Posted on 01/02/2003 5:26:45 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Why Win If You're Going to Wimp Out?
January 2, 2003
There is no reason for going soft on the Bush agenda, yet we're doing that more and more on everything from ending racial discrimination (aka: affirmative action) to tax fairness to Saddam. If we'd already dealt with him, we wouldn't be faced with this supposed dilemma over whether North Korea or Iraq should be our primary focus. It's not a dilemma, anyway. They're both going to be dealt with, so there's no reason to create these openings.
Reuters reports that President Bush plans to unveil an economic stimulus package expected to reach up to $300 billion, including "targeted" tax cuts, but only a 50% cut in taxes on corporate dividends to shareholders. The original proposal was to eliminate them, because it's immoral to tax earnings twice. It's double taxation. It's ridiculous. For crying out loud, why do you win the White House and Senate if you're only going to water down your agenda?
I love this administration when it comes to foreign policy and protecting us from terrorism, but I continue to scratch my head over some of this on the domestic side. If this Reuters story isn't just wishful thinking, the White House is going to shelve tax cuts because they fear the Democratic lie that it's "for the rich." They don't have the sand to go out there and cite the IRS figures we have on this site, proving that only the rich are paying income taxes.
Who are "the rich," anyway? It used to be millionaires. Today it's any family that earns $100,000 a year - and we have multimillionaires like Kerry and Edwards and Rockefeller and Kennedy saying, "I have my wealth, so I don't favor a wealth tax, but I'm going to tax income so you can't get wealthy."
The White House is also said to be staying out of the Supreme Court case of a woman kept out of the University of Michigan because of her skin color: white. Admission based on race is wrong, but the administration fears taking the woman's side because it would damage White House counsel Alberto Gonzales' Supreme Court confirmation.
They're also ready to extend unemployment insurance yet again – which means paying people not to work by taking the money from those of us who are working. Folks, the Democrats are going to criticize us no matter what we do. It's absurd to back down on our agenda. As Senator Mitch McConnell told me in our upcoming Limbaugh Letter interview, the Senate only has six months to get things done. The Democrats want to bottle things up so they can have issues. Why help them out?
I wouldn't say that, Dubya still has strong support, Rove has a SS plan on the back burner that sounds promising and there's a war coming on. I don't know if it "looks bad" just yet.
What is going to look bad is if the same voters who have handed us the Presidency and the Senate TWICE now begin to see us as the party of compromise. It will take some time, but if we don't actually deliver on some of these issues we have been rambling about for years, eventually it's going to catch up with us.
But that will take a while, Americans have too much else on their plate right now for it to have an immediate impact.
Look for it in the run up to the 2004 elections when all eyes are going to be plastered on the homefront.
I can't speak for justshe .. But..
When I figure out what the hell your point is .. I would be more then happy to comment
I guess you figure that if it blows in your left ear, and out the right one, it's a western wind.
You keep saying that.
I was hoping for some action from Dubya on this UM thing.. Guess no action is as good an answer as we are liable to get.
Bushies? Now it's about Bushies?
See my post #138 HERE"
Why should anyone read your posts when it has become obvious what your real agenda is?
That is what Rush repeats constantly, but it isn't what Reagan's own economists write in their memoirs. In fact Martin Anderson makes the point of addressing and denying this very claim. Revenues did drop when rates were cut, which is why President Reagan wanted spending cuts from Tip O'Neill. When O'Neill reneged on the cuts, deficits exploded and there was a tax increase in 1982.
Lawrence Lindsey, Dubya's first economic advisor, did a comprehensive analysis of the effect of the Reagan tax cuts when he was at Harvard, a study published as The Growth Experiment. You can't simply subtract total tax revenues of 1980 from those of 1988 and claim the difference is all attributable to the tax cuts. You have to account for the normal business cycle, demand side effects of deficit spending, mean growth rate of the economy, and host of factors that are addressed by regression analysis. The dynamic effect of the cuts recouped 2/3 of the revenue loss predicted by a static analysis of the tax cuts. But the point of the Reagan program was to grow the economy, not to grow tax receipts, and Reaganomics succeeded.
Where did you get that figure from?
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.