Third Party & Independents: Archives

Dennis:

Our government spends too much money. Both sides do it, both sides accuse the other of being the problem, and both sides say they want to stop it. Neither one does.

I agree with some of your ideas. However, I’ve seen tax revenues increase, so I disagree with letting the tax cuts expire. In business, it makes sense to spend money to make money. With taxes, if a tax cut raises overall tax revenue, then its a good thing.

I also don’t like means based ideas. If you save money your whole life in order to be as self sufficient as possible, while I live high on the hog, do you really want to have lower benefits as a result? I don’t mind a modified system—some sort of bell curve—but its just not right to end up penalizing those who do the best job of saving money for retirement. If we do, why would anyone try to save?

Your other ideas have merit and I like them. I dont mind energy companies making money, and raising rates as their costs increase. I do mind them making record PROFITS while getting government assistance.

Joebagodonuts,

I agree with you on the bell curve idea. I don’t want to penalize those who have saved. I would retract the investment (or savings) income calculation. I would continue to look at earned incomes though. My father-in-law, for example, worked will into his 70’s with a significant income and laughingly said the social security benefit paid for his golf club membership more than anything else. In his case, I think he could do without the benefit.

As to the spending by the parties, I couldn’t agree more. A pox on both their houses. We have got to elect some strong independents to Congress and begin to shake this aristocracy of political parties up. I blame the democrats as much as I do the republicans on this. Where was the Senate fillibuster on the Transportation bill? Jeez, these crazy kids!

Our government spends too much money. Both sides do it, both sides accuse the other of being the problem, and both sides say they want to stop it. Neither one does.

But Joe, if you are a conservative then that is supposed to bother you!!!

If you think it is not a big deal, then either you are not really a conservative or the word just doesn’t mean much anymore with regard to fiscal policy.

Dennis,
I like your ideas, yet I noticed you left out investing in “Green Product Production.” Also, did you know that The Gulf States (Al. MS. & LA) have never up graded their building codes? That should be the first regulation that each State address before they can get a dime to rebuild.

Henry, I did forget “Green Product Production” and shouldn’t have. We must take every advantage of massive infrastructure projects to incorporate green techologies. The government can make it worthwhile to construction companies to “go green” when starting the rebuilds. It will be interesting to see how the energy lobby approaches this. I hope they have the foresight to ramp up use of solar, wind, tidal based energy production and usage.

The great conservative hoodwink is cutting taxes increases revenue. Hoodwink, because while revenues from increased economic activity resulting from tax cuts is verifiable, it has been decades since the amount of increased revenues generated even closely equaled the amount of lost revenues from the tax cuts. Add this hoodwink to an environment of escalating spending, and you have the accurate picture of Bush’s term with his Republican Congress. A nearly 50% increase in the national debt and almost double the interest on that debt in 5 years.

And it will continue for at least another 3 years unless you, the voter, send a resounding NO MORE spend and borrow Republicans in 2006.

Dennis,
If American Businesses and Government doesn’t push the issue, we’ll be finding ourselve at the bottom of the pecking order within a decade. Currently, there is a huge back order for solar panels.

David did you know that at the end of WWII America had about 75% of the Gold in the world? Today, that total is lower than 25%.

Henry,

I agree. I’m not sure we are not treading new territory with situation. I don’t have the data, but from what I’ve read, even during the Great Depression and following through World War II, we were not a debtor nation in the manner we are today. This opportunity will require massive cooperation between corporations, government AND labor. We have an amazing opportunity to bring the country together. We need to have a charismatic, inspirational and persuasive leader that can help us put aside our differences and work together. Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio? Our nation turns its’ lonely eyes to you.

Dennis,
The one thing that would bring down to a community level is to show the citizens just how much money they could save on Local Taxes by erecting “Totally Green” Government Buildings and Schools. Although I haven’t ran the numders, I know that we can create a building that would cost near zero dollars a year to operate. Vehicles that use no fuel, and water systems to produce clean H2O. And that’s just for starters.

Dennis,

Very good article. A couple of notes for food for thought:

With Medicare, at the very least we should allow the government to negotiate lower prices for drugs. The fact that we don’t is one of the most bold face thefts of the American tax payer in recent history.

With social security, I would propose simply extending the retirement age out for workers who are currently between the ages of 20 and 40 to an age of 68 for full benefits. For people under 20, they would need to work until 70 for full benefits. Americans are living longer, healthier lives, it only stand to reason that the retirement age should increase. And remove the cap on earnings that are taxed.

No trillion dollar bait and switch privitizations would be necessary to preserve SS well into the next century.

Thanks again for a fine post.

