According to the Wall Street Journal, Pat Toomey and the five other Republicans on the Congressional "deficit supercommittee" recently proposed a plan with $750 billion in spending cuts and $300-500 billion in new revenue over 10 years. Under the plan, tax rates would be cut--the top rate would fall from 35% to 28%, and rates from other brackets would be lowered proportionally. However, the plan more than makes up for it by severely limiting deductions, very similar to a bipartisan tax reform measure that was enacted in 1986. The Joint Tax Committee determined that even with no economic growth, the tax changes would raise $300 billion in tax revenue over the next decade. (An additional $100-200 billion would come from changing the way tax brackets are adjusted for inflation.)
Democrats, however, rejected the proposal. And one can only wonder why. There were no cuts to Medicare or Medicaid. The 1.5 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases is better for the Dems than the 3 to 1 ratio promised by the Simpson-Bowles plan.
It could be that Democrats see lower tax rates as symbolically intolerable, even if the rich (who reap most of the benefits from tax deductions) would actually pay more under the new plan. Or, it could be that they see "compromise" as a 1 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases. In that case, it seems the Democrats would have rejected Simpson-Bowles as well, unless (as some conservative critics claim) it was a bluff containing spending cuts that would never materialize.
Either way, Democrats have just defeated a plan that provided the "balanced approach" to deficit reduction that they keep clamoring for. And by eliminating deductions, it would have made the tax code more fair and helped to curb special interest power as well.
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Government by the special interests, for the special interests
As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama focused much of his message around overcoming "politics as usual" and bringing about change that would benefit the true public interest. That was one of the main reasons I voted for him, despite the fact that I disagreed with him on most matters of economic policy. When Obama was elected, much of the country hoped that he would take steps to work with Republicans and to cut down the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington.
In reality, however, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid did exactly the opposite. In their two years of unopposed control over Washington, they rarely passed up an opportunity to throw red meat to their favored special interests, usually screwing over the American people as a result. Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard has the full story, but here's a summary:
1. A massive stimulus bill heavy on pork and various pipe dreams such as "green initiatives," but little actual stimulus.
2. Giving a majority stake in Chrysler to the United Auto Workers. (Isn't that a conflict of interest for a labor union to own the company that employs its members?)
3. The attempted cap-and-trade bill, which would have made environmentalists happy--but which would also have hit businesses and individuals extremely hard, likely causing a huge spike in unemployment
4. The toothless financial reform bill, basically a sweetheart deal for Goldman Sachs and all the other Wall Street mega-banks that donated large sums of money to Obama's campaign.
5. When trying to get votes for the health care bill in 2009, Pelosi actually told reluctant Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn), "The store is open. Now is the time to get your provisions." Although, after the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase," that statement hardly seems surprising.
And all of this from a president who promised to minimize the influence of special-interest lobbyists. Very gifted in doublespeak, indeed.
In reality, however, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid did exactly the opposite. In their two years of unopposed control over Washington, they rarely passed up an opportunity to throw red meat to their favored special interests, usually screwing over the American people as a result. Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard has the full story, but here's a summary:
1. A massive stimulus bill heavy on pork and various pipe dreams such as "green initiatives," but little actual stimulus.
2. Giving a majority stake in Chrysler to the United Auto Workers. (Isn't that a conflict of interest for a labor union to own the company that employs its members?)
3. The attempted cap-and-trade bill, which would have made environmentalists happy--but which would also have hit businesses and individuals extremely hard, likely causing a huge spike in unemployment
4. The toothless financial reform bill, basically a sweetheart deal for Goldman Sachs and all the other Wall Street mega-banks that donated large sums of money to Obama's campaign.
5. When trying to get votes for the health care bill in 2009, Pelosi actually told reluctant Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn), "The store is open. Now is the time to get your provisions." Although, after the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase," that statement hardly seems surprising.
And all of this from a president who promised to minimize the influence of special-interest lobbyists. Very gifted in doublespeak, indeed.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Bad news for Dems: Americans don't trust the government
We're almost three years into a crippling economic slump. Economic inequality is skyrocketing. Democrats are trying their hardest to blame the Tea Party for the recent debt crisis. Yet voters are not moving towards the Democrats or toward big government in any significant numbers. Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg recently asked voters why, and his conclusion was quite enlightening. According to Greenberg, voters simply do not trust the government to carry out its policies fairly. This distrust in government translates to distrust of big-government progressives and of Democrats in general.
