- He’s Going To Turn Green Next!
I have opined at length in the previous article and I felt it was way too scattered and didn’t drill down to the point, so I crafted this post to refine it.
The bottom line is that the Republicans are wrong on this one. I philosophically agree with their stance on containing big government, but this is not the way you go about it AND they are showing the part of the problem in Washington by being more concerned with politics than what is best for our country. This is due to:
1) Raising the debt ceiling is not a question. It must be done, it is a foregone conclusion. To state that raising the debt ceiling itself is a compromise is a false premise. The consequences of not raising the ceiling are catastrophic and is not an option, hence what they are offering is not a compromise and understandably something the Democrats can not agrree to. If you disagree with me about what a default would mean, just read a couple of articles from the Washington Post, New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal. It is very, very bad and unnecessary.
2) Which leads us to point #2. The definition of compromise is that both sides give up things they want to meet in the middle. You aren’t 100% happy with the end result, but you can live with it and the deal moves forward. The Democrats offered up their sacred cow of entitlement cuts, the Republicans must offer up their sacred cow of raising taxes.
3) Raising those taxes isn’t on middle class or the poor. It’s on the wealthy and on corporations, both in explicit raises and loophole closures. Those guys have been getting breaks for years, it is only fair that they pay their fair share.
4) It is a false statement to then claim that the Democrats are raising taxes on ‘job creators’. That is BS because if these ‘job creators’ really needed or wanted to create more jobs, they could. Small business entrepreneurs are who are getting crunched – and those are the guy who DO hire employees and shouldn’t have their taxes raised. I’m not saying raise taxes on them. Large companies have been making record profits of late – they are FLUSH with cash. They have plenty of money to reinvest in their companies, expand business, and hence hire more employees. They don’t not because they can’t but because they won’t due to ‘uncertainty in the market’. If they put their money where their mouth was and expanded their business, they would put more people to work, stabilize local economies, and add more money to government coffers via additional taxes; helping government revenue figures as well. It would create a virtuous cycle instead of a downward spiral, but it is an exercise in the chicken or the egg that no one can force big business to make.
5) Transversely, we should also help small business out any way we reasonably can, even if it means spending money because the return will be far greater than the investment.
6) The exercise is as simple as only raising taxes on wealthy individuals and on medium and large companies, but exempt small business (places with 50 employees or less). Also, redefine wealthy. The current tax system classifies my father in law as wealthy, but he is simply well-to-do, upper middle class. However, he has a neighbor who while is not filthy rich, he is wealthy and can afford more taxes because in part, his expenditures have less bang for the buck by having large sums of dollars go into the hands of a certain expensive enterprises. The neighbor pisses away hundreds of thousands of dollars on unneeded prize llamas and wings to an already huge house in addition to already having two other homes. The money doesn’t trickle as far or into as many places in the economy. I am not saying he doesn’t have a right to do this; what I am saying is that he can afford to be taxed more because raising his taxes is not going to negatively impact the economy. On the other hand, I see my father-in-law spending money in the real economy, just like the rest of us. He has a budget, retirement, and real financial concerns. The only difference between him and the average American is that he makes more money, but not to the point where his spending is luxurious, profligate, or wasteful. He isn’t the one you tax; instead it is his neighbor, Lady Gaga, and the Wall Street bankers are they who you raise taxes on. Besides, letting my father-in-law keep some of his money instead of going to the tax collector is more efficient. It is more efficiently spent back into the economy by him directly rather than wasteful, more centralized government control. Thus the line of proposed taxes on ‘the rich’ is not $250K. I don’t know if its $350K or $500K or $1MM, but it is somewhere between what my father-in-law earns and what his neighbor makes.
7) Given dedicated time on the issue, the size and scope of government could be cut way back while also finding the common-sense and fair places where taxes can be raised. There are so many loopholes and people and institutions that take advantage of the tax code that it needs reform to reduce the overall tax rate while actually raising revenue. Savers should be rewarded and not punished for their long-term outlook
8) On the other side of the house, the government is so large and has so much fraud, waste, and abuse in it, that there are plenty of ways to cut government across the board, save hundreds of billions of dollars, and get the same result because government becomes more efficient. ABUSE: How many times have you heard of overpaid, lazy government workers who do not fear for their jobs? Fire those people, pay their replacement a fair wage, and expect more out of them. If not, fire them too. Real unemployment is somewhere around 16.5%. WASTE: How many times have you heard people in government spend money because it’s there to spend? If they don’t use it, they lose it. It is that mentality of ‘other people’s money’ that leads to the waste. Break that cycle through alternative incentives – possibly shared monetary compensation for efficiency. FRAUD: How many people scam the federal government on rigging their welfare, healthcare, and other forms of government assistance to both the states and individuals? Root those people out, stop the bleeding of money, and throw those people into jail to show the rest of the cheats a lesson.
9) If anyone is serious about reigning in government AND getting the country’s fiscal house in order, they know that a 4 trillion figure in deficit spending cuts is just the beginning. Anything less that is proposed is an insult when $4 trillion in cuts is on the table. I believe the President because of the mantle that he has assumed in trying to solve this problem. I do not believe the Republicans. The Republicans don’t want to give the President the political advantage of having a solution to make real inroads into solving this problem. Like they say, he owns the economy. Republicans are more worried about politics than what is right for the country, thus they wouldn’t want the President to get the credit since he owns the economy for good just like he would for the bad.
10) Lastly, a grand bargain of $4 trillion dollars in cuts over 10 years is a great start to getting the country’s debt problem in order, but it is just the beginning. That still means deficit spending, just slowing the growth of it. To get to a budget that actually has money left over at the end to pay down the national debt means you have to have cuts to spending programs AND you will have to raise taxes. THERE. IS. NO. OTHER. WAY. We have already gone too far down the path of fiscal irresponsibility to only have cuts. We need both. Anyone who tells you either is not looking at the long term trend nor are being honest with you. As we have seen, taxes can be cut, but not until the books are back in the black. There is nothing saying taxes increases have to be for perpetuity.
I am a true libertarian, I am told in the auspices of Jeffersonian Liberalism. I am a conservative, but not a Republican, and certainly not a partisan fool. It is better to ‘tear the band-aid off and eat your peas’ now, then do it later when the country is in a true survival situation (because this is an optional crisis) and the analogy shifts to applying a tourniquet and eating your own feces…