JBOD, you are still touting that fallacious story of tax cuts? Look at the chart below from this CBBP link:

Note, JBOD that the economic stimulus is not generating tax revenues in excess of the lost tax revenues from the cuts over the last 4 years. It is time for you accept the reality, generally, tax cuts do nothing to reduce deficits, they actually increase deficits. It is only under a very special set of circumstances in which tax cuts will be exceeded by increased economically stimulated tax revenues resulting in a net gain. And those circumstances haven’t been seen in recent history.

David, doesn’t the pie chart show something that’s not really not being disputed?

No one doubts the increase in defecit spending—or it’s sources—and such a statistic is meaningless unless weighed against both current and projected measures of growth. In the near term, it’s only obvious that tax-cuts will increase deficits. No one would argue. But like any policies which encourage capital investment, you have to factor in a whole host of other indicators which that chart does not. Can the economy outgrow its deficits? Yes, it’s done so many times before. Will it? It takes more than a small snapshot in time of a small set of factors to say.

if a tax cut raises overall tax revenue, then its a good thing

That’s funny, JBOD. When Clinton raised taxes to get the budget deficit under control, it ushered in an era of unparalleled prosperity. By your argument, we should also raise taxes.

Our government spends too much money. Both sides do it, both sides accuse the other of being the problem, and both sides say they want to stop it. Neither one does.

Well, we know for a fact that Republicans do it. President Clinton’s fiscal responsibility makes Republicans look like a bunch of drunken sailors on payday.

Also, one thing everyone should remember is that not all of the tax cuts stimulated the economy. The stimulation came from reducing the marriage penalty, upping the child tax credits, and expanding the 10% bracket. Unfortunately, those cuts represent a mere 25% of the total package.

The capital gains tax cuts, estate tax cuts, and the other tax cuts for rich folk do nothing but line rich folk’s pockets and put us deeper in debt.

sanger talks about capital investment, but our economic problems aren’t caused by undercapitalization. Our economy is consumer starved. If nobody can afford to buy widgets, it makes no sense to build another widget factory.

Consumers drive two-thirds of our economy. So obviously we need to keep more money in the pockets of consumers. Let’s have bigger middle-class tax cuts. Let’s have bigger child tax credits. Let’s reduce the marriage penalty even more. Let’s make healthcare affordable. Let’s pay people a living wage.

Also, we need to put more people back to work, and you don’t do that by giving millionaires more money to spend on extended vacations cruising the Med in their French-built yachts. You do it by investing more tax money in small business loans, by investing in new technologies like commercializing renewable energy, and by ensuring that Americans get a quality education so they can compete in the global marketplace.

In other words, we need to invest in all Americans, not just the millionaires.

BTW, excellent article, Dennis.

listening to House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R) - Texas tell us on September 13th that the Republican majority has done such a good job in cutting spending that he is declaring ?victory?, and there is simply no more waste to cut from the federal budget.

Yeah, that’s pretty funny because just today we had Republicans admitting they’ve been pretty poor at fiscal responsibility,

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said an across-the-board cut in spending, excluding defense spending, would be appropriate. He suggested lawmakers consider delaying the drug benefit and review the highway and energy bills passed this summer. The energy bill totaled $12.3 billion over 10 years.

“We’re failing when it comes to controlling spending,” Graham told “Fox News Sunday.”

Senator Biden got in a good zinger. He said Bush “just sent us a budget, presumably with nothing but necessary spending in it.”

So either President Bush is a liar, or there’s no way the budget can be trimmed further.

Woody:

I pointed out that both major parties spend too much and blame the other party for the problem. You conclude that wasteful spending does not bother me?? I’d love to understand the logic you used to come up with that, but I don’t see any evidence of any logic.

Allow me to set the record straight: I don’t care who in government wastes money. I don’t like it. Right now the Repubs have more control and thereby take more responsibility for wasteful spending. Not all responsibility, since Dems have lined up at the trough too, but more.

AP:

It sounds as if you are FOR tax cuts, but just not necessarily the ones that were provided. You cite examples where tax cuts work.

I don’t agree with the entire tax package, but…I don’t like the concept of taxing the rich simply because they have accumulated wealth. That is akin to a child voraciously eating his lunch and afternoon snack, and then demanding the kid who saved his snack to share. Its different if there is a kid who simply did not have an afternoon snack. And taxes need to somehow recognize that difference. I think that is what Dennis referred to regarding earned vs inherited wealth.

David:

I’ll do more research before debating the issue with you. There are intelligent people on both sides who claim to be right. I’ll review your information in more depth, as well as other information. Thanks for the link.

Joebagodonuts,

Excellent last entry J, and I’d like to add one point to the discussion. I consider what has happened with Katrina to be extraordinary circumstances, especially when compounded with the War. As a general rule, I agree with you that I’d like to see less money sent to government. From a tax policy perspective, I believe we need to have a complete overhaul of the federal system. I’m not sure I’m all the way in the camp of the “flat-taxers”, but am close.

