"In the early stages of the state, taxes are light in their incidence, but fetch in a large revenue...As time passes and kings succeed each other, they lose their tribal habits in favor of more civilized ones. Their needs and exigencies grow...owing to the luxury in which they have been brought up. Hence they impose fresh taxes on their subjects...[and] sharply raise the rate of old taxes to increase their yield...But the effects on business of this rise in taxation make themselves felt. For business men are soon discouraged by the comparison of their profits with the burden of their taxes...Consequently production falls off, and with it the yield of taxation."
Sowell writes: "If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore's new book, "Who's The Fairest of Them All?", Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide." ... The title "Who's The Fairest of Them All?" is an obvious response to liberals' claim that their policies are aimed at creating "fairness" by, among other things, making sure that "the rich" pay their "fair share" of taxes. If you want a brief but thorough education on that, just read chapter 4, which by itself is well worth the price of the book.
A couple of graphs on pages 104 and 108 are enough to annihilate the argument about "tax cuts for the rich." These graphs show that, under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before.
There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or is shipped overseas. At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output and rising incomes. Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower. Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions.
This is not just a theory. It is what hard evidence shows happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, from the days of Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. That hard evidence is presented in clear and unmistakable terms... ---- The rich pay more when rates are lower. What today's Dems don't like is that in times of rapid growth the rich are also making more, and growing in numbers.
It would be nice if we could extend all rights, all privileges, recognize all relationships, guarantee respect for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all without destroying the meaning of bedrock terms like husband and wife, mother and father.
FAFSA (federal financial aid) has already gone to the Parent One, Parent Two designations. Are the old gender based terms m*ther and f*ther banned by law or removed by bureaucrats for terms terms stripped of half their meaning and all of their uniqueness. Which one are YOU? How will you know or how will you decide?
Family units are fluid. Maybe we need the federal government to quit recognizing these relationships at all as they lose their meanings. How would that promote the general Welfare our nation?
President Obama seems to have a strategy to terminate all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for “the rich,” as he has been saying since 2008. He is offering the Republicans exactly zero concessions in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. No spending cuts, no entitlement reform, no compromise on the rates. It is entirely my way or the highway, and if the Republicans refuse to do everything exactly as he demands, he will let the Bush tax cuts expire entirely, for the middle class and working people as well as the upper incomes, and blame the Republicans for refusing to go along with him, and for the economic results.
It is a cynical game worthy of an undeveloped, third world country, not the United States of America. But this is just one more reason, with many more to come, for the American people to regret the mistake they made on Election Day.
Because so many major media institutions, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, have been so duplicitous and dishonest in discussing the Bush tax cuts, most Americans don’t know much about them, even though they have been living with them for 10 years or more now. Indeed, most of what they think they know is not true. But the American people will understand them better, when they see what life is like without them.
President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.
According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.
These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today. Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase. Capital gains revenues had doubled by 2005, despite the 25% capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003. Federal revenues rose to 18.5% of GDP by 2007, above the long term, postwar, historical average over the prior 60 years. CBO was projecting surpluses to return indefinitely in 2012 through the end of its projection period in 2018.
Bush did increase federal spending as a percent of GDP by one-seventh, erasing the federal spending cuts enacted by the Republican Congressional majorities in the 1990s. But even with that, deficits during the Bush years averaged just 2% of GDP, one-third less than the average over the prior 50 years. President Obama’s deficits have averaged 5 times as much, at 9.1% of GDP.
The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new jobs, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.4%. Business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter, producing all those new jobs.
Because of that increased investment, labor productivity soared by 2.5% annually from 2003 to 2007, higher than the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. As a result, real after tax income per capita increased by more than 11%.
Manufacturing output soared to its highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating almost $7 trillion in new shareholder wealth. From 2003 to 2007, the S&P 500 almost doubled. After the Bush tax cuts started in 2001, quickly ending the 2001 recession, the economy continued to grow for another 73 months. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17%, meaning an additional $2.1 trillion for the American people.
This was mostly the opposite of what President Obama has produced, with his neo-Marxist Obamanomics, particularly unemployment more than twice as high, declining middle class incomes, soaring poverty, weak job growth, stagnant stock market values, collapsing business investment, and negligible growth in GDP.
Of course, the Bush tax cut boom was ended by the 2008 financial crisis. But as discussed in many previous columns, that was caused by the excessive overregulation of President Clinton’s home ownership promotion policies, creating the subprime mortgage market and the housing bubble, and by President Bush’s cheap dollar monetary policies. Obama’s foolish argument that the Bush tax cuts caused the 2008-2009 recession is so dishonest that abusive propaganda alone should disqualify him from office.
Obama’s gleeful termination of the Bush tax cuts will produce just the opposite results of those tax cuts. The combination of all the tax rate increases, along with Obama’s abusive overregulation, and the Fed’s continued mischief, will throw the economy back into recession next year. Unemployment will soar back into double digits, breaking the post depression record of 10.8%. The deficit will soar to over $2 trillion, setting new all time world records. The national debt as a percent of GDP will gallop past Greece.
Middle class incomes will plummet further. Poverty will soar to new all time records.
We can’t afford the Bush tax cuts, as Obama says? We can’t afford to terminate them. Over the past 45 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been increased, capital gains revenues have declined rather than increased. Obama’s nearly 60% increase in that rate will have the same effect. After the Bush cut in taxes on dividends, dividends paid soared, and so did taxes paid on those dividends. Obama’s near tripling of that tax will have the opposite effect as well. Indeed, if the economy declines back into renewed recession, total federal revenues will decline rather than increase.
Obama’s ploy of blaming all of this on the Republicans will not work this time. The public knows the Bush tax cuts were adopted into law by the Republicans, with complete Republican control of Congress and the White House at the time. It will be too obvious that it took President Obama and his new neo-Marxist Democrat Party to let them expire.
Enjoy the new Obama recession. You and your neighbors voted for it.
Thanks Bigdog for challenging people here. Good points made. That said, I found the US News/Robert Schlesinger piece more muddled and cherry picked than the cherry picking he tries to refute. Yes all these Presidents at different times speak out of different sides of their mouths. As Schlesinger knows, they also speak through different speechwriters and audiences, as well as to different circumstances.
Schlesinger writes, perhaps in jest: "But if ever advocating a tax cut makes someone a supply-sider, then JFK joins the ranks of other conservative economists like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (the tax cuts in the stimulus package, for example, were arguably the largest in history)".
The first part is a farce, he shows no awareness of a distinction between demand side and supply side thinking or policies. The difference may be subtle, but supply side policies aim at getting people to produce more and demand side policies aim at getting people to consume more. Obama's tax cut was explicitly demand side and he has been anti-production on so many other policies. JFK was eloquent on the supply side. All policies admittedly have an effect on both supply and demand.
Maybe JFK said privately to my old Prof Walter Heller that spending was what JFK wanted and the supply side tax cuts were Heller's, but publicly the supply side view is his, including spending restraint. What he would do in today's circumstance is unknown, but what he said here is not:
Today we don't have marginal rates of 91% that apply to incomes over $30 million, but we have combined rates coming that are over 50, 60, 70% and apply to a wide range of people. The tax burden on the economy is higher today IMO.
It is good that JK Rowling is appreciative of what she received when in need and willing to give back in such large amounts. That does not mean the policy was helpful to the budget or economy of Britain. They repealed half the increase so someone must believe it they went too far.
