posted on March 06, 2013 10:34
With Carter’s help, George Holding had a simple message last fall that boiled down the Republican mantra: “Cut spending now.”
It’s the one message that unites Republicans as they splinter over immigration, gay marriage and guns in the wake of Mitt Romney’s loss.
Here’s the challenge for Democrats: What’s your alternative?
House Republicans’ fervent faith in cutting spending led to the much-ballyhooed “sequestration” budget cuts. First Republicans said those cuts are no big deal. But now Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler and Governor McCrory say the cuts could cause an “emergency” by shutting down North Carolina’s multibillion-dollar hog and poultry industry.
Thanks to the determination (or obstinacy) of the House GOP, cutting spending dominates the debate today. Speaker Boehner went so far as to call taxes “stealing” from the American people.
That was the philosophy underlining Romney’s “47 percent” comments, which cost him the election. He complains now it was distorted. No, Mitt, it was clear and it was what you and Republicans believe: A significant percentage of Americans are moochers who gang up on the producers to steal their money.
Carter has written before that the Founding Fathers foresaw that risk, and that it’s part of the risk of democracy. But, in fact, that hasn’t happened. Since the high-tax 1950s, we have cut taxes on people at the top.
But the issue is before us, and Democrats have to answer. They have to define what they believe constitutes the right level and the right kind of government spending – and taxing.
It’s an honest debate that America deserves.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:05 AM
A writer, Gaius Publis, wrote in the Smirking Chimp an article trying to transfer Bush Disastrous Economy onto Clinton past policies.
It will not work. The numbers are real:
Bush 8 budgets took an 1800B Budget to 3500B or an 80% increase: a Surplus to a 1400B Deficit:
a 5800B Debt to 11,900 or 112% increase; 237,000 net jobs per month to 31,000; peace to two wars ; a tax cut, primrialy, for top incomes and borrowed 1900B that helped the rich get richer instead of paying our bills. Bush 8 gave us the Great Recession. Unemployment at 10%.
It will take years to recover fully. Good paying jobs. Full employment.-Tax wealth to pay down that debt. In 2011, top 1% got 91% of income increase. Tax them they are the ones with the incomes/wealth that can afford it. Get rid of the Koch Tea Party in the House.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:03 PM
Yep...what you've said is correct, Gary. These things you mention here are DEFINATELY worth an honest debate that America deserves. I'm not sure where that debate will be presented in an honest and balanced way, but it's definately worth having, for sure.
I'm proud of you for actually admitting that you (and your democratic think-alikes) are all about how to spend and how to tax. Tax and spend. Those things are first and foremost for democrats. Republicans have been saying that for decades. It's refreshing to actually see a prominent democrat admit to it.
Sequestration is absoluely NOT something that can be said to be a republican idea. Yea, since it's not all that popular now Obama & Co. are disavowing involvement in putting that together, but anyone that follows national politics isn't being fooled into believing that this is some kind of republican initiative only. You know the truth and so do I, Gary. C'mon.
The reason for some of the cuts that COULD happen is because they're being made in areas specifically designed to affect those that the mainstream media and democrats can show as "devastating". Yes, of course, some are pre-designated as discretionary spending...but, "discretionary" is the key word here. There are many, many ways that these cuts (which I truly believe are needed) can happen without long lines at airport security points and affecting teachers and firefighters and so forth. It's all a ruse. But, for people like Gary here, it serves their political purpose so they're far more interested in the politics of it than they are the people that would/could be affected.
I do agree that Romney's 47% remark was devastating. It was totally correct, of course, but was spun into being a huge nail in his campaign's coffin. It was genius...good politics by the Obama team...ignorance by Romney. Can't agree more with Gary's interpretation of that here.
Republicans believe that it is wrong to just single out one group of American taxpayers in the quest to get more revenue for the federal government. Yes, there are many things about our tax code that do help the higher income people. And, yes, I think many of those things can and should be corrected...most of it in the area of reduced tax rates for income received through investments and in loop-holes. Those things need to be looked at honestly by BOTH parties. I know many of my fellow republicans/conservatives won't agree with this, but I'm pragmatic enough to know this is true. I also believe that EVERY American, regardless of financial position in their personal lives, should pay into our tax system. 47% of American workers not paying ANYTHING into our tax system is ridiculous. I'm a flat-tax/"fair tax" advocate and either of those would accomplish what I'm saying here.
Appreciate the chance to respond to this Front Page post.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:29 PM
As an addendum: Amazing:
Since our front page doesn't allow "clickable links", you'll have to copy this link and then paste it to your browser. Sometime, hopefully, our TAP front page will have clickable links:
Friday, March 08, 2013 11:19 PM
The honest part of the debate that will never see the light of day, is that any amount of increased revenue will never pay down one penny of debt but only be used for more spending. If we need one trillion to continue the budget as it is going at present, and we take in 5 trillion in new revenue, all 5 trillion will be spent, and not a dime could be spared to reduce the debt. That's where this administration stands and anyone can see it if they open their eyes. The other truth is this President wants to hurt people at the top. He wants pay back for when those now at the top stole the wealth from the poor, and mostly black. Remember when the poor owned all the wealth and the now rich stole it from them. Not sure any of this makes to a fair debate.