With this situation however, I think we’ve got to all consider what sacrifices we are willing to make to help the country through the troubles. It’s one reason why I’m in favor of the gasoline tax. It’s regressive I know, but I think it is one of the quickest ways to accumulate quite a lot of cash that can be directly focused on relief efforts. Giving money over to unseen federal bureaucrats is never a good idea, so we would need some accountability. Hence the idea of a board of governors.

Anyway, excellent posts on this thread. I’m really glad to see the intelligent discourse. It’s quite a refreshing respite from some of the other blogs I read.

thanks

Dennis:

Thanks back to you as well. I think I am in favor of a flat tax of sorts, though I’ll admit to not having enough knowledge to know all the ins and outs.

My idea would be to bellcurve a flat tax: Lets assume the tax would be 17% of earnings. The richest 20% might pay 22%, while the poorest might pay only 12%.

While this is technically “unfair”, I think it works. I say technically unfair because as I’ve said, I don’t agree with taking more from someone simply because they are more successful. They might just be more successful because they are a) better, b)luckier, c)more willing to sacrifice, d) willing to work harder, longer, or smarter e) any mix of the above.

By paying a relatively flat percentage, the richer will pay more in total dollars. That seems fair to me. Of course, possibly the “fairest” way to do things would be to have everything based on a user tax, but that has simply too many pitfalls to be intelligently considered, in my opinion.

I’d like to see Bush, or ANY politician for that matter, take a look at something like the Transportation bill that just passed and say, “Yknow, let’s take my (insert here) out of it because Katrina relief and rebuilding is more important.” I’d vote for such a politician, even if he/she were taking something from my area.

I’d like to see this, but I ain’t holding my breath.

Joe -

Maybe - rather than considering it taking more from someone because they are rich… consider it taking less from those who could not afford to pay ‘full price.’ ???

American Pundit, great reply. I couldn’t agree more.

Sanger, do your homework and research the data. You are dead wrong on many counts. First the chart and link above cover a 4 year period. Tax cuts in 2001 are not recovered in the 3 future years following despite GDP growth. Those are the facts. You can hyperbole an imaginary horizon line 50 years from now which will offer the weakest of all possible evidence that tax cuts 49 years before helped increase revenues, but, that is meaningless.

You say tax cuts generated revenues in excess of the tax cuts many times in the past. Wrong again.

Tax cuts in recent history

Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years; otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the economy expanded.

There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods following large tax cuts. After Reagan’s income tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow. For the moment, let’s ignore the fact that tax collections could have been expected to grow after 1981. Let’s simply use 1981 as a baseline, multiplying it 8 times, and compare that to what was really collected over the next 8 years.

Individual Income Tax Collections (millions) (1)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
—————————————————————-
1981 $285,917 $367,692

1982 297,744 356,366
1983 288,938 332,033
1984 298,415 328,470
1985 334,531 354,677
1986 348,959 359,307
1987 392,557 392,557
1988 401,181 387,128
1989 445,690 411,533
——————————————-
82-89 total: 2,922,691
1981 (times 8) -2,941,536
——————————————-
Net 8-year loss -18,845

So, you can massage the data in a host of different ways to to defend you position, but the reality is always reflected by taking the year before tax cuts, multiplying that by the subsequent years of tax cut revenues, and comparing the total to what was actually received in revenues during those years. (And of course, adjusting for inflation).

Further, let’s look at the same reality formula applied to Corporate taxes:

Corporate Income Taxes (millions)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
—————————————————————-
1981 $61,137 $78,623

1982 49,207 58,991
1983 37,022 42,544
1984 56,893 62,623
1985 61,331 65,024
1986 63,143 65,015
1987 83,926 83,926
1988 94,508 91,224
1989 103,291 98,092
———————————————
82-89 total: 567,439
1981 (times 8) -628,984
———————————————
Net 8-year loss -69,545

Now add the net loss for combined individual and corporate income tax and you get a net loss of $88 billion.

Voodoo Economics didn’t work then, and the factual data show they still don’t work today. The only circumstance in which tax cuts could yield increased revenues in excess of the taxes cut, is if the GDP growth rate is very high 5% or better and inflation is held in check of the majority of the tax cut years.

That is not a set of circumstances that existed then, though it was hoped for, and it is not the set of circumstances today, and we don’t even have the expectation of growth in excess of 5% in these days of globalized competition, and now oil and medical costs are pushing inflation, look at gold prices, which is an inflation indicator as gold goes up. New highs.

I could write a million things about this, but the first thing that comes to mind is that DeLay says there is no more waste to cut from the Federal budget, while Bush says he’s going to pay for costs related to Katerina with spending cuts.