Bigdog wrote: "I would have zero issue with flat taxes with clearly spelled out rules."
The beer summit, conducted long distance, has resulted in extraordinary agreement!
If a lower rate like a 28% tax rate yields the same amount of revenue as a 90% tax rate, which one resulted in a larger national income?
Think about it - and do the math.
National income times the tax rate equals revenues to the Treasury, if income were really taxed at that rate.
Let's simplify and say a 90% tax rate brought in a trillion in revenues. The national income would only be 1.11 trillion at that level of taxation.
Now assume we lowered the rate to 28% and still were able bring in a trillion in revenues. That could come true only if income grew by three and half times. In this extreme example, take home income grows by 25-fold. Yet that is what the experts say is true. In many cases the lower rate brings in more revenue, but worst case we keep getting roughly the same revenue result no matter whether the tax rates is at 70%, 90% or 28%. If so, lock in the lower rate, and keep the change!
When candidate Obama admitted that dramatically higher capital gains rate won't bring in more revenues, he was admitting that the amount of capital gain income earned in the country would fall precipitously because of his spiteful tax rate hike.
This is roughly what I was going to write to add to Crafty's story but it was already posted by GM in the Peter Schiff piece:
"For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership."
That's right. Rich people knew how to take 'losses' that weren't cash losses and then keep all of what they made. What a sick, unproductive game it was. If the economy was good then, think how much better it could have been with an undistorted playing field.
The smartest guy from my class was a Yale trained lawyer who ended up working in employee benefit law for a utility company. No offense to him and his choice to be able to go home at a good hour and be with his kids growing up but what a loss to America that so many of the best and the brightest are out working in tax code and regulation compliance instead of inventing, innovating, creating, producing curing diseases and all of that. Why is there a law about employee benefits? Shouldn't it be legal to hire with them or without them? Why is it in the tax code? Why are there 18 pages in federal regulations just defining a full time employee? Why is it any of their business if you are full time or not? They should only have a right to tax a dollar of income at the going rate and otherwise let you be. That is not how it is.
The cost of the tax isn't the tax. It is the compliance time and cost too. It is the loss of productive activities from this whole industry set up to comply and to get around it. Worst of all it is the loss of the productive activities that never occur because of the excessive taxes or the excessive regulations. Because these costs are impossible to measure does not mean they don't exist, aren't huge and threatening to our economic survival and well-being. Besides the time the rich spend darting and weaving, 36% of our workforce doesn't even work. How heavy a load is that for the remaining workers to carry? Could there be a less efficient system? Yes. We are working on that right now.
"Intelligence is the amount of time it takes to forget a lesson." Let us remember this day and those who fought and died for us on it.
I wanted to put something today in the Grateful thread, but hear-hear to Crafty and the forum, we have a thread for this.
I am grateful for all who rose up and fought back. I mean all of them, but I am thinking of my Grandpa who served at Pearl Harbor, my Dad who served in Europe and Germany in particular, and my uncle who went from Normandy to command a ship at Iwo Jima. God Bless these wonderful people who saw evil coming, saw the threat to America before it hit the 48 states and gave up their young lives of freedom to go do what was right - and to win.
You don't attack the United States of America, plan attacks, aid, abet, harbor terrorist training camps, none of it. May this date live in infamy and may we remember some of the good things about America and freedom that we were fighting to keep.
And, if I am informed correctly, the US backed England, France, and Israel off from retaking the Suez Canal in 1956 by threatening to dump British war bonds , , ,.
Good point if true. The difference in my opinion is the level of dependency. Their sputtering economic engine is dependent upon continued exports to the US - at these levels. A huge move in the currency would be disruptive to exports, to their economy and perhaps to the regime. A disruption or cost increase in imports from China to the US would hurt consumers but could lead to production, manufacturing and jobs increases at home. A jump in interest rates here would have a mixed effect as well, cause some pain but force some corrections and increase our savings rate.
The roll over and play dead strategy helps us how? Then people will like us? We consent to putting the country down the tubes and blame the Democrats? We did that and it didn't work.
It's easy for Rand Paul to say let it pass if he can't stop it in the Senate. But each House Republican ran on a promise to vote against this sort of thing, and won.
It is the Obama Presidency that has the standoff. House Republicans have a duty to pass what they believe are responsible solutions. If there was a party to negotiate with, they should negotiate, not cave.
The idea that a Republican House should pass exactly what a Democrat House would have passed is repulsive to me - and not the will of the voters.
If tax rates go up for everyone with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, then they weren't what they were called - tax cuts for the wealthy. A return to Clinton era tax rates is a big hike - across the board. Unfortunately, we are no longer competing in a Clinton era world, with Clinton era spending or Clinton era regulations.
If people don't like Clinton tax rates applying to themselves they can sign on with tax reform retroactive any day that they want. House Republicans can be out front with multiple proposals.
If the Executive Branch can control outcomes in the House on revenue and appropriation bills, will the House of Representatives then choose the next Supreme Court appointee?
What part of constitutionally divided government powers am I missing? ---------------------
"CBO estimates, however, assume no economic change from higher taxes, which is unrealistic."
Really? Not unrealistic from any widely reported story that I have seen...
Great post! I agree with this point: "The likelihood that China would suddenly reduce its holdings of U.S. securities is questionable because doing so could have a significant negative impact on the Chinese economy."
I believe anything they could do to harm the US economy would harm them far worse, economically and politically. Still the artificial nature of the imbalance is unhealthy. We can't control their policies but on our side should make US businesses and US manufacturing more competitive would slow the outflow of dollars invested back. Balancing our budget and end federal borrowing. And end the dual mission of the Fed and allow interest rates to reach normal levels at a balance between savings and borrowing. Right now savers earn zero and people are learning not to save.
"If there are fewer millionaires in the UK because of economic downturn rather than relocation, the story changes a little. "
Yes, higher tax rates, lower revenues and national recession all correlate. Who knew? I still don't see that as valid reason for the cover up. Someone might take the facts wrong?
Clinton's and Eisenhower's economies competed in a different world, I think you know. The point to this discussion would be, how much revenue did the high tax rates raise? Revenues surged when we removed the 90% rate. Revenues surged when we removed the 70% rate and when we removed the 28% capital gains rate. Britain's economyu surged when they removed the highest tax rates. Hiding income and avoiding taxable income becomes less profitable. JFK had it wrong? Robert Mundell had it wrong: "The level of U.S. taxes has become a drag on economic growth in the United States. "The national economy is being choked by taxes — asphyxiated." http://www.polyconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1559:its-time-to-cut-taxes&catid=46:1997&Itemid=31
One thing you may be forgetting or omitting is bracket creep. With inflation, the rates that applied to no one were applying to more and more people without any real increase in income. Not to mention the impending challenge of foreign competition. Can we take that back to the 50s?
Laffer Curve postulates that no tax revenue will be raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% and that there must be at least one rate where tax revenue would be a non-zero maximum. Other than current CBO scoring, who disagrees with that, in principle? Reagan's first chief economic adviser thinks that tax rates going from 90% to 100% would increase revenues?
The point here on Media Issues remains, why hide such a big story? Because there is more to the story? Then put more in the story. It would put the supply side deniers on the defensive? Then include their interviews in the coverage. The story is more than 2 weeks old and this remarkable occurrence BD posted of massive levels of 'forestalled' income as a reaction to impending, punitive tax rates occurred more than a year ago! The majority of people of whom the tax applied changed their economic behavior in response to the policy change we are now demanding. Where was the media? With heads in sand, hoping no one else would report it either. Mediocrity, bias and agenda, not professionalism, is my humble opinion.