The voters' take on TARP, for instance, was that "government works for the irresponsible, not the responsible." "Average citizens," they said, "don't get money for free." Overall, the Americans in Greenberg's survey see a government made up of politicians that work only for themselves, Wall Street lobbyists, campaign donors, and special interest groups. The American people are ignored. The 2009 stimulus, the lack of seriousness about controlling the borders, the attempted cap-and-trade legislation, and the number of Obama cabinet members with ties to Goldman Sachs are all seen as indicators of how much Washington is controlled by special interest lobbyists and campaign money.
Greenberg goes on to suggest several ways that Democrats can "detoxify" government and renew voters' faith in progressivism. But is detoxifying government really possible? Hasn't Greenberg just pointed out the fundamental problem with big government? If we had a government of angels, I'd be a progressive too. The problem is, we don't. We have a government made up of people--all of them flawed, inherently corruptible, and inherently self-interested at least to some degree. We've all heard the saying, "Power corrupts." It is simply not realistic to expect that people, when given the power of a seat in Congress, will consistently put the interests of the people ahead of themselves and their campaign donors. I'd love for someone to think of a counterexample--a government that consistently did the right thing for its people, decade after decade.
But most of the time, at least, government doesn't work that way. As government gets bigger, those who benefit are mostly a well-connected few. That certainly happened under the big-government crony capitalists of the Bush administration and it's happening now. And Americans seem to be figuring that out.
The voters' take on TARP, for instance, was that "government works for the irresponsible, not the responsible." "Average citizens," they said, "don't get money for free." Overall, the Americans in Greenberg's survey see a government made up of politicians that work only for themselves, Wall Street lobbyists, campaign donors, and special interest groups. The American people are ignored. The 2009 stimulus, the lack of seriousness about controlling the borders, the attempted cap-and-trade legislation, and the number of Obama cabinet members with ties to Goldman Sachs are all seen as indicators of how much Washington is controlled by special interest lobbyists and campaign money.
Greenberg goes on to suggest several ways that Democrats can "detoxify" government and renew voters' faith in progressivism. But is detoxifying government really possible? Hasn't Greenberg just pointed out the fundamental problem with big government? If we had a government of angels, I'd be a progressive too. The problem is, we don't. We have a government made up of people--all of them flawed, inherently corruptible, and inherently self-interested at least to some degree. We've all heard the saying, "Power corrupts." It is simply not realistic to expect that people, when given the power of a seat in Congress, will consistently put the interests of the people ahead of themselves and their campaign donors. I'd love for someone to think of a counterexample--a government that consistently did the right thing for its people, decade after decade.
But most of the time, at least, government doesn't work that way. As government gets bigger, those who benefit are mostly a well-connected few. That certainly happened under the big-government crony capitalists of the Bush administration and it's happening now. And Americans seem to be figuring that out.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
A victory over special interests in Wisconsin
In general, I have no problem with private sector unions. They represent workers and negotiate with companies who have strong incentives to cut costs in order to make a profit. Public sector unions, on the other hand, are a completely different story. They are employed by government, whose goal is not to make a profit but to get votes. If anything, government has an incentive to overpay their workers in order to try to get their votes. It is also not fair that public sector unions, who take their money out of the taxpayer-funded salaries of public workers, are free to donate vast sums to political parties. Finally, we have George Meany, the former President of the AFL-CIO, who said in 1955 that "it is impossible to bargain collectively with the government."
Public sector unions, basically, are just another one of the special interests that are currently infesting governments throughout the country. Thus, I believed that Scott Walker's bill which limited the collective bargaining power of public sector unions in Wisconsin was a step in the right direction. Predictably, Democrats fought Gov. Walker tooth and nail, first by fleeing the state, then by organizing an attempted recall of the six Republican lawmakers they saw as most vulnerable. They needed three of the six seats to regain control of the Wisconsin senate.
What happened? Despite staggering amounts of money and effort from organized labor, the Democrats only managed to win back two seats--one in a solidly Democratic district, the other held by a man who had left his wife and moved outside his district to live with his mistress. The other four recall elections were not close.
