Does the Nation Need More Revenue?...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
I am bracing for criticism from the far right as well as from the far left. Of course the criticism will be for different rationale, or reasons. The right will likely view the following as a sell out, a unnecessary compromise. On the other hand the left will no doubt call it hypocritical as they will make the case it strays from Randian objectivist principles of rational self interest. Both will be wrong. What each side fails to recognize is that reality will ultimately exact it's price for bad decisions made as well as for good decisions not made. Reality is blind to ideology.
The "No New Tax Pledge" pushed by Grover Norquist and signed by many republicans is nothing more than taking the reasonable and pushing it off the edge of a cliff to nowhere. Reality will, as it always does exact it's price.
Government, in the case of the USA means a limited constitutional government as defined and devised by the founders of our democratic republic. It is of course the ideal as history has amply demonstrated. At least for those "with eyes to see."
As our nation has grown, expanding in size and depth the infrastructure to support the growth has exceeded anything imaginable in 1787. Therefore, it stands to reason the need for tax revenues to fund the expanded infrastructure has increased exponentially over the past 2.3 centuries.
The difficulty today seems to rest in determining precisely what it is that the government ought to be funding in the 21st century. There are indeed many budget items that can be trimmed, from defense to entitlements to subsidies and really everything else in between. There is little doubt but what opportunities exist for cuts in our federal budget. It is also true there can be little doubt but what people, and this goes for business as well, will need to rethink the proper role of government in their lives. Because folks, sooner or later reality will arrive and exact it's price for all our excesses.
Our government, Leviathan as I like to call it, has no doubt grown too large and therefore excessively intrusive. Shrinking the size of our federal government and returning greater control to the people to run their own lives and businesses, thereby giving them greater liberty, should be the goal. And I believe it is what most people want, on both sides of the aisle.
Our problem is we have done nothing on either side of the aisle to regain some fiscal sanity. Simply put we need to do something, to make some decisions. Decisions that ultimately results in paying down our national debt and balances our budget annually. Failure to do will result in reality exacting a very painful price when it comes calling.
I am a strong proponent of wrapping out minds and arms around our spendthrift nature and propensity for living off the national credit card. Classical liberals, aka conservatives understand that individuals, businesses, and government cannot spend more than they are bringing in indefinitely or sooner or later the bridge that in essence is leading to nowhere will collapse. Reality always catches up to you, that's a fact.
We live in a democratic republic. Our representatives are elected by none other than... We the People. As such our representatives are accountable to us, and ultimately we are accountable for the representatives we elect to represent us. By extension this means we are responsible for the decisions they make, or don't make on our behalf. As provided for my our founders we have the ability, indeed the responsibility to fire the representatives that fail to act in our interest.
For us, (We the People) to effectively manage those we elect to represent our interests requires educating ourselves on the issues, remaining vigilant in holding our representatives feet to the fire, and taking decisive action to replace them every two, four, and six years when they fail to preform.
Now back to my original purpose. Yes, we need to control our profligate national sending and only a fool believes otherwise. We must also decide the priorities we as a people want our government to spend our money on, and at the end of the day if the "things" we want exceed the revenue stream (taxes coming in) we will have no choice but to increase dollars coming in to the federal treasury.
This is why the pledge not to raise taxes is foolish. It is just as foolish as to pledge never to reduce or cut spending when it is obvious reductions in expenditures can be made. The bottom line here folks is we simply cannot continue to live off the Nation's Platinum Card forever. The books must be balanced. If we are not willing to trim the goodies we enjoy, or give up the size of our Military Industrial Complex then we best be ready to cough up the extra dough. If we don't reality will exact a by far more painful and debilitating punishment than cutting spending or raising taxes.
Look at the reality of the past twenty five years and note the lies we have been told by the politicians.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
I am bracing for criticism from the far right as well as from the far left. Of course the criticism will be for different rationale, or reasons. The right will likely view the following as a sell out, a unnecessary compromise. On the other hand the left will no doubt call it hypocritical as they will make the case it strays from Randian objectivist principles of rational self interest. Both will be wrong. What each side fails to recognize is that reality will ultimately exact it's price for bad decisions made as well as for good decisions not made. Reality is blind to ideology.