Bigdog, I think that piece makes good points; that's how the story could have read if they weren't afraid to open that door. Reports that said the people left the country were irresponsible, not professional journalism, unless they had looked them up and tracked them down. They didn't; the data gives numbers, not names or addresses.
They point out "forestalling" of income, to move it forward like Obama supporter Costco did with dividends ahead of Obama's dividend tax tripling. What excessive capital gains taxes later will do is backstalling. Never sell. Never capture the gain. Never pay the tax. How then do resources move freely to their most productive use? They don't. It's economic malpractice, if you ask me, unreported malfeasance. Ask Charlie Gibson, the revenue goes down.
The reality is that a huge proportion of the rich showed amazing flexibility and mobility of income on a scale that blows the doors off of all static models and all working economic theories at the CBO, OMB, DNC, NYT, LAT, CBS, WP and the White House Council of Economic Advisers who already said it would throw us into recession. People change behavior quickly to different schemes of taxation and the rich have the most flexibility. More efficient, sadly, is Obama's 2% tax hike (FICA) coming to workers who live paycheck to paycheck.
Apologies for the outnumbering, but I would like to revise and extend as well...
Bigdog put a number of arguments back against my original point. The first is perfectly valid - there are many stories that don't get covered. Second, the UK tax increase point is not as clear as Doug says it is, the richest person in the UK did not leave for example. Third would be defects in the coverage of others, such as Fox News.
The Foreign Policy piece is interesting, though they are one more outlet that missed the UK-no-new-revenues-from-taxing-the-rich story, even while they write about missed stories. Tax policy isn't foreign policy directly, but the foundation of a successful foreign policy is economic health and strength at home IMO. Our deficit, our recession/stagnation, our growing culture of dependency and non-productiveness, and our policies at home that result in an anti-business climate yielding a record low rate of new business startups undermine our foreign policy capabilities and influence.
They put forward 10 interesting stories, all of the type that make reading the forum worthwhile; you don't learn these things most other places: 1) Trade between India and Pakistan, 2) Brazil Immigration, 3) Inuit prosperity, 4) Guinea worm disease eradicated, 5) 3D copyrights, 6) Call Centers moving from India to Philippines, 7) Hong Kong - China tensions, 8.)Cyoress-Moscow ties, 9) Oil in Central Africa, 10) Abu Musa islands dispute.
There is no reason to trivialize any of these. The analogy though to me would be if a newspaper like the NY Times, LA Times, or Washington Post were writing and placing stories on the front page day after day about Guinea worm disease, and it was crucial to the survival of our country, but they had neglected to tell us it was cured. The publications are covering the tax increase on the rich story incessantly, but they are not telling us crucial details such as that when it was tried in the UK just one year ago it brought in NO NEW REVENUE.
The J.K. Rowling argument, micro vs. macro, to me is like refuting global warming by pointing out one cold day in Minneapolis. J.K. Rowling may have a host of personal reasons to stay or she may have moved her investments out of the U.K. for all we know. The story says that 6000 people still reported income over a million GBP, not that everyone left or has the ability to leave. This is not a story a wealth tax, where she leads Great Britain; it is a story about an income tax rate that yielded no new revenue. I don't think she released a major title during that year. My income from selling or renting MN properties does not leave the state if I leave; maybe her copyrights are parked in the UK, or maybe the bulk of her income has already left. No facts advanced but a nice shiny object! I know nothing about the inner workings of U.K. tax laws. Her business is rather unique. She employs very few people relative to her income, compared to other gazillionaires. I also would doubt that the majority of her books are printed in the U.K.
More important is that 10,000 million-pound incomes disappeared. That doesn't mean the people left; it means those income levels are gone. In a growing economy (and the only way to grow revenues is to grow the economy), that number should have gone up at least a few thousand, not to have the majority of them disappear. It is a HUGE story.
We can argue the merits further on tax issues, but the falsehood is static scoring. President Obama keeps quoting numbers that don't include the FACT that people change their behavior based on changing policies, incentives and disincentives. The Media Issue I introduced is that the media that we consider mainstream will not cover it.
The last time (only time?) I saw an mainstream co-conspirator question liberal-Democratic failed economic theories was one Charlie Gibson asked of candidate Barack Obama back in April of 2008:
GIBSON: You have...said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all...?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3#.UMEts1KIiqk ---------------- Or try this, has the front page news section of a major publication mentioned ever reported that revenues to the Treasury doubled in the 1980s, from $517 Billion to $1032 Billion while the top rate went from 70% to 28%, or that revenues surged 44% in 4 years from $1.78 Trillion in 2003 to $2.57 Trillion in 2007 under the Bush tax rate cuts now in question. Tax rate cuts did not cause the deficits, did they ever put forward facts to correct the quotes of people claiming they did. If not, why not? They just didn't get to it - like Brazilian immigration or Guinea worm disease? I don't buy it. They were on the topic and omitted the key points. The reason I put forward is mediocrity, bias, agenda and fact hiding.
I don't watch Fox News except one Sunday show they put on broadcast television. Many here find Hannity to be a blowhard. Shows like that admit they are opinion more than news. No doubt Fox misses a lot of stories; maybe their misses show their bias. I heard they cut back Rove and Morris for being idiots and zealots on election night. A good sign. Fox radio news to me is written with similar liberal bias as the other networks. They miss most stories and repeat the same take on the same lead stories hour after hour.
I believe Foreign Policy has this wrong, (while we are at it):
The U.S. measures oil reserves differently than every other country. The SEC regulates the use of the term. We have much, much more oil than the data from this chart shows.
Kate Middleton... Just goes to show how stories are mostly market driven to whatever draws people in. The analogy I think would be if you covered her every move day after day after day after day, then learned public knowledge she was pregnant and DIDN'T cover it.
On tax policy they hide the facts, poll on what people learned from distorted coverage, and make the poll result the story. 57% say they want ta hikes on the rich? Did they preface the poll question with the fact that tax rate hikes don't bring in more revenue as just shown in a nearly identical example in one of the most similar economies to the U.S. in the world? No. Not with a story, not in the question.
If so-called mainstream media had balance their market size would potentially double (to include conservatives) but the agenda would fail. The number one cable news network by far competitor Fox might never have gotten off the ground if political balance was already achieved. The WSJ is by far number one in the nation with a third more subscribers than the NY Times and more than 4 times the circulation of the Washington Post. Coincidentally their editorial views are the opposite of most of the rest and fill a conspicuous void in the market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation
Good point on the nuclear facility, (speaking of under-reported stories). Likewise for the Osraik facility in Iraq.
On Chemical weapons: Same people (roughly) who said it was a lie to have said there were chemical weapons in Iraq in 2002, that were (reportedly) trucked to Syria while we were debating the invasion, and not found in Iraq in 2003-2006 are now having to confront the danger they pose in Syria.
Had we bypassed the UN and attacked Saddam sooner instead of with 8 months notice to clean up and clear out, perhaps we wouldn't have falsely called Bush, Cheney, Powell, Condoleeza Rice liars then, saved thousands of Americans lives with a quicker war then, and the Syrian people might not be facing WMD attacks from their own government today.
