Post by Yoda on Mar 6, 2011 12:20:03 GMT -8
The Democrats problem is that they have allowed the Tea Party to own the only position on excessive spending. Theirs are the only proposals on the table for cutting spending so it appears as if the Democrats support pretty much all spending programs. While the more liberal ones may well, most do not.
Nobody in their right mind can favor the level of spending that we have today. Everybody knows or should know that it is unsustainable. But with Americans -- even Tea Partiers – opposed by a wide margin to cuts in Medicare, Social Security, etc., the only policy initiatives on the table are either superficial or political. It is not the conservatives fault for advancing their political agenda but the liberals fault for not advancing an agenda that recognizes the need for true fiscal restraint while promoting growth.
If I were God, and some of you should be DAMN glad I'm not, I would first pass a Constitutional Amendment that functionally said the following:
The federal government may not spend any money, or grant any tax breaks, that do not do one of three things:
1. defend the nation, or
2. aid in generating a long term increase in productivity within the private business sector without directly impacting all economic groups unequally, or
3. benefit depressed economic subsets of the nation but only on a means tested basis that limits payments to no more than 20% of the nation, and
in the aggregate, unless approved by a supermajority of 60% of both Houses of the Congress, all such spending may not exceed X% of the gross domestic product for the latest fiscal year for which the GDP is available. (Okay, the language needs work.)
In implementing this amendment, I would…
1. eliminate corporate income taxes. There is no such thing as a corporate income tax, really. It is just another cost that is passed through to the consumer. Hidden taxes should never be allowed.
2. eliminate capital gains. Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate that earned income is taxed at. (Sorry conservatives, but I still support a graduated rate.)
3. means test all entitlements. For example, I would eliminate Social Security and substitute a minimum national income for the elderly and the totally disabled. In effect, the poor would get an increase and the well-to-do who make more than the minimum national income level would lose Social Security benefits altogether. Same thing for Medicare – although the eligibility trigger would be graduated, rather than being an absolute figure. In both cases, however, I would cut total expenditures significantly.
4. simplify the tax code. Eliminate all deductions except charitable contributions. With apologies to the accountants in the world, every taxpayer should be able to do their own tax return on a single, two sided sheet of paper.
5. cut spending by 20% across the board. Then add 5% back as adjustments to those departments who would have to cut truly critical items. And then add 10% back for improvements in infrastructure. (Those are all wags, not exact figures. They are used to demonstrate a concept, not set the actual levels.)
As a percentage of GNP, the country that has borrowed the most money is not the US – it was Japan, after WWII. Unlike us, however, they didn’t run budget deficits so as to fund consumption. They ran budget deficits to fund infrastructure development. And that is why they have Sony, Toyota, et. al. In an amazingly short period of time and in a war torn economy, they built an infrastructure that allowed for individuals to create such companies; an environment that nurtured their development. They went from society that, in my youth, was famous for its crappy quality of construction to one that was famous for having a quality of construction that was better than our own.
I favor government spending and tax policy that increases productivity and oppose all government spending and tax policy that is focused on consumption, unless it is means tested. So, since the home mortgage deduction is not means tested, for example, I would eliminate it.
And I have a broad view of what constitutes increasing productivity. Education is an investment in our economic future every bit as much as the Interstate Highway System was. (Not all educational spending is, however – spending should be focused on results. Crappy teachers should be fired and good ones should make more than they do now.) So are investments in things that reduce our dependence on foreign oil – such as mass transit (including high speed rail), highway improvements, etc.
As a self-professed radical moderate, I contend that the left and the right are both full of it. They each have their own constituencies and they base their efforts, it seems, on the other guy incurring all the pain. Cut my taxes and end your programs. Increase my programs by increasing your taxes. It’s always “either / or” – no compromises and if you don’t support my position (be it left or right) then you either hate the poor or hate the rich.
I say that we should both take from, and reject, a lot of the ideas that come from both the left and the right. We need to cut waste without cutting meat – and sorry liberals, but bad teachers and wasteful programs should go. We need a low tax rate – but sorry conservatives, but we need one that encourages massive growth in the middle class instead of enriching the upper classes at the specific expense of the poor and the middle class.