I hope the discussions between these two about how to pay for Katerina is aired in public.

BTW Sanger, since I have the data on my other screen, let’s look at the 90’s when taxes were increased. According to the previous data, the Clinton’s tax increases should have resulted in tax revenue growth. Voila! They did in perfect consistency despite a minor recession:

Individual Income Taxes (millions)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)

—————————————————————-
1990 $466,884 $413,355

1991 467,827 397,677

1992 475,964 392,969

1993 509,680 411,032

1994 543,055 429,496

1995 590,244 458,300

Corporate Income Taxes (millions)

Year Current Constant (87 dollars)

——————————————————————

1990 $93,507 $82,786

1991 98,086 83,378

1992 100,270 82,786

1993 117,520 94,774

1994 140,385 111,029

1995 157,004 121,907

Notes: 1991 Recession Year
1993 Clinton Tax passes
1994 Clinton Tax hike takes effect

David:

Just as a point of fact, you ought to identify that you cut and pasted your last two posts from someone else’s information. Wouldnt want you to get accused of plagiarism.

David:

And it also would be good to reveal that the information came from a source that uses the phrase, and i quote: “Help Fight the Right! — Support Liberalism Resurgent.”

I haven’t had the time that Steve Kangas has had to compile numbers, but I would say that he is anything but unbiased. If you are looking for a source of material that will be LESS biased than Kangas, I might suggest Paul Krugman….:)

Rather than dollars, look at percentage of GDP. To quote the late, great economist Robert Eisner: “In an economy, everything grows.”

Every year, the economy gets bigger, so tax receipts get bigger, even if you have a tax cut. Same holds true for most government spending.

The only exception to Eisner’s observation are catastrophic economic situations, like the Great depression. Recessions appear as a 1-yr blip in the numbers, and, besides, recessions are part of the normal business cycle.

And I’ll add the following: measured as a share of GDP, the US taxes less and spends less on government than any other major industrial nation — by far. Our economy could easily absorb a small tax increase to pay for Katrina reconstruction.

Jbod, some of the words and all the data did come from another site. I didn’t expect anyone to believe that I have multiservers and all the time in the world to crunch economic raw data spewed out by the Fed. Gov’t.

Took a bit of doing, but I refound the link. I don’t see those words you quote on the site from which I got this data.

Also, at the bottom of my resource it says and I quote: “Original data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from tables located there.”

Please tell me what paragraph in the link I cite from those words you quote appear.

steve, you are completely off the topic. The topic is whether tax cuts grow tax revenues, and the only way to test if that is true is to see if the the amount of revenues after tax cuts equal the revenues that would have been collected wihout tax cuts.

Nice try at turning the topic, but facts show tax cuts don’t increase revenues exceeding the amount of tax cuts, (except under a rare and very special set of circumstances, high GDP growth and low inflation), as trickle down conservatives want everyone to believe. Their mantra is a lie and the data show it.

You are quite right however, GDP growth increases revnenues provided corporate taxes are paid and wage growth keeps pace with GDP growth. But, you see, that is one of the problems with Bush’s tax cuts. Across the board wage growth has not been commensurate with GDP growth and corporate tax rates were lowered which eroded the revenues we would have seen during this GDP growth over the last couple years.

But, again, that is not what JBOD and I were talking about.

JBOD,

I have seen so many partisans play the game, if they can’t dispute the data, dispute the source. The source for the data was the OMB, The President’s arm of government responsible for determining such data. I challenge you to discredit the data, and THE OMB source.

Dennis,
You know this title would of been better used today given the fact that the news just reported that Karl Rove will oversee the rebuilding of N.O. Talk about Alice in Wonderland! What qualifications does a political spin master bring that allows him to lead in a major city planning project? Talk about stupidity in government leadership.

Henry,

Anything that Karl Rove is involved in should reference “The Puppet Masters”…

Truly though, this smacks of the government completely losing their minds by making Karl the front man on the Katrina relief program. Sheesh!

Dennis,
If the Democrats and Republicans keep this up there will be a new political party taking power in this country. Think we should encourage the fools so that it would me it easier to elect Mickey Mouse?

David:

The site was part of another site written by Steve Kangas—here is the site: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm#Backtaxcollections

If you go to the bottom of the site you provided, and hit the “return to overview” button, you’ll end up at the site I mention above. You can then scroll down to the “myths about taxes” section and find the information you provided.

As I said, you’ll find that Kangas has been at this a long time….I’d need time to invest in checking his information. He does do a good job of sourcing his information, but then again, so does Michael Moore, and many of us recognize that for MM, 1+1=3.

Lastly, Kangas states in his website:
© Copyright by Steve Kangas. Text from this FAQ can be quoted freely for non-commercial use only, with proper attribution.