From lawyers who worked on the previous, unsuccessful challenge. (WSJ excerpt)
The Opening for a Fresh ObamaCare Challenge By defining the mandate as a tax, one that will not be uniformly applied, the Supreme Court ran afoul of the Constitution.
By DAVID B. RIVKIN, JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
ObamaCare is being implemented, having been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in June in a series of cases now known as National Federation of Independent Business v. HHS. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the court took a law that was flawed but potentially workable and transformed it into one that is almost certainly unworkable. More important, the justices also may have created new and fatal constitutional problems.
ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, was conceived as a complex statutory scheme designed to provide Americans with near-universal health-care coverage and to effectively federalize the nation's health-care system. The law's core provision was an individual health-insurance purchase mandate, adopted by Congress as a "regulation" of interstate commerce. The provision required most Americans to buy federally determined minimum health-care insurance, or to pay a penalty more or less equivalent to the cost of that coverage.
Equally important were provisions requiring creation of state-run health-care insurance exchanges (where middle-income earners could obtain the prescribed coverage) and an expanded Medicaid program (also administered by the states) to cover people with incomes up to 133% (later upped to 138%) of the federal poverty level. An income of up to $31,809 for a family of four would qualify for Medicaid. States that failed to join in the Medicaid expansion were threatened with the loss of all federal Medicaid dollars, nearly a quarter of all state expenditures.
In the ObamaCare ruling, the Supreme Court correctly held that Congress could not impose the individual mandate as a constitutional regulation of interstate commerce and that Congress could not constitutionally use its spending power to coerce the states to expand Medicaid. Rather than strike down the law, however, the court construed the insurance-purchase mandate and its penalty as a "tax" on the failure to have health insurance. The justices also interpreted the Medicaid-expansion requirements as optional—permitting states to opt out of these provisions while staying within the traditional Medicaid program. Given that interpretation, the court's majority upheld the statute as constitutional.
The court's determination to preserve ObamaCare through "interpretation" has exacerbated the law's original flaws to the point that it has become palpably unworkable. By transforming the penalties for failing to comply with the law's requirements into a "tax," the court has given the public a green light to ignore ObamaCare's requirements when it is economically beneficial. Law-abiding individuals, who might otherwise have complied with the law's expensive purchase mandate to avoid being subjected to financial penalties, can simply now choose to pay a tax and not sign up for coverage. There is certainly no stigma attached to simply paying a tax, and noncompliance with the law's other requirements—such as those imposed on employers—is arguably made more attractive on the same basis. This effect fundamentally undercuts Congress's original purpose, which was to expand health-care coverage to the greatest number of people, not to improve federal revenues.
Similarly, having reviewed the likely costs and benefits, states are now taking advantage of the court-granted flexibility. Seven states, including Texas, Mississippi and Georgia, have so far opted out of the Medicaid-expansion provisions, and eight (with more certain to come) are refusing to create the insurance exchanges, leaving this to a federal bureaucracy unequipped to handle these new administrative burdens. As a result, a growing number of low-income Americans will be unable to obtain the free or cost-effective insurance that Congress originally meant them to have, although they remain subject to the mandate-tax.
Policy problems aside, by transforming the mandate into a tax to avoid one set of constitutional problems (Congress having exceeded its constitutionally enumerated powers), the court has created another problem. If the mandate is an indirect tax, as the Supreme Court held, then the Constitution's "Uniformity Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) requires the tax to "be uniform throughout the United States." The Framers adopted this provision so that a group of dominant states could not shift the federal tax burden to the others. It was yet another constitutional device that was simultaneously designed to protect federalism and safeguard individual liberty.
The Supreme Court has rarely considered the Uniformity Clause's reach, but it cannot be ignored. The court also refused to impose meaningful limits on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce for decades after the 1930s, until justices began to re-establish the constitutional balance in the 1990s with decisions leading up to the ObamaCare ruling this summer. And although the court has upheld as "uniform" taxes that affect states differently in practice, precedent makes clear that a permissible tax must "operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found," as held in the Head Money Cases (1884). The ObamaCare tax arguably does not meet this standard.
ObamaCare provides that low-income taxpayers, who are nevertheless above the federal poverty line, can discharge their mandate-tax obligation by enrolling in the new, expanded Medicaid program, which serves as the functional equivalent of a tax credit. But that program will not now exist in every state because, as a matter of federal law, states can opt out. The actual tax burden will not be geographically uniform as the court's precedents require.
Thus, having transformed the individual mandate into a tax, the court may face renewed challenges to ObamaCare on uniformity grounds. The justices will then confront a tough choice. Having earlier reinterpreted the mandate as a tax, they would be hard-pressed to approve the geographic disparity created when states opt out of the Medicaid expansion. But that possibility is inherent in a scheme that imposes a nominally uniform tax liability accompanied by the practical equivalent of a fully off-setting tax credit available only to those living in certain states. To uphold such a taxing scheme would eliminate any meaningful uniformity requirement—a result that the Constitution does not permit.
ObamaCare was always a poorly conceived and constitutionally deficient statute. The Supreme Court's ruling upholding the law has simply made it worse. In the future, that decision is likely to be seen as a prime reason that the federal courts should judge and never legislate... more at the link.
For the previous post in the thread, temporary takings, that is good news. There was a similar ruling for partial takings, I recall. Still not overturned is Kelo, the power to take private property to transfer to other private ownership. -------------------- A good piece with an unfortunate conclusion, a shell bill successfully gets around the origination requirement??
WSJ December 4, 2012 By JAMES TARANTO Too Good to Be True - An ObamaCare challenge that's almost certain to fail.
From BusinessInsider.com we learn of a new legal challenge to ObamaCare--"a challenge that only could have been made after the Supreme Court's ruling" in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which upheld most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
The right-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation amended its challenge to the ACA after the Supreme Court upheld the insurance mandate under Congress' taxing powers.
The group's challenge turns on the Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which requires that bills for raising revenue start in the House of Representatives.
Problem is, the group argues, Obamacare started in the Senate. . . .
Of course, it's not entirely clear whether Pacific Legal will ultimately prevail on this reasoning.
We'd say it's almost entirely clear that it will not.
The Origination Clause provides that "all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." In order to prevail, the plaintiff in this case would have to establish both that ObamaCare was a "Bill for raising Revenues" and that it originated in the Senate.
Not every law imposing a tax is a "Bill for Raising Revenues." In the court's most recent Origination Clause case, U.S. v. Munoz-Flores (1990), the court unanimously upheld the 1984 Victims of Crime Act, which imposed "a monetary 'special assessment' on any person convicted of a federal misdemeanor." A six-justice majority held that even though the act raised revenue, it was not a bill for raising revenue:
The special assessment provision was passed as part of a particular program to provide money for that program--the Crime Victims Fund. Although any excess was to go to the Treasury, there is no evidence that Congress contemplated the possibility of a substantial excess, nor did such an excess in fact materialize. Any revenue for the general Treasury that 3013 creates is thus "incidenta[l]" to that provision's primary purpose."
Pacific Legal contrasts the Munoz-Flores assessment with the ObamaCare mandate tax on the ground that the latter "is more akin to an income tax, whose revenues go to the general treasury and are used for general Government operations."
That is a plausible distinction. But it is also plausible to argue that the revenues from the ObamaCare mandate tax are "incidental" to its primary purpose, which is to encourage people to buy insurance. That Congress did not even write the mandate as a tax would seem to strengthen, not weaken, the argument that its revenues are incidental.
