- Meet the Press
I have to speak up on David Gregory's attempts to skewer House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) using, as I knew he would attempt, Greenspan's concession that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. I thought Boehner response was indirect, making obscure references to Washington spin.
Let me address how I would have responded to David Gregory's hair. First, don't talk to me about tax cuts not paying for themselves when you have Democratic spending far beyond their means, while federal revenues drop by 40% and the Democrats make ZERO attempts to show any substantive attempts at austerity. (I don't want to make this a partisan argument, but the fact of the matter is what gave the Democrats majority control in the House were moderate and centrist Democrats from purple or red districts whom have gone along with progressive Speaker Pelosi's agenda.) So, for example, Obama self-righteously claims that he'll freeze pay on political appointees, does he go on to explain how much (or little) this means in terms of aggregate federal payroll spending? Does he note, like USA Today did, that 19% of over 2 million federal employees now earn over $100K (BEFORE one factors in benefits or overtime)--all of whom receive annual pay raises, not to mention tenure-based increases, none of which is subject to the President's freeze? Talk about deliberately misleading political spin!
Second, the question of whether tax cuts can pay for themselves has already been established on multiple occasions. Remember that the US did not even have an income tax until early in the twentieth century. Revenues had been principally raised by means such as tariffs and excise taxes, like alcohol. (Remember the Whiskey Rebellion?) So when progressives decided to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages (which have consumed for millennia) by imposing Prohibition, they had to establish alternative means of generating revenues, i.e., the income tax. FDR quickly capped the marginal top bracket at roughly 90%, and JFK/LBJ eventually dropped it down to 70%. The results speak for themselves; there was a lower take per dollar earned at the top rate, but more dollars realized for tax purposes. The same pattern occurred after Reagan (with conservative Democrat support) cut the top rate to the 20%'s; In fact, when Clinton later raised tax rates in his first term, with a top bracket of 39.6%, while federal revenue did increase, it did not increase as much as expected and only points out the fact the tax policy is just one factor in business decisionmaking. The same pattern that we saw under JFK and Reagan also occurred in the aftermath of the Bush tax cuts less than 10 years ago.
When the GOP Congress (not Bill Clinton) managed to achieve in multiple years what Democratic-controlled Congresses had failed to do even once in decades (and over the past 4 years)--surpluses, the swing of hundreds of billions of dollars from a surplus to a deficit, patently didn't occur because top-rate taxpayers were now getting back a nickel more per dollar (even if we disregard the fact they continued to pay the majority portion of the tax burden after the tax cuts). There were other issues--a soft economy after a huge asset bubble bust on Clinton's watch and further aggravated by 9/11 and the financial scandals (e.g., Enron) and spending increases (including a massive increase of funding for the new Department of Homeland Security).
What the Democrats conveniently want you to forget is at the times of the Bush deficits, they were the spendthrifts whom argued even with Bush's large increases in domestic spending, the largest in decades, he wasn't spending enough. Huge increase in federal expenditures for education? Not nearly high enough. New unpaid Medicare drug benefit? Not far enough; I'm surprised they didn't apply for a Dunkin' Donuts franchise by how many times they talked about doughnut holes ... If anyone thinks it's an accident that the federal deficit quadrupled after bad cop George W. Bush left the White House, they are in a state of denial... The only time the Democrats got religious over the deficit was wanting to eliminate spending on Iraq. Look at the size of the federal judgment and the amount of spending on Iraq, and explain to me how arguing over pocket change constitutes a fiscally responsible alternative...
Is it any wonder why when the Democrats suddenly discover there is unspecified money to be saved in Medicare--something they have run against for decades by fearmongering among elderly voters of GOP intent--only because they have a bigger policy objective: expanding the federal tent covering healthcare? Perhaps a senile Andy Taylor waxing enthusiasm over the Obama health agenda will convince seniors; but Andy, Mayberry has changed a lot since you were sheriff over 4 decades ago, and we know how that prize fish (or the fish that got away) gets bigger every time you tell the story.