David, at this point, I can’t refute his points. They may be correct or they may not be—I have not had time to research them. But I’m sure you see the validity of showing that they come from someone whose stated purpose is “to build and promote a one-stop reference source that refutes conservative positions on all major issues.”

David, in truth, I was just messing with you, to point out that it wasnt your material. But in all honesty, knowing where it comes from certainly shows the slant of the author, which helps us all understand the material better.

JBOD, thanks for the information. I ran a search on this material quite some time ago. I keep a file where I cut and paste economic information that I may use at some point. I pulled this info from that file, but, couldn’t find the link. When I Copernic’d (search software) some of the words at your suggestion, I was able to locate the link again.

You are right. I need to be more careful about securing the links before copying into the blog. I appreciate the feedback and the motivation to go get the link.

I disagree with you though that the source helps us understand the material better. It can, but, it does not necessarily. The thing to do is verify the OMB data, if that is correct, then the conclusion is correct because the arithmetic is inherently valid, no sampling error or probability to it. The data relationship is: Does this equal that. So if the data is correct, the conclusion is correct. I will check the data against OMB, though I really have no reason in light of your information about the site and my confidence level in the data when I some time ago copied into my econ file. But, this is such an important topic, I will double check it.

Dennis and Henry, we are talking REGIONAL planning, here folks, 3 states, involved, hundreds of local jurisdictions and municipalities, interstate economic infrastructure. You are both quite correct to ask what his experience is. Looks like Bush hasn’t learned from his Michael Brown appointment the lesson that begs to be learned. There is no substitute for experience and knowledge. Appears the only lesson GW Bush learned was if you are going to appoint someone who can screw up catastrophically, make sure he is someone who can spin it monumentally.

If you understood Congressional spending cuts you’d know that they did cut spending.
It goes like this.
Last year we spent $1,000,000,000 on this item.
We’re planing to spend $2,000,000,000 this year.
Well let’s spend only $1,500,000,000 this year.
We just cut spending by $500,000,000 Good Us.
This has NO party lines and has been going on so long that most people fall for it.

I think it’s time for the American public to wake up to the fact that it is not in our long-term best interests to be dependant on foreign sources of energy. Yet the fact that our government continues to pursue a policy that doesn’t make any real progress on removing this vulnerability that has been clearly apparent since 1972 is irresponsible.

After 9/11 the President and Congress had a number of options has to how we could respond to that crisis. I would at this point submit that they did not choose wisely. There was the military option, the fact that we had at our disposal the ability to put troops on the ground any where in the world to protect our vital interests was one option. It was a course of action chosen out anger. But it wasn’t the only path that was open to us. And at 80 billion a year flowing into Iraq with no guarantee that we are not financing the creation of a future enemy, the word ‘naïve’ comes to mind.

Another option would have been to invest the same 80 billion in the R&D of alternative sources of energy. This would quickly have put the moderate Arabs on notice that to sit by and allow the behavior of murdering innocent American citizens by their nationals will bare an economic price that they cannot afford to pay.

This would have the effect of forcing all of the oil producing nations to start cleaning up their act when it comes to terrorism. They would have to take seriously the clear threat that we might just develop the technology within a decade to put them out of business forever. They would be forced to deal with the radical fundamentalist in their mists, and they are in a far better position of knowing who to go after then we are.

This also puts us on higher moral ground in the global arena. Who could criticizes us for pursuing a policy that will reduce the threat of global warming while it brings pressure to bare on international terrorism and doesn’t require the loss of American lives. But instead of investing in our own energy resources that sooner or later we are going to need, we have chosen to waste our blood and treasure on rebuilding a nation that will most likely turn on us has soon as the troops leave. In the long run, using our influence as a customer is a far more effective and efficient manner to protect our interests abroad.

Money talks, with a volume far louder than any cruise missile. Right now our enemies must think us to be fools that we would spend billions to invade Iraq and then turn right around and waste 80 billion a year to occupy it. And at the end of it all, to then simply walk away and allow a government that is hostile to U.S. interests take power. We should stop kidding ourselves.

If we make a realistic investment towards energy independents for the future, it will not only safeguard our economic future but can be used to cause change for the better in one of the unstable regions on earth. If we demonstrated that we were seriously moving forward with a plan to end our dependence on foreign oil, it would have a chilling effect, not only in Saudi Arabia, but in Iran, Iraq and Libya as well.

All of the oil producing nations of the world will feel the pinch when the world’s largest consumer decides to pursue other alternatives and by doing so, cause the price of oil to collapse.
Even Iran might change their view towards terrorism under those circumstances. I’m sure there would be a huge PR campaign launched to deter us from just such an action. In fact I’m counting it. Any CEO or head of government that is worth his salt wouldn’t sit idle as his largest customer walks away without making an effort to keep from losing their future business.