We'd be delighted to see Pacific Legal's lawsuit succeed. But if one assumes that Chief Justice John Roberts adopted the "saving construction" for political reasons, it strikes us as highly unlikely that he would now strike down ObamaCare on Origination Clause grounds when he could sustain it without nearly the level of intellectual gymnastics he employed in the NFIB case.
It's also inaccurate to say that the court's opinion upholding ObamaCare opened the door to an Origination Clause challenge. For the law contains many other taxes--including a Medicare levy on investment income and excise taxes on such things as medical devices and tanning salons--which Congress knowingly enacted as taxes for the purpose of raising revenue. And Congress did, however unrealistically, foresee a surplus. It's still far from clear that ObamaCare was a "Bill for raising Revenue," since its main purpose was to remake the health insurance market. But these other taxes, not the mandate, provide the strongest argument that it was.
Even if we assume ObamaCare was a "Bill for raising Revenue," there's one further problem. Although it's true that the version of the law that was finally enacted passed the Senate before the House, it was, as Pacific Legal notes in its pleading, styled a "House Resolution." Here's what happened (citations omitted):
In September, 2009, the House unanimously passed H.R. 3590, entitled the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009." The bill would have "amend[ed] the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees"; H.R. 3590 had nothing to do with health insurance reform. In November of that year, the Senate "amended" the House bill by gutting its contents, replacing those contents with health-insurance reforms (including the purchase requirement and associated payment), and renaming the bill the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The Senate's purported amendment resulted in the Affordable Care Act that became law.
This procedural dodge is known as a "shell bill" and is designed precisely to evade Origination Clause challenges. Pacific Legal notes in a press release that "the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether such a gut and switch ploy is constitutional." But the law at issue in Munoz-Flores was enacted in the same way, and one justice argued in a concurring opinion that that was sufficient to pass constitutional muster under the Origination Clause:
The enrolled bill's indication of its House of origin establishes that fact as officially and authoritatively as it establishes the fact that its recited text was adopted by both Houses. . . . We should no more gainsay Congress' official assertion of the origin of a bill than we would gainsay its official assertion that the bill was passed by the requisite quorum, or any more than Congress or the President would gainsay the official assertion of this Court that a judgment was duly considered and approved by our majority vote. Mutual regard between the coordinate branches, and the interest of certainty, both demand that official representations regarding such matters of internal process be accepted at face value.
That justice was Antonin Scalia, one of the four dissenters in NFIB v. Sebelius. There is every reason to think the Origination Clause will not save us from ObamaCare.
Reason Magazine calls this The Bush Tax Cut Issue in One Chart
Federal outlays and receipts in the last two years of the Clinton Administration, all eight years of George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s first term:
The tax cuts took effect in 2003. The congress sworn to end them was sworn in Jan. 2007. During that time, revenues exploded and deficits plummeted.
Spending marches upward no matter who is in office or how much money we take in. Both revenues and spending are much worse in recession. So to solve the budget shortfall, we choose to trigger another recession.
The Internal Revenue Service has released new rules for investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends earned by high-income individuals that passed Congress as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law.
The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for healthcare, goes into effect in 2013. It is the first surtax to be applied to capital gains and dividend income.
The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.
The tax applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging from stocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.
The 159 pages of rules spell out when the tax applies to trusts and annuities, as well as to individual securities traders.
Released late on Friday, the new regulations include a 0.9 percent healthcare tax on wages for high-income individuals.
Both sets of rules will be published on Wednesday in the Federal Register.
The proposed rules are effective starting January 1. Before making the rules final, the IRS will take public comments and hold hearings in April.
Together, the two taxes are estimated to raise $317.7 billion over 10 years, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis released in June.
To illustrate when the tax applies, the IRS offered an example of a taxpayer filing as a single individual who makes $180,000 in wage income plus $90,000 from investment income. The individual's modified adjusted gross income is $270,000.
The 3.8 percent tax applies to the $70,000, and the individual would pay $2,660 in surtaxes, the IRS said.
The IRS plans to release a new form for taxpayers to fill out for this tax when filing 2013 returns.
The new rules leave some questions unanswered, tax experts said. It was unclear how rental income will be treated under the new rules, said Michael Grace, managing director at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP law firm in Washington.
"The proposed regulations surely will increase tax compliance burdens for individuals," said Grace, a former IRS official. "There's clearly some drafting left to be done."
"AT the moment my thinking is that the Reps should give BO the rates on the rich on which he campaigned and won , , , and the static assumption 8-9 days of government that they will pay for. Then have it out over the rest of it."
That makes some PR and conciliatory tone sense, is tempting, and is probably what Speaker Boehner is thinking, but...
That 10% increase isn't the only increase coming. You will be signing on with taking down the economy.
Giving on that point does NOT make you more likely to win on the other points.
By the same logic (on which he campaigned and won), each House Republican campaigned on the opposite - and won. If the President's win was on issues, specifically raising any tax rates, and not on personality, negative mudslinging etc., then where were his coat tails?
Congress is a competing, co-equal branch on these divided issues, not a cooperative branch. They are a check and a balance against all that he wants. If the President was right, then fine, lesson learned, but each Republican House member knows better. Rate hikes kill off growth and jobs. Each needs to vote what they believe is the best interest of the country. Each will face a worse electoral challenge if they don't.
The constitution gives appropriations and revenue raising authority first to the congress, if I understand it correctly. The constitution, by my reading, defines the size and scope of government as the least of what the House, Senate, Executive and Judiciary can accept. The President is in a stronger position only to the extent that he may be the only one with a spine.
Tip O'Neill's members gave votes to Reagan tax cuts because either the individual representative or the constituents sided with Reagan, not out of deference to the national election. Many of those districts I think were southern or rural and were becoming Democrat in name only. Gingrich, just mentioned, shut down the government twice instead of playing nice and violating their principles. They were reelected.
One of the two biggest showstoppers today threatening to shut down USA government and private competitivenes, and force us into immediate recession is the wisdom and experience of raising taxes on the rich. GOP House members are pledged not to do it. The President says no deal without it. The media withholds the facts and then polls the public on the assignment of blame.
France is also losing wealth, millionaires and revenues with even more punitive policies.
I already posted on 'Tax Issues', now I ask here on 'Media Issues', where is this story?
Someone please link footage of broadcast network news leading story or link to front page coverage on the Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, etc. etc. Even in the Wall Street Journal news sections, not opinion. It isn't an opinion. It's a stubborn fact, and an extremely timely and relevant story.
I whine in general, often, about the need to go to biased, right wing sources to get basic, pertinent, public policy information. But my willingness to dig for data doesn't solve anything politically or economically if only a few right wingers get the information. This story is one specific example.
The Budget Baseline Con December 4, 2012 How Washington fools the public about spending 'cuts.'
...President Obama and John Boehner are playing by the dysfunctional Beltway rules. The rules work if you like bigger government, but Republicans need a new strategy, which starts by exposing the rigged game of "baseline budgeting."
Both the White House and House Republicans are pretending that their goal is "reducing the deficit," which they suggest means making real spending choices. They are talking about a "$4 trillion plan," or something, regardless of how that number is reached.
Here's the reality: Those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill's "baseline" has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections, which means before anyone has submitted a budget or cast a single vote. Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline, not in absolute terms.
