Kennedy versus Obama on Taxes

Comment

Comment by Ronald A. Lau on September 9, 2010 at 7:42am

Comment by Ronald A. Lau on September 9, 2010 at 7:35am

The way to reduce the deficit is to grow the economy while reducing spending.

The economy cannot grow if it is burdened with taxes or can't be sure the DNC won't raise them in increments of 5% every 2 years, or burden it with regulations that cost money.

The Fed cannot fix this problem. It can only get out of the way and unleash the American People to do it for them. The Fed spent the American Tax Payer's money before they even earned it. Now the Fed is going to have to sit on the sidelines and wait for their bosses to show them what it means to work for a living.

Spending cannot be reduced if the DNC is in any position to stop the reductions.

Spending reductions would have to include a reduction in the Federal workforce, including but not limited to the EPA, the DOEnergy, the DOEducation, etc. Liberals/Socialists/DNC will be having hunger strikes.

Comment by Ronald A. Lau on September 9, 2010 at 7:27am

"It would be nice if we could reduce taxes and reduce the deficit. We can't. The truth is that we'll have to restrain spending growth AND raise some taxes, somewhere, to get the budget under control. Norquistian "starving the beast" strategies haven't worked so far, not least because Republicans -- despite their rhetoric -- aren't any better at reigning in spending. It's time to get realistic. And it's maybe time to stop pretending that politicians who have been dead for 50 years have much that's useful to say on the subject.

And not one word, NOT ONE WORD, about the DNC/Obama's TRILLIONS of dollars of new spending. NOT ONE WORD.

Oh but there's the word Republicans and how they can't reign in spending. They can't because any time they try, the Liberals go BAT SHIT and accuse them of wanting people to die of starvation.

Comment by Rick Henderson on September 8, 2010 at 9:20pm

Any long-term fiscal responsibility will require reductions in the growth of entitlement spending -- gradually raising the Social Security retirement age; greater means-testing of Medicare; reining in Medicaid costs (I'd consider giving low-income people vouchers to purchase private coverage) to get poor people out of this disastrous and dangerous program -- and genuine pro-growth policies that boost private job creation.

Obama's no help here. From a general perception by business leaders -- many of whom voted for him -- that this administration is the most hostile toward private enterprise of any since FDR, to his actual regulatory agenda (finreg, porkulus, ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, card check, etc.), it's no mystery why the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high.

And it will until people who are friendlier to private commercial activity are in positions of authority.

Comment by Rick Henderson on September 8, 2010 at 8:33pm

Perhaps it may be more accurate to say that the increases in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and ObamaCare will contribute more to the budget deficit over the next 10 years than the Bush tax cuts. I'd have to check the math on that, of course. But if you're ignoring the explosion in spending that will accompany the retirement of the Boomers (and the gasoline that ObamaCare will pour on the deficit fire), then you're missing the point.

Comment by Joel Mathis on September 8, 2010 at 6:00pm

This assumes that all tax cuts -- and all deficits -- are equal. But of course they're not.

The top marginal tax rate -- on incomes over $400,000 -- was 91 percent. Let's repeat that again for effect: 91 PERCENT!!!!!! Today, it's 35 percent, for incomes above $250,000.

The budget deficit in 1962 was $7 billion. That amounted to 1.3 percent of the GDP. The 2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion -- nearly 10 percent of all American economic activity. Maybe there was a time when reduced taxes would lead to increased revenues, but that time probably passed during Reagan's presidency, if not before.

The Bush tax cuts -- the one that are at the center of the current debate -- prove the problem. Despite continuing GOP claims to the contrary, they ballooned the deficit during his tenure. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: "Over the next 10 years, the Bush tax cuts if made permanent will contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession put together."

It would be nice if we could reduce taxes and reduce the deficit. We can't. The truth is that we'll have to restrain spending growth AND raise some taxes, somewhere, to get the budget under control. Norquistian "starving the beast" strategies haven't worked so far, not least because Republicans -- despite their rhetoric -- aren't any better at reigning in spending. It's time to get realistic. And it's maybe time to stop pretending that politicians who have been dead for 50 years have much that's useful to say on the subject.