The "No New Tax Pledge" pushed by Grover Norquist and signed by many republicans is nothing more than taking the reasonable and pushing it off the edge of a cliff to nowhere. Reality will, as it always does exact it's price.
Government, in the case of the USA means a limited constitutional government as defined and devised by the founders of our democratic republic. It is of course the ideal as history has amply demonstrated. At least for those "with eyes to see."
As our nation has grown, expanding in size and depth the infrastructure to support the growth has exceeded anything imaginable in 1787. Therefore, it stands to reason the need for tax revenues to fund the expanded infrastructure has increased exponentially over the past 2.3 centuries.
The difficulty today seems to rest in determining precisely what it is that the government ought to be funding in the 21st century. There are indeed many budget items that can be trimmed, from defense to entitlements to subsidies and really everything else in between. There is little doubt but what opportunities exist for cuts in our federal budget. It is also true there can be little doubt but what people, and this goes for business as well, will need to rethink the proper role of government in their lives. Because folks, sooner or later reality will arrive and exact it's price for all our excesses.
Our government, Leviathan as I like to call it, has no doubt grown too large and therefore excessively intrusive. Shrinking the size of our federal government and returning greater control to the people to run their own lives and businesses, thereby giving them greater liberty, should be the goal. And I believe it is what most people want, on both sides of the aisle.
Our problem is we have done nothing on either side of the aisle to regain some fiscal sanity. Simply put we need to do something, to make some decisions. Decisions that ultimately results in paying down our national debt and balances our budget annually. Failure to do will result in reality exacting a very painful price when it comes calling.
I am a strong proponent of wrapping out minds and arms around our spendthrift nature and propensity for living off the national credit card. Classical liberals, aka conservatives understand that individuals, businesses, and government cannot spend more than they are bringing in indefinitely or sooner or later the bridge that in essence is leading to nowhere will collapse. Reality always catches up to you, that's a fact.
We live in a democratic republic. Our representatives are elected by none other than... We the People. As such our representatives are accountable to us, and ultimately we are accountable for the representatives we elect to represent us. By extension this means we are responsible for the decisions they make, or don't make on our behalf. As provided for my our founders we have the ability, indeed the responsibility to fire the representatives that fail to act in our interest.
For us, (We the People) to effectively manage those we elect to represent our interests requires educating ourselves on the issues, remaining vigilant in holding our representatives feet to the fire, and taking decisive action to replace them every two, four, and six years when they fail to preform.
Now back to my original purpose. Yes, we need to control our profligate national sending and only a fool believes otherwise. We must also decide the priorities we as a people want our government to spend our money on, and at the end of the day if the "things" we want exceed the revenue stream (taxes coming in) we will have no choice but to increase dollars coming in to the federal treasury.
This is why the pledge not to raise taxes is foolish. It is just as foolish as to pledge never to reduce or cut spending when it is obvious reductions in expenditures can be made. The bottom line here folks is we simply cannot continue to live off the Nation's Platinum Card forever. The books must be balanced. If we are not willing to trim the goodies we enjoy, or give up the size of our Military Industrial Complex then we best be ready to cough up the extra dough. If we don't reality will exact a by far more painful and debilitating punishment than cutting spending or raising taxes.
Look at the reality of the past twenty five years and note the lies we have been told by the politicians.
Via: Memeorandum
Democrats and Republicans will be the political power for the foreseen future. There is less of a chance these days (partisanship being what it is) that a third party might get power. So whatever happens will have to happen within that reality.
ReplyDelete"Our government, Leviathan as I like to call it, has no doubt grown too large and therefore excessively intrusive"
By simply changing laws, we can cut excessive government. Example: Legalizing drugs will kill the drug crime wave, thus we would need less police, prisons, and justice costs (lawyers, judges, office staff, etc.). A lesson learned from prohibition.
