Monday, July 4, 2011

A Crack In the Ice?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


As a staunch advocate of the notion our government must first cut spending before ANY revenue enhancers {that's PC for targeted tax increases} are considered or agreed to by republicans, I must admit I am intrigued by the two republican senators who have indicated a willingness to compromise. This new development of course is intended to hopefully avoid the U.S.A. defaulting on its debt obligations. Defaulting on our nation's obligations is certainly something our founding fathers would stand uniformly against were they here today.

Speaking frankly I don't trust the democrats any further than I can throw an elephant. Nor do I trust the republicans much more. What I do believe is important is the two sides join in constructive debate that eventually leads to a comprehensive solution to our debt problem. One that SIGNIFICANTLY cuts spending and raises revenue as well.

It can be done. It will take political courage by both republicans and democrats. The eventual outcome will likely not be a perfect solution, it is likely that no one will be completely satisfied, but it is indeed necessary we address the debt problem and address it soon.

If anyone thinks I am softening so be it. I will continue to advocate for limited government, a simplified tax system, the right of individual to retain the fruits of their labor, the need to reduce business and corporate taxes, to stop our seemingly incessant war machine, curb our willingness to make the problems of other nations our own, and the list goes on.

However, if there is one thing I learned from my business experience it's this... Sometimes ya gotta make a deal with the other side for your organization is to remain healthy. Or put another way... Don't win a battle only to lose the war.

Reporting from The New York Times.
WASHINGTON — Two senior Republicans said Sunday that they might be open to raising new government revenue as part of a deal to resolve the dispute over the federal debt ceiling, but they warned that there was little time to enact a comprehensive deal.

One of the senators, John Cornyn of Texas, said he would consider eliminating some tax breaks and corporate subsidies in the context of changes in the tax code, provided there was not an overall increase in taxes.

“I think it’s clear that the Republicans are opposed to any tax hikes, particularly during a fragile economic recovery,” Mr. Cornyn said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Now, do we believe tax reform is necessary? I would say absolutely.”

But he insisted that any changes in taxes be “revenue neutral,” meaning that the government would not take in any more money from individuals or businesses than it does now.

The other senator, John McCain of Arizona, said he would be willing to consider some “revenue raisers” as part of a broad deal, but he refused to name specific measures.

Mr. Cornyn, a member of the Senate leadership, also said that Republicans would be open to a short-term deal on the debt ceiling to provide more time for a comprehensive agreement.

“The problem with a minideal is we have a maxi-problem,” he said. “And the big problems aren’t going to go away if you cut a minideal. All it does is delay the moment of truth. And so I’d say better now than then. But if we can’t, then we’ll take the savings we can get now, and we will relitigate this as we get closer to the election.”

The White House had no comment on the senators’ remarks. {Continue Reading}

Republican's need to stay tough. They need to negotiate a deal that reduces spending significantly {I don't mean by only a mere 50 billion or so} and they need to insist on firm numbers BEFORE agreeing to any "revenue enhancers."

On a sightly different but related note former President Clinton {whose influence may be growing in the WH} Has called for a reduction in corporate income tax rates,

Excerpt from POLITICO
ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive,” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.

“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore – we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So, we SHOULD cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a FAIR amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2?” {Read The Rest Here}

Getting anything done won't be easy. But unless our nation and it's leaders do something positive things will get a whole lot worse in the very near future. It remains to be seen whether either party has the will to cut a deal in the best rational self interest of our country.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Memeorandum

5 comments:

  1. They're still not there, but they are heading in the right direction.

    Simplifying our tax code will generate more revenue because it will be easier to pay the tax than to avoid it.

    What the Democrats must learn is that government spending 25% of our GDP is unsustainable. They've got to cut it back to 17%, which is what our historic revenue collection has been.

    This is not an easy discussion given to soundbites.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's all well and fine, Silver, but we have to pay our debts. Our government, just like you and I, can not just not pay debts. Once we get the debts paid down, total spending will recede. The GOP habit of borrowing to pay debts has come back to bite us. We have to raise revenues and stop all the borrowing.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's perfectly fine to bicker over spending and cutting, but in the meantime we should pay our bills, and it is the height of irresponsibility not to.
    It is irresponsible, negligent leadership to allow such a build up of debt (14 trillion).
    Yes, I put a majority of blame on the Republicans, because, History shows they were in charge a majority of the time in the last 30 years since those multi-trillion dollar debt started adding up; and it is their policy to cut taxes before paying our bills, which if I read correctly you approve of.
    We have made commitments and promises. If we want to change those, again fine, but we should not break those commitments and promises, while people still depend on them for the basics of life.
    As a student of History you know life was rather grim for the average American before safety net programs.
    I disagree with the term socialism, because these are programs that Americans voted for, they were not forced upon us like a Stalinist government.
    Revenue neutral does not address the current debt. When do we tackle that, or do we not need to?
    Decades ago the people spoke (voted) for these programs and a larger government, which did not hold us back, but in fact helped us grow.
    If the people speak (vote) now for something different, fine, but we do not have the right to simply bankrupt future America because we have changed our minds.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One of the biggest weaknesses in the Ryan plan, IMHO, is the fact that it totally ignores defense spending. Between closing some of those foreign military basis (which do little but stimulate the economy of THOSE countries) and lessening our footprint in the Middle East (at a faster pace than Obama currently is), it sounds to me like we could probably save TENS of billions of dollars a year.......And I'll bet that we could get a pretty decent consensus on it, too; Democrats and some of the more libertarian Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, but guys, why aren't we talking about borrowing? It's a huge and growing part of our spending. It comes with interest, and if we create a viscious cycle whereby interest rates go up, then our spending will have to go up as well!

    I think we're not looking at the big picture.

    We have to look at borrowing, we have to look at raising taxes, and we have to look at the single largest block of discretionary spending - the military state. We have to end it. Not just pare it down, but systematically, over a generation, cut it by at least 50%, preferable 75-90%. We have to. We can not afford to be at a constant war footing for generation after generation. It's been 70 YEAR NOW!!! When does it end???

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.