Third, how is it that tax increases are considered permanent but tax cuts are temporary? Bill Clinton's top tax rate has been in effect for only part of the last 3 decades; if anything is temporary, it's Clinton's punitive tax policies. I am incensed by David Gregory's blatant hypocrisy here: he wants to argue that the Bush tax cuts need to be offset by tax increases, but none of the Democrats have been arguing that the middle class tax cuts aren't paying for themselves. In fact, Obama and the Democrats campaigned on tax cuts or credits for everyone except the top 2 to 5%.. (They figure they have the upper hand because the bottom 95% can outvote the top 5%. Never mind pesky details like equal protection and property rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights...)
Obama can put lipstick on the Democratic tax-and-spend pig, but if you dissect the pig, all you will find is Congressional pork... A tax increase by any other name would smell as foul. Investors and taxpayers are unlikely to be convinced that the Bush tax cuts were like the famous Pamela Ewing dream sequence explaining away a full season of Dallas episodes during actor Patrick Duffy's hiatus...
What the Democrats might consider doing (but they won't) is keeping the Bush tax cuts in place until we reach a commonly accepted heuristic of a full-employment economy. I am not holding my breath that the Democrats are going to act pragmatically, with a dose of common sense. They have waited 10 years to restore their politics of envy and have been running up the government's operational budget to the point that fiscal conservatives like myself have no alternative but to legitimize their permanent increases in federal spending. That's not going to happen. When you have a bloated budget, you can't simply finesse the way or use a scalpel approach; the whole budget has to go on a diet (real, not just nominal, spending cuts) and exercise (operate more efficiently, with less staff and resources).
- Fox News Sunday
On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed Ted Olson (see Political Cartoon segment below) and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN), discussed by many (including myself) as a dark horse Republican candidate for 2012. [A bit of necessary disclosure here: today I joined a Facebook grassroots group urging Mitch Daniels to run for President.]
I was extraordinarily impressed by Mitch Daniels during this interview; many of his comments are wholly consistent with things I've written in this blog. Mitch Daniels pointed out the same objections I did about what I call the Democratic Party State Welfare Act of 2010, bailing out fiscally irresponsible states like California and New York by promising to pay for additional politically favored public servants, i.e., teachers, policemen and others.
Let's look a little bit about how Indiana did it. Of course, its revenues have been affected by a tough economy. But Indiana went into the 2010 fiscal year with a $1.2B rainy day fund. State revenues were coming in nearly a billion less than expected. Given economic uncertainty, the Indiana government did not imprudently drain the rainy day fund with unsustainable spending but dropped spending by nearly $800M, and Mitch Daniels still wasn't satisfied, calling for streamlining state government. College students could invent a drinking game over how many times I've talked about streamlining the federal government in this blog.
There were a couple of points in Chris Wallace's interview I want to highlight. First, Wallace references Daniels' record as OMB Director under George W. Bush, noting when we went from a budget surplus to a budget deficit. Daniels correctly observed that revenues fall during a tough economy like we had then and noted the many times that he was on the losing side of urging fiscal restraint in Congress.
Second, Wallace asked about a comment Daniels made, which caused a stir in the conservative community, that the GOP should call a truce on the culture wars, which is topical given the latest controversial activist judicial decision on traditional marriage. I have made the same points as Daniel: both of us hold unambiguous social conservative views. This game is being played in the courts, not in the Congress and the Presidency (other than the advice and consent role of senators for federal judicial nominations). The Democrats would be happy for us to forget that the Democratic-controlled Congress since 2007 has run a series of record budget deficits with little to show for it and a progressive political agenda rammed down a center-right nation's throat, even after polls showed strong opposition and high profile losses in 3 purple/blue states. In essence, Governor Daniels points out the need for a pro-growth economic agenda and a tough-minded approach to fiscal discipline.
Obama's Overused Driving Metaphor
Obama has continued to work his absurd driving metaphor for the upcoming elections. It hasn't quite dawned on him yet that what drew people to his campaign was not his predictable, just another high-profile Democratic use of the Bush-bashing kendo stick but his idealistic, unrealistic promises that he could change the tone in Washington. Instead, we have seen some of the most polarizing, partisan votes in American history. We don't have better government to show for it; we have unsustainable federal government growth and administrative incompetence and ineffectiveness. So if he can't govern competently, he'll return to the one place he feels most effective--in perpetual campaign mode. But only the most progressive Democrats want photo ops with him; most Democrats love the fact that he can raise money for them, but otherwise they secretly hope he stays away from their district or state. Even probably the most high profile Democratic Governor, Ed Rendell (D) didn't like the idea of President Obama on The View fielding questions about Snooki and Lindsay Lohan, half-jokingly hoping that Obama wouldn't follow it up with a hometown visit on the Jerry Springer Show....