It certainly helped that Walker's bill helped school districts save millions of dollars by eliminating the teachers union's monopoly power on health insurance contracts, and that Walker's administration has had a very good record on jobs. It's good to know that people can still stand up to powerful special interests.
Public sector unions, basically, are just another one of the special interests that are currently infesting governments throughout the country. Thus, I believed that Scott Walker's bill which limited the collective bargaining power of public sector unions in Wisconsin was a step in the right direction. Predictably, Democrats fought Gov. Walker tooth and nail, first by fleeing the state, then by organizing an attempted recall of the six Republican lawmakers they saw as most vulnerable. They needed three of the six seats to regain control of the Wisconsin senate.
What happened? Despite staggering amounts of money and effort from organized labor, the Democrats only managed to win back two seats--one in a solidly Democratic district, the other held by a man who had left his wife and moved outside his district to live with his mistress. The other four recall elections were not close.
It certainly helped that Walker's bill helped school districts save millions of dollars by eliminating the teachers union's monopoly power on health insurance contracts, and that Walker's administration has had a very good record on jobs. It's good to know that people can still stand up to powerful special interests.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Two views on balancing the budget
Esquire today presented a very interesting left-right juxtaposition: two articles by former senators Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) about balancing the federal budget. Here is Hart's article and here is Packwood's.
So who's right? Well, neither. Or both. Hart understandably decries the failure to regulate financial markets. Hart also correctly points out that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined with the Bush tax cuts were not good for the deficit. Given that both the wars and the tax cuts have continued for more than a decade, at this point they are responsible for a huge chunk of the federal debt.
Now, the Bush tax cuts, by themselves, were not a bad idea. Hart's biggest mistake is his refusal to acknowledge that tax cuts can stimulate the economy--a strategy that is part of Keynesian economics and worked undeniably well under both Reagan and JFK. The problem is, if you cut taxes you need to restrain spending, and Bush did exactly the opposite. Here's an idea: pass a law that requires a tax increase for any military operation that continues longer than 10 days. That will keep deficits down, and it might make the trigger-happy contingent of the GOP (which thankfully seems to be in decline) less likely to push for war.
Packwood's article discusses the worrisome increase in total federal spending, with a particular emphasis on entitlements. He is right on there: unless something is done to stop the runaway growth of entitlement spending, deficits will explode in the next few decades. However, by failing to discuss anything besides entitlements, Packwood exemplifies a certain conservative myopia. If the GOP focuses too much on slashing entitlements and leaves everything else alone, they will lose election after election. It would almost take a Vulcan to not see it as unfair for seniors and Medicaid patients to have to make all the sacrifices. While restraining entitlements are essential, fiscal conservatives need to be just as willing to consider things like dismantling the American empire, eliminating foreign aid, cutting federal payroll, closing tax loopholes, and probably--in a decade or two--raising taxes in some form.
So who's right? Well, neither. Or both. Hart understandably decries the failure to regulate financial markets. Hart also correctly points out that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined with the Bush tax cuts were not good for the deficit. Given that both the wars and the tax cuts have continued for more than a decade, at this point they are responsible for a huge chunk of the federal debt.
Now, the Bush tax cuts, by themselves, were not a bad idea. Hart's biggest mistake is his refusal to acknowledge that tax cuts can stimulate the economy--a strategy that is part of Keynesian economics and worked undeniably well under both Reagan and JFK. The problem is, if you cut taxes you need to restrain spending, and Bush did exactly the opposite. Here's an idea: pass a law that requires a tax increase for any military operation that continues longer than 10 days. That will keep deficits down, and it might make the trigger-happy contingent of the GOP (which thankfully seems to be in decline) less likely to push for war.