The most absurd current example is Mr. Obama's claim that his "$4 trillion" plan reduces the deficit by about $800 billion over 10 years by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But those "savings," as he calls them, are measured against a White House budget office spending baseline that is fictional. Those wars are already being unwound and everyone knows the money will never be spent. But they are called "savings" to gull the public and make the deficit reduction add up to a large-sounding $4 trillion.
The baseline scam also exists in many states, and no less a Democrat than New York Governor Andrew Cuomo denounced it in 2011 as a "sham" and "deceptive." He wrote in the New York Post that state spending was "dictated by hundreds of rates and formulas that are marbleized throughout New York State laws that govern different programs—formulas that have been built into the law over decades, without regard to fiscal realities, performance or accountability." Then he proceeded to continue baseline budgeting.
In Washington, Democrats designed this system to make it easier to defend annual spending increases and to portray any reduction in the baseline as a spending "cut." Chris Wallace called Timothy Geithner on this "gimmick" on "Fox News Sunday" this week, only to have the Treasury Secretary insist it's real.
Republicans used to object to this game, but in recent years they seem to have given up. In an October 2010 speech at the American Enterprise Institute, House Speaker Boehner proposed that "we ought to start at square one" and rewrite the 1974 budget act. But he then dropped the idea, and in the current debate the GOP is putting itself at a major disadvantage by negotiating off the phony baseline. In a press release Tuesday, his own office advertised the need for "spending cuts" that aren't even cuts.
If Republicans really want to slow the growth in spending, they need to stop playing by Beltway rules and start explaining to America why Mr. Obama keeps saying he's cutting spending even as spending and deficits keep going up and up and up.
A letter to the editor published after the election in Barrons:
A Warm Thank You
To the Editor:
This 50-something, white, conservative Republican wishes to thank America’s youth for sacrificing their financial futures and standard of living so that boomers, such as my wife and I, can look forward to a long and comfy retirement, which we could easily have afforded on our own. Now we have the youth as our guarantors and providers of a little something extra.
As reported by the national exit poll conducted by Edison Research, Americans aged 18 to 29 voted 60% to 36% for Barack Obama. Prior to Obama’s re-election, I believed that it was morally wrong for my generation to pass a crushing national debt on to the next one.
The debt will top $20 trillion before Obama moves out of the White House, and it will include spiraling retirement-related costs that the administration has shown zero interest in bringing under control, largely driven by baby boomers piling into the Social Security and Medicare systems.
With the president’s electoral crushing of Mitt Romney, my overriding sense of morality and guilt have vanished. Thank you, kids!
Tuesday, September 18, just a week after the attack and two days after Rice’s appearance, on the "Late Show With David Letterman."
LETTERMAN: Now, I don’t understand, um, the ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?
OBAMA: Here's what happened. ... You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who made an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam --
LETTERMAN: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.
OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.
Morris: "We have got to defeat [ratification of] all these [UN] treaties."
The secessionist movement should have begun with disbanding or leaving the UN as we know it. The UN with one 'nation' one vote, that includes all dictatorships and Kleptocracies, should be for talk, and not US hosted or sponsored. An organization of like minded democracies with some sense of proportion should be formed for negotiating treaties.
From the piece, "One settler leader told me the biggest problem in the West Bank today is “traffic jams.” "
Tom Friedman can't resist putting things back on Israel, 'a rising group of far-right settler-activists'... 'plans to build a huge block of settlements in the heart of the West Bank' etc. Why not put it back on the enemies of Israel that the result of decades of pursuing destruction and refusing to negotiate peace in good faith is Jewish-Israeli traffic jams in the contested West Bank.
Israel is doing quite well while their enemies seem to have trouble recognizing failure.
Yes, Friedman's sense of history here and his construction of the three models is quite good.
Another point within the fiscal cliff options that the Republican House faces I will stick here. To the extent that elected Republicans vote for Obama Democrat policies in order to be more liked in Washington and in media, we will see more and more bitter challenges come within the Republican party. From that we will see more not-ready-for-prime-time candidates winning endorsement (Todd Aiken etc) screwing up their own race and others with it.
To the extent that elected Republicans merge their proven skills of getting elected with all that is good about tea party principles, from my point of view we have a strong chance to win the next off-year election in the House and perhaps many, many more.
ABC World News with Diane Sawyer continues to tout the Obama Administration’s spin that tax hikes on the wealthy are the only solution to the looming “fiscal cliff” catastrophe. According to an analysis from the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute, in the three weeks following President Obama’s re-election, World News devoted more than 10 minutes 18 seconds to talk of tax hikes and just 35 seconds to spending cuts (a 17-1 margin).
NBC Nightly News discussed taxes more than twice as often as spending (4 minutes 23 seconds to 1 minute 47 seconds.), while CBS Evening News gave tax hikes only three more minutes of coverage (14 minutes 5 seconds to 10 minutes 12 seconds). However, more than a third of CBS’s spending cut coverage total comes from one story detailing the horrific downside of spending cuts.
ABC was by far the worst offender, refusing to even entertain spending cuts as a viable solution to the Obama Administration’s crushing budget deficits.
Obama Should Return To Clinton-Era Spending Levels
Fiscal Policy: Talk of Clinton-era tax rates ignores the fact that the former president, working with a GOP Congress, cut spending as a share of GDP and produced four balanced budgets by focusing on growth, not spending.
Even as he pushes $150 billion in new "stimulus" spending, President Obama argues that to avoid the fiscal cliff we must return to Clinton-era tax rates for wealthy households, with a top marginal rate of 39.6% vs. the Bush-era 35%. Clinton's was an age of balanced budgets and economic growth.
But it was also an era of budgetary restraint in which both parties, not just the GOP, still produced budgets.
It was one, too, in which a Republican Congress led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich produced welfare reform, killed the precursor to cap and trade — Bill Clinton's BTU tax — and stopped ObamaCare's predecessor, HillaryCare, dead in its tracks.
As the Cato Institute's Steve H. Hanke points out, when President Clinton took office in 1993, government expenditures were 22.1% of GDP. When he departed in 2000, the federal government's share of the economy had been squeezed to a low of 18.2%, a decline of 3.9 percentage points. No other modern president has even come close (see table).
Under Clinton, federal spending averaged 19.8% of GDP. In contrast, spending under Obama over the past four years has averaged 24.4% of GDP.
Revenues from Clinton-era tax rates were actually used to pay down the national debt and produce four successive budget surpluses. Obama's tax increases will simply fund new spending.
The spending restraint of the Clinton/Gingrich era was so successful and disciplined that it led President Clinton in his January 1996 State of the Union address to proclaim that "the era of big government is over." In contrast, President Obama has argued that "the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little."
Not only has he increased total welfare spending by $193 billion since taking office, he has also ballooned the number of food stamp recipients to more than 47 million and actively worked to dismantle the 1996 welfare reform act by neutering its work requirement through executive order.
Obama's first stimulus bill included funding to help states pay for additional welfare recipients and eliminated many of the incentives that encouraged states to reduce their welfare rolls. More recently, the Obama administration announced plans to waive many of welfare reform's work requirements.
Now ObamaCare threatens to increase health care costs while increasing Medicaid's burden on the states.
Of course, President Clinton benefited from President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, which unleashed the dot-com boom and a period of unparalleled technological creativity and development.
During this boom, the economy grew by one-third and tax receipts doubled as we added the equivalent of the West German economy to our own.
Clearly tax cuts combined with spending cuts work, as does encouraging and rewarding entrepreneurship and not punishing and demonizing success. When government sucks all the economic oxygen out of the room, it becomes hard for real job creators to breathe.