We must keep in mind that at the end of the day, we are the goose that lays the golden eggs and that the sight of us waddling off out of the Persian Gulf forever would be the one thing that both our so-called friends and enemies would truly fear the most.

The beauty of this approach is that sooner or later we are going to have to develop this new technology anyway. World oil resources are rapidly depleting. It quickly becomes a question of when (not if)do we want to end are dependence on foreign oil? And also what sort of shape will the U.S. economy be in when we do? The longer we wait, the more difficult the transition will be.

David,
Spinning it will not help our children because whatever is done will directly effect their lives not ours. In fact, Karl Rove dropped out of college in 1971 and I don’t think that he is that good to pull off sometjing this big.

Ron Brown, that is so true. Just like Republicans calling the expiration of the tax cuts a tax increase. It can be called a tax increase only if the original language of the bill didn’t have an expiration date in it. IT DID! Therefore it is not a tax increase, it is a tax level reversion. In other words reverting back to the taxation levels of just 4 years ago. Given the enormous and obvious need for more resources, this should be a no brainer. And guess what, those with no brains worthy of praise in the Whitehouse and Congress are saying we must not allow this “tax increase” to occur. Pure BullShit!

Henry, a bipartisan committee of governors or ex-governors would make a good regional planning committee for the rebuilding if they were granted access to OMB and CBO for data needed in the planning.

This one topic touches on what is probably one of the U.S.’s top 3 most serious problems.

Government is running huge deficits, and ignores the National Debt, which is mostly likely, now beyond all remedy, and government continues to vote for pork-barrel, graft, and waste.

I’m amazed that this house of cards hasn’t collapsed yet. It’s just a matter of time.

The federal government borrows/prints over $1.48 billion per day (it has too print what it can not borrow, because it can not default…that would be disasterous).

Government has to borrow at least $1 billion each day just to pay interest on the $8 trillion National Debt, that grew $1.48 billion per day during the last 12 months ($539 billion in one year).

See Debt History: www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi

2005/SEP/16: $7,919,996,476,821 (increased $0.539 trillion)
2004/SEP/30: $7,379,052,696,330 (increased $0.596 trillion)
2003/SEP/30: $6,783,231,062,744 (increased $0.555 trillion)
2002/SEP/30: $6,228,235,965,597 (increased $0.421 trillion)
2001/SEP/28: $5,807,463,412,200

That’s an increase of $2.1 trillion since 2001 to 2005.

Government never plans to pay it back. Their plan is to sustain inflation so that it will gradually shrink the Debt. In 50 years, the debt will only be worth (in 2005 dollars) $1.57 trillion. But, that’s only if the National Debt stops growing by $1.48 billion per day. The other down side is your $1 million pension will probably we worth much less too (about $196K), and a $1 cup of coffee will cost $5.11 .

It’s all a huge ponzi scheme. The big problem is funding huge entitlements with all this funny money. Not to mention all of our other many pressing problems: home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/PressingProblemsFacingTheUS_NoBackLinks.htm

David,
You have a good idea. yet wouldn’t you think expanding the committee to be chaired by some one who teaches “City/Regional Planning” a better idea? This way the person overseeing the entire project would at least make dure all the I’s were dotted and the T’s were crossed. I’m not aware of any former Governor that has that qualification do you?

Henry, any successful governor has his/her own contacts with urban/regional developers and designers. Governors deal with infrastructure committees and decisions and therefore I would assume they would have their own reliable contacts and make use of those on the committee. But, yes, I agree, professionals in regional/urban/environmental design should be a part of that process. But, since they are contractors, they can’t be held responsible until after the fact, that is why Governors used to taking the responsibility for getting it right, up front, are key to the committee positions as I see it.

David,
Ok, than how about former Gov. Gary Locke of Washington as a Leader? Although I do not know a whole lot about him, I do know that he has pushed his state to go “Green” and with the opportunity to build 90,000 sq miles of America “Green” he would be possiblely a good canidate. So who else in your opinion would be a good overseer?

David,
Get ready to duck! We may be adding Texas to the list of states that needs to be rebuilt because of hurricane Rita. Now, both parties will have to completely rethink how America is going to get the energy we need to even get through this winter if the storm keeps on its projected path.

Check out NOAA.com experiemental forecast and the entire east side of Texas looks like their going to take a blount hit. Oil prices just went up four dollars on the market in anticipation of our refiners going out again. Couple that with probably another $100 Billion and the Republican party is in trouble.

Not even Rove can stop the Beast of Nature “I the Consumer” from exacting his revenge. Now lets see how President Bush acts when his own state is being hit. Want to bet he’ll be asleep at the wheel on this one?

David:

I agree completely that knowing where information comes from does not in any way invalidate the information. It does, however, illuminate the information.