Packwood's article discusses the worrisome increase in total federal spending, with a particular emphasis on entitlements. He is right on there: unless something is done to stop the runaway growth of entitlement spending, deficits will explode in the next few decades. However, by failing to discuss anything besides entitlements, Packwood exemplifies a certain conservative myopia. If the GOP focuses too much on slashing entitlements and leaves everything else alone, they will lose election after election. It would almost take a Vulcan to not see it as unfair for seniors and Medicaid patients to have to make all the sacrifices. While restraining entitlements are essential, fiscal conservatives need to be just as willing to consider things like dismantling the American empire, eliminating foreign aid, cutting federal payroll, closing tax loopholes, and probably--in a decade or two--raising taxes in some form.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The debt deal: kicking the can down the road
So, after a months-long fight over raising the debt ceiling, we finally have a deal. But what did it accomplish? Not much, according to this Washington Post analysis. In the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham:
“It’s a $3 trillion package that will allow $7 trillion to be added to the deficit over the next decade. We’re no longer running toward oblivion, we’re walking toward it.”
In the best-case scenario the deal will only cut 6-7% of federal spending over the next 10 years. That is ignoring the fact that federal spending is slated to increase by over 50% over the same time period. Meanwhile, unemployment is as high as ever. As fights go, the budget battle was reminiscent of the War of 1812, which featured years of nasty fighting and then a cease-fire that basically just restored the status quo ante bellum.
In general, I like divided government. When one party controls the House, Senate, and the White House, they tend to do things like send us into a protracted war without a clear objective, or an exit strategy, or a way to pay for it. The downside of divided government, however, was on full display over the last few weeks. With Democrats stubbornly refusing to cut or reform entitlements, and Republicans stubbornly refusing to raise revenue by closing loopholes or eliminating tax subsidies, there was little chance of achieving significant long-term deficit reduction. They also ignored the ongoing jobs crisis in their obsession with the deficit, refusing to consider more small business tax cuts or infrastructure spending that could help reverse unemployment. Indeed, the only compromise they could settle on was just kicking the can down the road.
“It’s a $3 trillion package that will allow $7 trillion to be added to the deficit over the next decade. We’re no longer running toward oblivion, we’re walking toward it.”
In the best-case scenario the deal will only cut 6-7% of federal spending over the next 10 years. That is ignoring the fact that federal spending is slated to increase by over 50% over the same time period. Meanwhile, unemployment is as high as ever. As fights go, the budget battle was reminiscent of the War of 1812, which featured years of nasty fighting and then a cease-fire that basically just restored the status quo ante bellum.
In general, I like divided government. When one party controls the House, Senate, and the White House, they tend to do things like send us into a protracted war without a clear objective, or an exit strategy, or a way to pay for it. The downside of divided government, however, was on full display over the last few weeks. With Democrats stubbornly refusing to cut or reform entitlements, and Republicans stubbornly refusing to raise revenue by closing loopholes or eliminating tax subsidies, there was little chance of achieving significant long-term deficit reduction. They also ignored the ongoing jobs crisis in their obsession with the deficit, refusing to consider more small business tax cuts or infrastructure spending that could help reverse unemployment. Indeed, the only compromise they could settle on was just kicking the can down the road.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The GOP's Test: Reality or Ideology?
Although the debt ceiling fight is by no means over, John Boehner and Harry Reid have come up with two plans that avoid raising taxes, and either of them seems to be a realistic option. One obstacle in the way of a completed deal is President Obama, who continues to push for a tax increase. However, it is doubtful that Obama would choose to veto a plan that passed the House and Senate and thus expose himself to the majority of the blame for a possible credit downgrade or any other adverse effects of the budget stalemate. The other obstacle is a number of House Republicans who continue to insist on more aggressive spending cuts and refuse to eliminate special tax breaks.
This, argues the Wall Street Journal, would be a big mistake, and I agree. The Boehner and Reid plans are not perfect, but they satisfy the GOP's #1 priority (no tax increases) and seem like they have support in Congress. If House Republicans torpedo them, they play into Obama's hands, allowing him to blame the GOP for the budget impasse. They then might be forced to accept a tax increase in order to avoid suffering the political fallout of the debt limit not being raised.
This is somewhat similar to the situation that Obama and the Democrats faced in 2009-10. They came into office with an impressive mandate, and the GOP's popularity was at historic lows as a result of the disasters of the Bush administration. With a down economy, the Democrats had an opportunity to cement a long-lasting majority by taking a center-left approach that focused on jobs (particularly private-sector jobs) and financial regulation while perhaps also expanding the safety net. Instead, they went whole hog, driven by their ideology instead of by the reality of the situation. They passed a stimulus that contained some good programs and tax cuts but was also stuffed with pork, did nothing for small businesses, and in the end was largely a disappointment. Then, despite continuing high unemployment, they abandoned the focus on jobs and passed ObamaCare, a decades-long liberal dream, without a single Republican vote. Immediately afterward, new hiring almost stopped. The Democrats were crushed in the 2010 election.