Obama has been very selective in his admiration of the Clinton era. Adopt the spending levels and restraint,Mr. President, not the tax rates.
Content sharing, in excerpts, with major media on the forum is mutual - for the record. We normally give credit. They rarely do.
DougMacG, DBMA public forum December 03, 2012, posted 10:11:17 AM » "At an interagency teleconference in late April , Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?” http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2362.msg67996#msg67996
This matter of massive defense cuts as part of the cliff is far too important to be forgotten in frustrated petulance...
The thing with the defense cuts is that Obama is President for the next 4 years. Defense cuts weaken our country but we just did that anyway.
A conservative view of defense is that we could be mean, scary, well-armed and still spend a lot less - through deterrence and more selective use of our forces. I am more interventionist but the country right now is not. Call it Iraq war fatigue.
The Clinton mistake was to gut intelligence. Gutting intelligence is stupid - no pun intended.
The other part of willingness to go over the fiscal cliff (back to tax policy themes) is that higher taxes is what people get for choosing to go down Obama Avenue. Big government costs big money. Not just for the guy behind the tree. Big cradle to grave, life of Julia, government will cost you and your family big money and here is your new bill.
If Obama refuses to budge on the budget deal, R's can refuse to budge on debt ceiling appeasement. Vote present - vote no. They say default but I say it means an instantly balanced budget. Bigger spending cuts than a libertarian-conservative's wildest dream. And it will all be Obama's fault.
There go the Obama second term initiatives (and first term programs like Obamacare) right down the drain - QE3,4,5 and everything else. He keeps Air Force One, the golf membership, Supreme Court appointments, and that's about it.
"The Reps have utterly failed to have a sound bite answer to the sound bite question, What the hell is wrong to going back to the Clinton era tax rates?"
Maybe so for them, but you and I have answered that. a) We aren't competing in a 1990's global economy anymore. b) There are many many many other new taxes. c) There are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of new regulations that cripple production enacted since the 1990s that go beyond explicit taxation. d) Doesn't it follow that we also could go back to Clinton Gingrich SPENDING LEVELS?! The point of the fiscal cliff is the deficit and the deficit is ALL about spending. Maybe Clinton (or Eisenhower) had spending levels right.
e) Posted earlier, Did ANYONE notice that the UK lost 60% of its millionaires in one year by bumping up the tax rate. Static scoring is the biggest economic lie of our collective lifetimes.
Revenues to the US Treasury doubled in the 1980s when the top rate fell from 70% to 28% and the number of millionaires in the UK dropped by 60% in one year with falling revenues when the tax rate on millionaires went up 10%.
Do retailers bring in more people and more revenue than ever before on Black Friday by raising prices or by having sales? Ask them.
Mitch Daniels is the latest to point to the 47% remark as the problem. I thought there would be a constant drip of these clandestine gaffe releases and there wasn't. Romney should have reacted strongly to correct that to what it was and let it be more than that.
This was the biggest turning point of the 2012 campaign, totally unmentioned by all the professional analysts: NFIB v Sebelius, the Roberts decision on Obamacare.
Strike that down and Romney could point out the difference between a Massachusetts plan and a federal takeover of healthcare - one was constitutional, one wasn't. One man who hinted that America could just strike it down in the election removed the entire argument, that his signature achievement was unconstitutional, from the Presidential campaign.
(Side note: I will read this holiday season what I was too angry to read last summer, the decision in its entirety, and hope to discuss it in detail over on the constitutional thread if anyone else is interested.)
"Give Buraq everything he asks for. Vote present."
They can vote no on bad ideas. They can go with stupidity about 2% up for income over a million and let those chips fall. The GOP House IMO cannot cross the line very far to support what they do not support. There is not much downside IMO for them using hard negotiations now at the fiscal cliff and during the debt ceiling crisis coming in only a month or two. If spending cuts are not going to happen, then tax rates going up for everyone as a consequence. Who is the party of bigger spending, bigger government, healthcare takeover and a bigger share of everyone's income going to pay for the high cost of bigger and bigger government? Not the GOP. Especially not the Republican House if they passed a number of better options that died in the Dem Senate or on the President's desk.
"At an interagency teleconference in late April , Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?”
RECOMMENDATION 2.1: ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM BY 2012 TO LOWER RATES, REDUCE DEFICITS, AND SIMPLIFY THE CODE. Eliminate all income tax expenditures [deductions and other tax preferences], dedicate a portion of the additional revenue to deficit reduction, and use the remaining revenue to lower rates and add back necessary expenditures and credits.
A “zero plan” could reduce income tax rates to as low as 8%, 14%, and 23%. Even after adding back a number of larger tax expenditures, rates would still remain significantly lower than under current law.
2.2.2 Eliminate all tax expenditures for businesses. Corporate tax reform should eliminate special subsidies for different industries. By eliminating business tax expenditures – currently more than 75 – the corporate tax rate can be significantly reduced while contributing to deficit reduction. A lower overall tax rate will improve American business competitiveness. Abolishing special subsidies will also create an even playing field for all businesses instead of artificially picking winners and losers.
For the record, Alan Simpson was a moderate Republican as a Senator, Erskine Bowles was Clinton's Chief of Staff; the commission was appointed by (first term) Pres. Barack Obama and the results were totally ignored.
One simple excerpt on spending:
RECOMMENDATION 1.1: CAP DISCRETIONARY SPENDING THROUGH 2020. Hold spending in 2012 equal to or lower than spending in 2011, and return spending to pre-crisis 2008 levels in real terms in 2013. Limit future spending growth to half the projected inflation rate through 2020. ---------------
This is not rocket science, people. Put SOME limit on spending.
Britain's Missing Millionaires Income tax rates rise but revenues fall.
A funny thing often happens on the way to soaking the rich: They don't stick around for the bath. Take Britain, where Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs service reports that the number of taxpayers declaring £1 million a year in income fell by more than 60% in fiscal 2010-2011 from the year before.
That was the year that millionaires became liable for the 50% income-tax rate that Gordon Brown's government introduced in its final days in 2010, up from the previous 40% rate. Lo, the total number of millionaire tax filers plunged to 6,000 in 2010-2011, from 16,000 in 2009-2010.
The new tax was meant to raise about £2.5 billion more revenue. So much for that. In 2009-2010 British millionaires contributed about £13.4 billion to the public coffers, or just under 9% of the total tax liability of all taxpayers that year. At the 50% rate, the shrunken pool yielded £6.5 billion, or about 4.4%.
The British press is abuzz with the notion that 10,000 millionaires left the country in the interim, and no doubt some did make for their chalets in Gstaad. Others may have brought forward more income in 2009-2010, knowing the higher rate was on its way. No doubt, too, the overall lousy economy took its toll.
Prime Minister David Cameron decided earlier this year to lower the 50% rate to 45%, meaning we may see at least some of the millionaires return to the U.K. But the figures are another reminder that incentives matter.
Politicians would love to lay the whole burden of their policies on a tiny minority of the rich, but you can't finance the welfare state on the shoulders of the 1%. That's something for the U.S. to remember as President Obama pretends he can fill a $1 trillion budget hole with tax hikes on "millionaires and billionaires."
Obj, Bill Whittle IS excellent. Wow. Thank you for great post! I wrote some time ago that what Republicans and conservative need to win is clarity. Bill Whittle exudes clarity while our candidates exude meandering thoughts and muddled messages.