For instance, if you were to read a list of factual statistics involving the FEMA response to Katrina, and then found that they were generated by FEMA, you would be justified to be skeptical of their accuracy. Even if the stats themselves were accurate, they might be presented in such a way as to massage the truth behind the stats.

That is my point about Kangas’ information. Not that the numbers are incorrect, but that the conclusions might be influenced by his mindset.

I apologize for the manner that I brought this up—- I was really trying to joke with you about where the information came from, but it didnt come off that way. It came off harsher than intended.

By the way, I found that site simply by googling “do tax cuts increase tax revenues”. It was the first or second listing—I then followed it back to the original site.

Henry,

Let’s hope that Rita runs out of gas before we we do… I don’t think we are ready for another set of refineries to go offline.

Perhaps Pat Robertson is right. This is God’s wrath and boy is he/she pissed off that Karl Rove is running the Katrina recovery. :-)

JBOD,

It was a matter of tone. When someone says, “Well, the other guys do it to”, I take that as an argument that is it not a big deal when THEIR guys do it. But apparently I misunderstood you. If you are willing to criticize the GOP on this point, then good for you.

All,

Despite my left-wing tendencies, I read the WSJ opinion page pretty regularly. I can saw from experience that the regulars writers would ordinarily rather chew their own arm off than criticize the GOP. Some pretty striking columns on this topic:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110007283

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007278

I was particularlu struck by the first column by Brendan Miniter. Although he never saw an anti-Kerry or anti-Clinton story he didn’t like, he is now saying that conservatives are running our of reasons to support the GOP.

It sounds as if you are FOR tax cuts, but just not necessarily the ones that were provided. You cite examples where tax cuts work.

Correct. A smaller cut with a larger percentage of middle-class tax cuts would have done far more to get our economy rolling.

I don?t agree with the entire tax package, but?I don?t like the concept of taxing the rich simply because they have accumulated wealth.

Neither do I. On the other hand, I don’t like the rich getting a much bigger tax cut as a percentage of income than everyone else. That’s just wrong.

AP:

Would you favor a flatter tax plan, where the rich and poor and middle all pay the same percentage? Seems to me what you are referring to is that the rich might be getting a bigger percentage break—-what also would need to be discussed in that argument is what percentage they were currently paying.

Seems to me that if Group A were paying a higher percentage, then they would deserve a higher cut. If Groups A B and C were all paying the same percentage, then the wealthier would have a higher real dollar burden, but the same percentage burden.

Now, I’ve said before that I’d bell curve a flat tax, so the top 10% and bottom 10% (I’m flexible on these percentages) would pay a slightly higher and lower percentage than the majority in the middle.

What’s your thought on that?

AP & JBOD,
Instead of taling Tax Cuts for the Rich or Middle Class, we need to be looking at a way to reform the Payroll Taxes in America. Although neither the Democrats or Republicans in Congress wanted to take on such a huge task in 2001, an across the board cut of only 10% with the proceeds going to raise wages for the employees that deserve them would of been 100 times better than any so called tax cut.

Because if an employer give his employee a dollar raise today without such reform, the company must make an additional $2.00/hr just to cover the cost. Given the market conditions over the last five years that is impossible.

JBOD, AP,

What about a curve on labor based versus investment based income? Seems to me one of the things we want to do is get people working and fire the labor/production engines up a bit. What if we took down marginally taxes on income generated from labor and took up marginally taxes on investment income? I’m not sure that cutting the tax basis for capital gains fuels the engine as much as labor. I would exclude capital investment on plant and materials, but focus on income generation from arbitrage type investment income. The guys in the capital markets that are moving billions of dollars thorugh hedge and derivative funds are the types I’d go after with a slight increase in taxes. Captial invested in long term projects (i.e. buildings, plant, etc.) would be excluded relative to asset appreciation.

Labor based income is by in large the income used for consumption (purchase of goods and services). The more income for consumption, the more demand for goods and services, the higher the rate of production. Seems like it would generate the demand that would in turn demand more labor and generate more tax revenues overall.

A flat rate personal income tax is the only way to go.
(1) The same flat rate for ALL income levels.
(2) EVERYONE PAYS INCLUDING THE WELFARE CLASS
(3) NO DECUCTIONS ant kind.
(4) Everyone is responsible for paying THEIR OWN taxes. NO PAYROLL DECUCTIONS.

David
Ron Brown, that is so true. Just like Republicans calling the expiration of the tax cuts a tax increase.

Just more politics as usuall. And the majority of tax payers will fall for it.

Ron, What is the purpose of revising the tax system if not to make it more fair and prevent it from harming Americans, wealthy or poor, unduly? And if that is the rationale for revising it, why would you propose the Welfare class (I assume you mean at or below poverty level) be taxed at the same rate pushing them even further into poverty?