If the Republicans want to keep any of the gains they made in 2010, they need to learn from this mistake.
This, argues the Wall Street Journal, would be a big mistake, and I agree. The Boehner and Reid plans are not perfect, but they satisfy the GOP's #1 priority (no tax increases) and seem like they have support in Congress. If House Republicans torpedo them, they play into Obama's hands, allowing him to blame the GOP for the budget impasse. They then might be forced to accept a tax increase in order to avoid suffering the political fallout of the debt limit not being raised.
This is somewhat similar to the situation that Obama and the Democrats faced in 2009-10. They came into office with an impressive mandate, and the GOP's popularity was at historic lows as a result of the disasters of the Bush administration. With a down economy, the Democrats had an opportunity to cement a long-lasting majority by taking a center-left approach that focused on jobs (particularly private-sector jobs) and financial regulation while perhaps also expanding the safety net. Instead, they went whole hog, driven by their ideology instead of by the reality of the situation. They passed a stimulus that contained some good programs and tax cuts but was also stuffed with pork, did nothing for small businesses, and in the end was largely a disappointment. Then, despite continuing high unemployment, they abandoned the focus on jobs and passed ObamaCare, a decades-long liberal dream, without a single Republican vote. Immediately afterward, new hiring almost stopped. The Democrats were crushed in the 2010 election.
If the Republicans want to keep any of the gains they made in 2010, they need to learn from this mistake.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Steny Hoyer accidentally tells the truth
They say a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. So I suppose Democratic congressman Steny Hoyer committed a gaffe when he said that he opposes a constitutional balanced budget amendment because it would make it "virtually impossible" to raise taxes.
That's kind of the point. Raising taxes should not be easy to do. The last time I checked, we still have property rights, and it should not be easy for the government to simply decide to take more of our property and give it to whoever they want.
That's kind of the point. Raising taxes should not be easy to do. The last time I checked, we still have property rights, and it should not be easy for the government to simply decide to take more of our property and give it to whoever they want.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Obama's dismal performance on jobs
Obama came into office saying that he would revive the economy and create jobs, but at this point his handling of jobs and the economy has pretty much been a complete failure, as this article explains quite well.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers' latest report showed that the so-called stimulus created or saved only 2.4 million jobs, at a cost to the taxpayer of $250,000 per job. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in our leadership or the economy. As the author of the article says, it is "difficult to rally around what looks like foolishness."
Then, with the economy still down, the Democrats forced through ObamaCare. This was despite the fact that arguably the most liberal state in the country (Massachusetts) voted for a senator (Scott Brown) whose platform centered around his opposition to ObamaCare and the fact that he would be the crucial 41st vote needed to block it in the Senate. The health care law imposed a litany of new taxes and regulations on small businesses that drive up the cost of employment. Environmental regulations heaped further costs onto business, particularly manufacturing. Is it any surprise that the private sector is not eager to start hiring?
It seems that Obama thinks that jobs are created by government, not by entrepreneurs. The current economic slump has been a testament to that delusion.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers' latest report showed that the so-called stimulus created or saved only 2.4 million jobs, at a cost to the taxpayer of $250,000 per job. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in our leadership or the economy. As the author of the article says, it is "difficult to rally around what looks like foolishness."
Then, with the economy still down, the Democrats forced through ObamaCare. This was despite the fact that arguably the most liberal state in the country (Massachusetts) voted for a senator (Scott Brown) whose platform centered around his opposition to ObamaCare and the fact that he would be the crucial 41st vote needed to block it in the Senate. The health care law imposed a litany of new taxes and regulations on small businesses that drive up the cost of employment. Environmental regulations heaped further costs onto business, particularly manufacturing. Is it any surprise that the private sector is not eager to start hiring?
It seems that Obama thinks that jobs are created by government, not by entrepreneurs. The current economic slump has been a testament to that delusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)