Wal-Mart and McDonald’s: What’s wrong with U.S. employment The walkouts were no coincidence. Low wages are strangling the economy, and Washington needs to pay attention By Robert Reich -------
No. Washington and other meddling governments are the cause. Low wages are market wages when there is a dearth of successful new startups or existing companies flourishing to compete for the services of these workers.
'Entry level' jobs are intended for entry level workers, or people who earn only a portion of the money in a multi- income household.
"These workers are not teenagers. Most have to support their families."
Flipping fast food burgers and working the drive up window does not raise a family, allow your wife to stay home with the children or put the kids through college. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with having a first job, a first rung on the economic ladder, making the second, third and fourth rungs each an easier step. What is wrong is that someone removed the ladder - by implementing the big government, private strangulation policies of Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Barack Obama et al.
"More than 46 million Americans now live below the poverty line."
MILLIONS more than that are underemployed, unemployed or spome other form of just not working. We are pursuing 'fairness' at the expense of lost national prosperity and lost economic opportunity. That said, "poverty" as measured by the Census Bureau is a false measure and does not count most of their transfer payment income.
Startups in America are occurring at the lowest rate in 40 years. I don't suppose 47,000 new regulations in the last 47 months and new taxes impending on everyone and everything has anything to do with that.
"Organizing makes economic sense."
Force someone to pay you more than you are worth to the enterprise, or put them out of business, is the answer of the left. Not for these people to rise up freely and contribute to the economy with more valuable and productive work.
"wage gains are likely to come out of profits...That wouldn’t be such a bad thing."
To the Professor of Public Policy at Berkeley: It will result in even fewer jobs, you birdbrain. Non-performing restaurants CLOSE! Potential new businesses projected to never provide a healthy return on investment simply don't open. Take a look around.
"At any point they wanted to, the President and the Congress could reduce the "cliff" to a series of foothills by breaking the problem into ten or twenty component parts."
Isn't that exactly what you do when you have a seemingly insurmountable large task at hand. Democrats are doing the opposite, focusing only on the one part that can't be done and wouldn't solve the problem if it could.
Negotiating is important, roughly 5th on the priority list far behind legislating a solution and communicating. ------------ Going through some papers yesterday I came across a yellowed out clipping of the actual text of the Contract with America, in small print from page 20 of the local paper Sunday before the 1994 election - far better coverage than any Republican proposal has gotten since. I pulled out a magnifying glass and read to see if anything that should have been done then would have prevented the situation today. I has two lists, first what they will do immediately the first day and second list of what they will bring to a vote in the first 100 days: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/jgloekler/documents/contract.pdf
From the first list:
• SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; • EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
Both I suppose would have to be in the constitution to be binding on future congresses, but both in actual practice would make the faux negotiations we face today moot.
First on the 100 day list: 1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment..."
That alone, ratified back then, would have removed the need for all future debt ceiling crises, credit downgrades and fiscal cliffs.
I heard today that Rice was the one responsible for passing on the Sudanese offer years ago to hand over Bin Laden. Is this accurate?
I would think the timing on that is close. Possible that she would be advising on that decision and that we will never know. Maybe she advised yes on the aspirin factory bombing. Did they intend to hit him then or was that really the distraction alleged from the Monica Lewinsky story? I Haven't read any Clinton staff autobiographies. My interests lie more with non-fiction. )
Liberals blast Susan Rice's 'outrageous' investments in Canadian pipeline firm By Julian Pecquet - 11/30/12 10:48 AM ET
A liberal group launched an online petition Friday demanding that potential secretary of State nominee Susan Rice divest herself of “every dollar of stock” in the Canadian company seeking approval for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline to the Gulf Coast.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations owns between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada Corp. stock, according to her financial disclosure forms. The pipeline needs approval from the State Department before it can go forward.
If you thought President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder had given up on closing Guantanamo Bay and bringing jihadists to American soil, think again. Two troubling developments on the Gitmo front should have every American on edge.
The first White House maneuver took place in October, while much of the public and the media were preoccupied with election news. On Oct. 2, Obama's cash-strapped Illinois pals announced that the federal government bought out the Thomson Correctional Center in western Illinois for $165 million. According to Watchdog.org, a recent appraisal put the value of the facility at $220 million.
Democratic Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin led the lobbying campaign for the deal, along with Illinois Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who is overseeing an overall $43 billion state budget deficit and scraping for every available penny. The Thomson campus has been an empty Taj Mahal for more than a decade because profligate state officials had no money for operations. Economic development gurus (using the same phony math of federal stimulus peddlers) claim the newly federalized project will bring in $1 billion.
Durbin told a local Illinois paper that "the decision to move ahead came directly from President Barack Obama" and that he had secured the green light during a discussion on Air Force One earlier in the spring. But this gift to Obama's Illinois homeboys wasn't just a run-of-the-mill campaign favor.
Obama's unilateral and unprecedented decision steamrolled over bipartisan congressional opposition to the purchase. That opposition dates back to 2009, when the White House first floated the idea of using Thomson to house jihadi enemy combatants detained in Cuba. As you may recall, the scheme caused a national uproar. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department's budget, blocked the administration from using unspent DOJ funds for the deal. With bipartisan support, Congress passed a law barring the transfer of Gitmo detainees to Thomson or any other civilian prison.
The message was clear: Taxpayers don't want manipulative Gitmo detainees or their three-ring circuses of transnationalist sympathizers and left-wing lawyers on American soil. Period.
But when this imperial presidency can't get its way in the court of public opinion, it simply circumvents the deliberative process. As Wolf noted: The shady deal "directly violates the clear objection of the House Appropriations Committee and goes against the bipartisan objections of members in the House and Senate, who have noted that approving this request would allow Thomson to take precedence over previously funded prisons in Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia and New Hampshire."
Obama and his Illinois gang insist that Thomson will not become Gitmo North. But denial is more than a river in the Muslim Brotherhood's homeland.
The 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, which spearheaded the movement against shipping jihadi detainees to the mainland, exposed the fine print of the Obama DOJ's deal with the state of Illinois. The purpose of the Thomson facility acquisition, according to the DOJ notice filed in the D.C. courts, included this clause:
"... as well as to provide humane and secure confinement of individuals held under authority of any Act of Congress, and such other persons as in the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States are proper subjects for confinement in such institutions."
Guess whom that covers? Yup: Gitmo detainees, who are being held under the 2001 congressional act known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Now, bear all this in mind as you consider the second and more recent Gitmo gambit. On Wednesday, in response to a whistleblowing report from Fox News homeland security reporter Catherine Herridge, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., released a General Accounting Office report exploring the feasibility of transferring the Gitmo gang to civilian prisons.
Lo and behold, Feinstein concluded, the report "demonstrates that if the political will exists, we could finally close Guantanamo without imperiling our national security."
The "political will" does not exist now, nor has it ever. But thanks to Obama's sneaky, back-door misappropriation of government funds to buy Thomson, the feds have exactly what they need to fulfill the progressive-in-chief's Gitmo closure promise: a shiny, turnkey palace in crony land tailor-made for union workers, lawyers and terror plotters to call their new home.
Just in case our limited government zeal becomes so extreme and that our very few and simple laws, taxes and regulations are successfully in place, working as intended, with consent of the governed, and in case Congress is tempted to not meet at all during the year, the constitution requires:
"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."
I think the framers envisioned a smaller government than what we got.