tax, but I don't know his view on that. As for Lindsey, I'd dump him. He's taking a beating and is constantly a downer, and a poor communicator. I doubt that Armey or Gramm would want to do it, but personally, I'd love to see either of them in there.

[churchillbuff]

You want specific criticisms of O'Neill? Read the following, from Larry Kudlow's column this week:

A solid one-two punch

TownHall.com ^ | 11/18/02 | Larry Kudlow

Fresh off his stunning midterm election victory, President Bush wasted no time in putting his newly acquired political capital to work. First, he slammed a homeland-defense bill through the Senate. Then -- the very next day -- he said he intends to offer "new ideas" on ways to stimulate the economy.

... So, the president and the Fed chairman appear to be cooperating in the development of a new pro-growth policy mix -- supply-side tax cuts to reignite business investment and risk taking, and easier money to finance a hoped-for growth spurt. If only they could get Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on board.

Inexplicably, O'Neill told a Fortune magazine conference that he didn't believe broad-based tax cuts are necessary. He would rather consider "targeted stimulus proposals" to help particular industries. This sounds like something from the Carter-Mondale era.

These off-the-reservation comments underscore the president's need to find a new captain for his economic ship -- someone who is completely in sync with the presidential growth package and has the communication skills to sell it to Congress and the public -- someone like New York Stock Exchange President Richard Grasso. His massive Rolodex of key financial-market players and his indefatigable can-do spirit make him an ideal choice to replace O'Neill, who's a fish out of water at the Treasury. More, such an appointment would punctuate the president's determination to move his pro-growth economic agenda forward.

Investors, of course, will wait

[churchillbuff]

"Inexplicably, O'Neill told a Fortune magazine conference that he didn't believe broad-based tax cuts are necessary. He would rather consider "targeted stimulus proposals" to help particular industries. This sounds like something from the Carter-Mondale era. "- Kudlow's column this week.

O'NEILL MUST GO!

[Cindy]

[Bonaparte]

Why not lure Thomas Sowell away from the Hoover Institute?

[Bonaparte]

From Human Events last year -- O'Neill Wants Bush To Concentrate On 'Global Warming'

[Bonaparte]

Some more curious reports about O'Neill's checkered past.

[truth defector]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/783282/posts

see post #24.

[Action-America]

The problem isn't O'Neill.  The problem is that Dubya isn't smart enough to set economic policy without the help of qualified advisors and he isn't listening to the qualified people around him.

The thing that made Reagan such a great President was not his own intelligence.  It was that he knew that he was not smart enough to make all those decisions alone and hired the best people in each field and then listened to them.

Certainly, O'Neill doesn't agree with Dubya on a number of economic issues.  But, that is with good reason.  Although O'Neill may have a few shortcomings, he is much more of an expert on the economy than Dubya could ever dream of becoming.  But, typical of Dubya, rather than listen to the experts around him, Dubya blindly goes his own way and dictates to the experts, that he should be listening to, what position he has already decided on.  If Dubya would listen to the experts around him, he wouldn't have such economic problems.    But, that would mean taking a stand on a tough issue and we all know that Dubya only takes a stand on issues that he is sure he can win.  It seems that he's more worried about being seen as a loser, than actually doing something to fix the economy.

 

[AmericaUnited]

we all know that Dubya only takes a stand on issues that he is sure he can win.

This is such a crock! You have got to be a .0005 percenter or a disrupter or have been sipping too much of the demonrat/liberal KoolAid.

Bush has pushed on many issues that most people thought had no chance of going anywhere, and time and time again, because he keeps going forward, he succeeds!

[churchillbuff]

Crossing the divide
TownHall.com ^ | Thursday, November 21, 2002 | by Larry Kudlow


Posted on 11/20/2002 9:50 PM PST by JohnHuang2


A tax-cut battle royale is shaping up in the White House, with President Bush's economic team divided over which measures will best strengthen incentives for economic growth and stock-market investment.

Economists Larry Lindsey and Glen Hubbard continue to favor a broad-based tax-cut package that would boost stock-market values and increase after-tax cash flows for businesses and families. Those two made similar arguments a year ago, but they were overruled by Paul O'Neill and Mitch Daniels -- the Bush advisors who favor a much more austere economic strategy based on deficit reduction.

Treasury Secretary O'Neill has never been a friend of supply-side economics. He has illustrated this by way of numerous hip-shooting comments since joining the Bush team. Though he professes to favor a thorough overhaul of the corporate tax code, perhaps even its elimination, his position is much more narrow and smacks of social engineering. At a time when deep cuts are receiving deep attention, O'Neill is appealing for very light, targeted tax relief, such as child tax credits and reductions in the marriage penalty. More, he has never set a detailed economic blueprint down on paper. He's all talking points and no package.

[churchillbuff]

Crossing the divide
TownHall.com ^ | Thursday, November 21, 2002 | by Larry Kudlow


Posted on 11/20/2002 9:50 PM PST by JohnHuang2


A tax-cut battle royale is shaping up in the White House, with President Bush's economic team divided over which measures will best strengthen incentives for economic growth and stock-market investment.

Economists Larry Lindsey and Glen Hubbard continue to favor a broad-based tax-cut package that would boost stock-market values and increase after-tax cash flows for businesses and families. Those two made similar arguments a year ago, but they were overruled by Paul O'Neill and Mitch Daniels -- the Bush advisors who favor a much more austere economic strategy based on deficit reduction.

Treasury Secretary O'Neill has never been a friend of supply-side economics. He has illustrated this by way of numerous hip-shooting comments since joining the Bush team. Though he professes to favor a thorough overhaul of the corporate tax code, perhaps even its elimination, his position is much more narrow and smacks of social engineering. At a time when deep cuts are receiving deep attention, O'Neill is appealing for very light, targeted tax relief, such as child tax credits and reductions in the marriage penalty. More, he has never set a detailed economic blueprint down on paper. He's all talking points and no package.

[EternalVigilance]

Interesting. This thread has made me do some homework vis a vis O'Neill.