Both sides fail because both sides are pandering to the interests of their constituencies and neither is pandering to the interests of the nation – even if their ideologue notions convince them otherwise.
Yoda out…
Nobody in their right mind can favor the level of spending that we have today. Everybody knows or should know that it is unsustainable. But with Americans -- even Tea Partiers – opposed by a wide margin to cuts in Medicare, Social Security, etc., the only policy initiatives on the table are either superficial or political. It is not the conservatives fault for advancing their political agenda but the liberals fault for not advancing an agenda that recognizes the need for true fiscal restraint while promoting growth.
If I were God, and some of you should be DAMN glad I'm not, I would first pass a Constitutional Amendment that functionally said the following:
The federal government may not spend any money, or grant any tax breaks, that do not do one of three things:
1. defend the nation, or
2. aid in generating a long term increase in productivity within the private business sector without directly impacting all economic groups unequally, or
3. benefit depressed economic subsets of the nation but only on a means tested basis that limits payments to no more than 20% of the nation, and
in the aggregate, unless approved by a supermajority of 60% of both Houses of the Congress, all such spending may not exceed X% of the gross domestic product for the latest fiscal year for which the GDP is available. (Okay, the language needs work.)
In implementing this amendment, I would…
1. eliminate corporate income taxes. There is no such thing as a corporate income tax, really. It is just another cost that is passed through to the consumer. Hidden taxes should never be allowed.
2. eliminate capital gains. Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate that earned income is taxed at. (Sorry conservatives, but I still support a graduated rate.)
3. means test all entitlements. For example, I would eliminate Social Security and substitute a minimum national income for the elderly and the totally disabled. In effect, the poor would get an increase and the well-to-do who make more than the minimum national income level would lose Social Security benefits altogether. Same thing for Medicare – although the eligibility trigger would be graduated, rather than being an absolute figure. In both cases, however, I would cut total expenditures significantly.
4. simplify the tax code. Eliminate all deductions except charitable contributions. With apologies to the accountants in the world, every taxpayer should be able to do their own tax return on a single, two sided sheet of paper.
5. cut spending by 20% across the board. Then add 5% back as adjustments to those departments who would have to cut truly critical items. And then add 10% back for improvements in infrastructure. (Those are all wags, not exact figures. They are used to demonstrate a concept, not set the actual levels.)
As a percentage of GNP, the country that has borrowed the most money is not the US – it was Japan, after WWII. Unlike us, however, they didn’t run budget deficits so as to fund consumption. They ran budget deficits to fund infrastructure development. And that is why they have Sony, Toyota, et. al. In an amazingly short period of time and in a war torn economy, they built an infrastructure that allowed for individuals to create such companies; an environment that nurtured their development. They went from society that, in my youth, was famous for its crappy quality of construction to one that was famous for having a quality of construction that was better than our own.
I favor government spending and tax policy that increases productivity and oppose all government spending and tax policy that is focused on consumption, unless it is means tested. So, since the home mortgage deduction is not means tested, for example, I would eliminate it.
And I have a broad view of what constitutes increasing productivity. Education is an investment in our economic future every bit as much as the Interstate Highway System was. (Not all educational spending is, however – spending should be focused on results. Crappy teachers should be fired and good ones should make more than they do now.) So are investments in things that reduce our dependence on foreign oil – such as mass transit (including high speed rail), highway improvements, etc.
As a self-professed radical moderate, I contend that the left and the right are both full of it. They each have their own constituencies and they base their efforts, it seems, on the other guy incurring all the pain. Cut my taxes and end your programs. Increase my programs by increasing your taxes. It’s always “either / or” – no compromises and if you don’t support my position (be it left or right) then you either hate the poor or hate the rich.
I say that we should both take from, and reject, a lot of the ideas that come from both the left and the right. We need to cut waste without cutting meat – and sorry liberals, but bad teachers and wasteful programs should go. We need a low tax rate – but sorry conservatives, but we need one that encourages massive growth in the middle class instead of enriching the upper classes at the specific expense of the poor and the middle class.
Both sides fail because both sides are pandering to the interests of their constituencies and neither is pandering to the interests of the nation – even if their ideologue notions convince them otherwise.
Yoda out…