"Classical liberals, aka conservatives understand that individuals, businesses, and government cannot spend more than they are bringing in indefinitely"
The fiscal policies of conservatives (Republicans) over the decades, show your statement to be untrue. That's the philosophy they cite, but actions speak louder than words and here we are trillions in debt. Democrats can be just as bad, but at least they had a reality that taxes must be raised. I reject the idea that taxes be raised only on the rich. The rich were not the only ones who gained by the tax cuts. Jefferson believed in a progressive tax structure, and so do I. I see nothing wrong with those who profit more from society being taxed more ( a few %).
"For us, (We the People) to effectively manage those we elect to represent our interests requires educating ourselves on the issues, remaining vigilant in holding our representatives feet to the fire, and taking decisive action to replace them every two, four, and six years when they fail to preform."
We are not doing our job (duty) as citizens. It is the only reason we are in this mess. It's easy to understand why people get apathetic when politicians do not do what they promised, or just lie, which seems to be the current speech from both sides today. IMO other political philosophies (Johnson, Paul, Rand, etc.) would become just as distorted in everyday reality of governing as the Democrats and Republicans have. It's not the political philosophies that need changing, but the involvement of citizens in the process has to change (grow).
"We must also decide the priorities we as a people want our government to spend our money on"
There is the problem.
Majority vote makes that decision. I would agree with Paul, that we should bring our military home (huge savings). But that won't happen; and it's not because politicians aren't in bed with defense contractors (they are) but because the people are not at that point yet. The Ryan plan makes its priorities, but causes unnecessary hardships on Americans. The Ryan plan drastically cuts social programs which individuals subsist on, yet expands the military. Priorities I disagree with, but millions agree with.
"The books must be balanced"
This would be my priority; and I am willing to have my taxes raised, only if the tax hike goes to paying off the debt, ONLY.
The vote, is a term limit and I don't support any other kind of term limits. If voters won't change enough to make needed changes; what other process in a Democratic Republic can, or should?
"Look at the reality of the past twenty five years and note the lies we have been told by the politicians"
Being gullible does not secure freedom.
I understand why people don't like Obama. They disagree with his policies and direction he wants to take the country.
I don't understand why people would vote for Romney. He (so far) refuses to take a stand on many issues, or give details about how he will do what he says he will do. How can anyone vote for a candidate, if they don't know what he will do? Vote for him just because he is calling himself a conservative? I think conservatives in Mass. regret voting for him.
"Classical liberals, aka conservatives understand that individuals, businesses, and government cannot spend more than they are bringing in indefinitely"
DeleteI did not say republicans, nor by conservatives do I mean the neo-cons who are just as statist and spendthrift as those whose whose policies they criticize. I will acknowledge I should have made that point clearer. There are, in fact few classical liberals and bonafide conservatives i congress or the senate.
Overall excellent observatios.
I am not for raising taxes because the more we give our politicians, the more they will spend and the more they will want.
ReplyDeleteInstead of raising taxes in a conventional sense we need to completely overhaul the tax system and admit that the federal government cannot be all things to all people.
I don't consider medicare and SS as an entitlement because it is something we pay for not something that is given to us. I do believe we need to reform SS because it, like our tax system, need to be reformed. SS to 70 over the next 10 years and a Fair Tax system whereby everyone contributes including the underground economy. This would achieve something the democrats have been after and letting everyone pay the "fair share".
If that won't work enact Simpson/Bowles ideas. Eliminate deductions, lower taxes and make the tax system simple.
I am in agreement with your premise. However, decisions need to be made and they should be made based on what the people have said they want. Of course we hope that the citizenry becomes educated and knowledgeable of the issues, the candidates, and where the candidates stand on issues (as well as their record if an incumbent) before casting their vote.
DeleteBottom line... We the People must decide what we want, what should be funded and what should not, and then accept the cuts, or tax increase, or a combination of the two if necessary to balance the national books on what the nation decides by majority vote.
There will always be winners and losers from a personal perspective. However if we continue the way we have for another 25 years we will ALL be losers. In a very big way.