Quote of the Day
I will speak ill of no man, and speak all the good I know of everybody.
Benjamin Franklin
Sunday Talk Soup: A Brief Response to Miscellaneous Talking Points
As a LEGITIMATE fiscal conservative, I have some preliminary comments to make before a more detailed discussion of today's Meet the Press, because I really don't hear any of the politicians, including the Republicans, doing a good job explaining things.
I started writing a segment on taxes--I've been advocating for some time a consumption tax to complement and/or replace an income tax. The knee jerk reaction from progressives is that consumption taxes are regressive. In broad terms, we are looking at tax burden and how to allocate it. In an excessively regressive system, the more wealthy population is less vested in the tax/government burden given its discretionary surplus. In an excessively progressive system, like we have now, the less wealthy population is less vested in the tax/government burden in absolute terms. There's a second major problem with an overreliance on an income tax system: to a certain extent, it is a less reliable generation of tax revenues because of accounting definitions and timing of economic events. So for example, because of whatever deductions, exclusions, etc., GE did not pay corporate income tax even though it was fully engaged and profitable on paper. A consumption tax is easier to implement and a more reliable cash flow.
I would not even be necessarily be adverse to ALL the Bush tax cuts expiring. When even the more ambitious plans only reduce the structural deficit by a third or so from current levels, we are still left with an unconscionable deficit to pass onto the next generation. But this ideological attempt to make an already excessively progressive tax burden even more so by a sham, politically convenient rationale of pretending one class (lower/middle class) is "more equal", when, in fact, three-quarters of the revenue are being ignored illustrates the disingenuous nature of Democratic economic policy. Money is fungible; you cannot coherently argue that only the 25% of increased tax revenue relevant to higher earners is relevant.
Obama saying his deal was an "extraordinarily fair" deal doesn't make it so. It's just more of the same "smoke and mirrors".
There was widespread discussion of a liberal point of view, not questioned by Gregory or even a limited inclusion of conservatives (are we surprised?) on the problem. There was the discussion of "compromise"; there was again this sophistic unchallenged assertion that Obama made concessions he didn't actually make yet. So let's go to the videotape and analyze this nonsense.
First of all, despite constant demagoguery of alleged GOP Draconian cuts in social safety net programs and entitlement programs, nobody from the Republican side has even raised real cuts in these programs--we are not talking about reducing social security checks by 10% (or cutting food stamps to a similar degree, etc.)
Second, President Obama himself has continually failed to back up the suggestions of his own deficit reduction commission. The only spending cuts he's discussed are things LONG PROPOSED BY THE GOP TO MAKE ENTITLEMENTS MORE SUSTAINABLE, like long-overdue actuarial-base eligibility adjustments. But few of these things reflect ACTUAL CUTS IN SPENDING NOW. We are not seeing personnel actions, and we are not seeing things like, say, an 8% across-the-board spending cut.
There was this nonsense being discussed as a quid pro quo by Doris Kearns Goodwin in others that, e.g., Obama is willing to deal some entitlement reforms in exchange, say, for class warfare tax hikes. The concept seems to be spending cuts alone are unfair.
What a load of crap! Let us remember with tax receipts down by over a third, the Democrats were in an absolutely uncontrolled spending frenzy. At one point the US Senate was down to 40 Republicans making it theoretically filibuster proof. Democrats extended unemployment compensation to an unprecedented 2 years. We had program increases not at, say, a modest 2 or 3% but more like 20 to 30%. Obama has constantly refused to rollback any of that windfall gain to his special interest constituencies. Where were liberals like Goodwin talking about "compromise" then, when there was no "compromise" on the stimulus package, none on ObamaCare, none on so-called financial reform. Apparently "compromise" is progressive-speak for conservatives making concessions on principles so Democrats can lock in ill-gotten gains during the 111th Congress.
Making entitlements solvent is NOT a political deal making chip. These are the Democratic policy crown jewels--something they did not shore up during the 111th Congress. These are Ponzi schemes with over $50T in unfunded liabilities. And the Democrats made it far worse by basically double-counting Medicare fixes in ObamaCare to fund a new entitlement. We haven't even begun to see that yet. Can the federal government really force medical providers to accept even lower payments which are already way under market?
When Obama and Democrats don't even come up with a budget or their own budget cut scheme to negotiations, in what sense is compromise possible? You have only one party making constructive proposals--the GOP. The Democrats have done zero about cutting spending except demagogue against phantom cuts.
Bill Daley can speak all he wants about uncertainty affecting business and the economy--that much is true. But when the Democrats start talking making conditions like no short-term fixes being acceptable, for essentially political purposes, they have implicitly put politics over that uncertainty. This continues to be one of the most anti-economic growth administrations in the history of the nation, one that has put 2000 page regulations into law and increased the role of the Fed when many of us believe that the Fed is part of the problem, not the solution. So don't lecture us on uncertainty.
I initially intended to write a more detailed critique, but this post is lengthy enough and I may continue in a subsequent post with more detailed claims.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Twilight"