But you know, Mr. Obama, these repetitious juvenile sound bites about the Republicans running the car into the ditch and not deserving the keys to the car back and the "clever" follow-up noting that in cars with automatic--that 'D' stands for driving forward/Democrat and 'R' stands for going back/Republican deserve a conservative comeback:
- When the Democrats backed out of the garage, it was the unemployment rate that went further in the red, and the jobs odometer is still down about 8 million since the start of the recession (when the Democrats controlled Congress in December 2007)
- The Chinese are still holding the title to the car you are driving, Mr. President
- The reason the car isn't going anywhere, Mr. President, is because there is no gas in the tank.
- So long as you continue slinging partisan mud, Mr. President, your tires aren't going to get any traction.
- Mr. President, you're the one whom decided to drive the car with Joe Biden riding shotgun...
- That's the last time we leave the car in the shop with the economic "out of pep" boys: Nancy, Harry, and Barack.
- No, Mr. President, this car does not run on a wind turbine fueled by speeches from Windy City politicians
- Welcome to the President-in-Training driving school, Mr. Obama. Now notice there are no guardrails around these mountain bends in the global economy. Now since you can't see approaching traffic, slow down and keep the car under control. No, Mr. President, the left pedal is the brake, not the right pedal... Go with your political instinct--push left...No, Mr. President, you're pushing the gas pedal.
- Yes, Mr. President. Government Motors, under your leadership, is coming out with a European-style car for the American taxpayer. The job engine sputters along with sticky high 10-15% unemployment and economic growth as high sometimes as 2%. I predict that the American voter is going to fall in love with it and buy a second one in 2012...
- No, Mr. American voter. I know that the President quoted you an 8% unemployment rate cap when he sold the $787B stimulus to the American people. But there is no Presidential lemon law; you're stuck with another 2.5 years on that contract before you can invoke the vote-out-of-office clause. But you can lessen the payments to your children and grandchildren by trading in the low-rated Democratic Congressional model for the new pro-economic growth Congressional model due out this fall.
Political Cartoon
Gary Varvel cleverly points out the logical implications of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision declaring a cross-cultural, multi-millennia concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman "unconstitutional". I made my position on the decision clear in last Wednesday's post.
Former Solicitor General Ted Olson was on Fox News Sunday this morning presenting a so-called conservative case for gay "marriage". Arguing, for instance, that the intergender nature of marital procreation as the basis of family is just as incidental or arbitrary as interracial restrictions is unconvincing. I do appreciate Olson's argument against majoritarian acts stripping away the rights of a political minority arbitrarily (say, confiscating the property of wealthy Americans because jealous Americans outnumber well-to-do ones), but his comparison is invalid because these state initiatives were not redefining traditional marriage laws or instituting arbitrary, exogenous requirements.
Proposition 8 was restoring the traditional basis of marriage (overturned by an arbitrary California court decision) that was the de facto standard since California was admitted to the union. Gay Californians have been guaranteed marriage-like civil liberties under domestic partnerships for at least 10 years by the California constitution; in fact, I support those protections, like the right to inheritance and hospital visitation. What gay activists have been arguing as that domestic partnerships are unconstitutionally inferior to marriages. I don't accept that; they are different types of relationships. It makes no more sense than to argue men's restrooms are superior to women's restrooms because men's restrooms have urinals...
Quote of the Day
If a man does not make new acquaintances as he advances through life, he will soon find himself alone. A man should keep his friendships in constant repair.
Samuel Johnson
Musical Interlude: The American Songbook Series
Fats Waller*, "S'posin'"
(* My audio collection includes Sinatra on vocals, but at this time, I can't find a relevant embeddable video or audio clip. I hope that the reader finds Fats Waller's interpretation a worthy substitute.)