What about retirees who own their home requiring no mortgage payment, but whose limited income if taxed more would force the sale of their home and increase their monthly living expenses by having to pay rent. An additional $600/per month expense, moving expenses, and the despair of having worked all their life to own a home only to have the tax system force them out of it?

I agree that exceptions in general is a bad idea. But, there are some circumstances in which an inflexible flat rate system with no exceptions would be even more damaging to working and poor Americans than the current system. That would contradict the rationale for reforming the system in the first place, wouldn’t it?

For what it’s worth, I’d define myself as conservative, having reformed from social liberalism after retreating from the graduate school university and entering the REAL work force and dealing with mortgages, taxes, children and wives (oops, I mean wife, singularly).

I’m no Bush apologist. He’s screwed up his fair share while in office, though libs tend to blame him for everything from hot weather in August to hip hugger jeans on 14 year old girls. But as a conservative thinker, I hold Congress more to blame with the spending problem than Bush (he hasn’t helped matters, either). Republicans run the show in Washington (despite what the media and the Democrats in town think), but evidently no one bothered to tell them the election results.

Government spending is no better, and perhaps worse, than it was under Clinton. And the Republicans are in control. It makes very little sense to me and is frustrating, and it likely will be damaging for the party in the long term.

On a related topic, though, it’s hard for anyone to argue—I know, I know, but you hate Bush—but the Prez’s “rich guy” tax cuts have not worked. Check the economic numbers, they’re hard to dispute considering the outside historical factors since 9/11. The tax cuts have encouraged corporate America and small business to invest capital and the market has been floating above 10,000. You just can’t argue against that. You’re spitting into the wind.

But are Republicans terrible spenders? Damn right they are. It’s their dirty little secret. But the party lacks discipline, or a historical understanding of what it means to own 2 of the 3 wings of Washington government. I guess if you’re a liberal, then that’s a good thing (not that Cons have 2 wings, but that they don’t know it yet or have no understanding of how to wield control).

Shabazz:

On a related topic, though, it’s hard for anyone to argue—I know, I know, but you hate Bush—but the Prez’s “rich guy” tax cuts have not worked.

I think you intended to say that Bush’s tax cuts HAVE worked, since you go on to say how they’ve encouraged investment.

It seems clear to me that the tax cuts have indeed worked to spur the economy. The question I have is whether we have deferred costs down the road too much. The analogy would be putting money onto credit cards to make today’s budget look good, and not considering the future.

The tax cuts are not part and parcel in this though. Its the spending that you refer to that is the biggest flaw. I believe the tax cuts will work out okay, if we keep the other spending in line. That isnt happening, but one can hope.

what also would need to be discussed in that argument is what percentage they were currently paying.

Seems to me that if Group A were paying…

No, I’m talking about as a percentage of income. Payments or dollar amounts have nothing to do with it.

Republicans gave the top 1% a 12% tax cut, the next 19% got an 8% tax cut, the next 40% got a 7% tax cut, and the bottom 20% got a 3% tax cut.

As a percentage of income — the only measurement that matters — the wealthiest 1% got a tax cut that was four times larger than the bottom 20%.

Now, I?ve said before that I?d bell curve a flat tax, so the top 10% and bottom 10% (I?m flexible on these percentages) would pay a slightly higher and lower percentage than the majority in the middle.

Sure you would. That’s the classic Republican tax structure that Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr all pushed for: flatten the tax structure. No, I prefer a more progressive tax structure.

Dennis, your idea for a labor/investment based tax structure is interesting. It appeals to my Democratic roots. :)

I think you intended to say that Bush?s tax cuts HAVE worked, since you go on to say how they?ve encouraged investment.

No, shabazz had it right. The stock market isn’t a good indicator of broad economic strength. It’s a rich man’s game. Most Americans don’t own much stock, if any.

Just a quick example: Sony is cutting thousands of jobs to improve its stock value. Cutting jobs may be good for the market, but it’s not good for the economy. A strong economy would see Sony’s stock improving even as they went on a hiring spree.

AP

I think I must not have made my point clear to you. Allow me to try again.

Back in Reagan’s presidency, the highest tax bracket was around 70%. This meant that the very wealthy were being taxed severely on their highest incomes. When tax cuts came along, it was imperative to look at what each economic group was PAYING in taxes when deciding how much to cut. Otherwise, lets say you decide to cut everyone 20%. That would be a great deal for someone who was only paying 21%.

You cannot look at tax payments and tax cuts in isolation. You must look at them in combination.

By the way, I have no idea what you mean by the term “a more progressive tax structure.” It would help if you could define it for me.

It means we should go back to the pre-Reagan 70% tax bracket for the very wealthiest Americans.