The need for Republican alternatives
While naysayers are highly critical of Obama’s economic plans, pointing to a growing deficit as reason for concern, Republicans have yet to offer viable alternatives to help stop a spiraling economy.
Instead, with the recent public outrage over AIG, Republicans continue to paint the President’s economic plans as being “socialist.” Various Republican Congressmen have called for the Treasury Secretary to step down after nearly three months on the job.
On Sunday, Judd Gregg, Republican Senator of New Hampshire, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the president’s plan would bankrupt the country. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama told “Fox News Sunday”: “We’re on a — on the fast road to financial destruction, and I see a 20 billion — a $20 trillion deficit in the few years to come.”
With millions of Americans losing their jobs, and the credit markets currently frozen, government inaction simply does not appear to be a viable option. If Republicans want to win popular support, they, too, must offer an ambitious plan that will attempt to unfreeze the credit markets. The mark of any successful economic plan would look to cause banks to lend again, while aiming to steadily pay the nation’s debt over the long-term. This plan would still require billions, but the difference would be in the details aimed at achieving fiscal restraint and responsibility over the next decade.
Inherently, Americans are rightfully concerned about the nation’s long-term health. The country is borrowing billions from foreign nations. Confidence in the U.S. dollar is undermined as the nation’s debt grows. This should be an opportune time for Republicans to offer reasonable alternatives to the American public, instead of simply tapping into populist outrage to score political points on the nation’s broadcasts.
The problem is that the Bush Administration gave the current administration the ammo they needed to push the United States toward a Eurosolcialist model. I agree that the GOP needs to offer a plan. But the reality is that they have no ability to get it through congress the way that it is now. What is needed is a different, but similar “Contract With America”. I for one do not blame the people of AIG who got bonuses. Not all got $1,000,000 bonuses. Some got as little as $1,000. The deal was worked out by the current Treasury Sec.-Geithner. It is really hard to get that through the spin machine of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media.
I, too, think we need something on the order of Gingrich’s “Contract With America.” The GOP has to do more than just carp at Obama’s program, that is true, but we need to be “a choice, not an echo,” as well. Truly, nothing we would put up in terms of actual legislation would pass the Congress as it is presently constituted. Yet, we do need to put forth ideas which will resonate with a public which is showing clear signs of becoming uneasy about Obama’s statist (and incalculably costly) “solutions.” We need to offer free market alternatives which will intelligently address the real problems which exist in the lives of real Americans. Surely, even in a diminished GOP, there are people who are capable of advancing intelligent alternatives to Obamunism. If not, then we are in greater trouble than we realize.
The alternative that the Republicans need to offer is letting the financial industry fail instead of bailing out the corporations. Not only is it the will of the people, as that is what the people have professed consistently (most polls, as well as personal anecdote), but it’s the right thing to do. These businesses took gigantic risks in investing in subprime mortgages, insuring those investments, and selling those mortgages. The people who speculated on housing prices also took risks, as did those people who failed to save money in safe assets for retirement. Those businesses and individuals who took the risks need to live with the repurcussions, which will provide opportunities for others to profit and re-create the businesses (if they are even needed for the economy).
Spending trillions of dollars, de-valuing the currency, and shoving the fundamentally unsound market (as well as the debt) on to the next generation (as Congress is doing now, in a bi-partisan fashion) is not the answer.
Yes, letting them fail will be painful. But the Republicans have a responsibility to the Constitution and to the nation to do what is right for our future, and not what is convenient for the government’s popularity. The idea of the government “fixing the economy” is about as realistic as the government “fixing evil” or “stopping anger”. The economy is controlled by what the people, in aggregate, buy and sell, and not by the government.
The idea of fixing the credit markets is a false premise. The credit markets are what have caused the problem to begin with. The businesses were betting, through credit, on faster growth and higher economic returns than what happened. The solution is to let people start saving money and stop using credit, not increase credit through more governmental action.
The Republican party needs to educate the people on these issues and sponsor legislation that supports it. Yes, inaction is a hard policy, but remember, it’s what the people want, and it’s very defensible.
I totally agree that corporations which fail should be allowed to go under. Since when does a private enterprise, of whatever size, have the right to be immune to the consequences of appallingly stupid and shortsighted decisions it makes?
If I opened up a donut shop, and my donuts were subpar, I would go under, and I would deserve to. Why should AIG, or any other enterprise, merely because of its size, be sheltered from the effects of its decision-making?
Sadly, it was the Bush Administration which began bailing these companies out. If so-called “conservatives” run away from free-market beliefs, can we really be surprised if the avowed big-government types like Obama do so too?
If Washington will bail out badly run corporations, than I think I’ll open that donut shop, after all. Or maybe D. C. will bail me out the next time I go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas. Seems only fair.
Oops. Got side-tracked. Republicans like Boehner, DeMint, etc. HAVE given alternatives, in writing, that were REJECTED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.
YES, @Doug, with Fair Tax. Huckabee is doing a fairly good job of bringing that to the people lately. I think it is the ONLY way to bring every single person out of the woodwork. It doesn’t matter if you’re a citizen, an illegal, a pimp or a drug dealer…if you buy you pay. And who in the “H” ever thought the government should have ANY right to ANYone’s inheritance??? My parents ALREADY paid taxes on their income, property and businesses…why should I pay AGAIN when they die?
House leader John Boehner has offered plenty of solutions. The characterizations of Republicans as simply naysayers is undeserved. The reason Republican opposition may eclipse their “positive solutions” is that they are being shut out of the process and Obama’s spending plans are so outrageous!
Here’s Boehner’s latest alternative plan: http://is.gd/nNmW
There should already have been an alternative, and it is very disturbing that the current crop of Republicans are not willing to take a stab at the weaknesses of the Obamastration’s proposals that have come up and come up with new ideas. As blue ribbon as the members of the President’s cabinet are, they seem to have squandered their opportunity at fixing the economy and instead have given the American people nothing more than band-aids while exposing skeletons in their closets. I greatly anticipate that there will be a deficit of great largess that it will make Bush 43 look more fiscally conservative as opposed to his successor.
To deal with this eventual mass of red ink will take a lot of thought, hard work, and REAL sacrifice. Republicans should offer an economic plan that will…
Put an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts and omnibus “catch all” bills…these constant practices only serve to throw good money at bad.
Thaw the credit markets to jump start the economy and get the country moving again.
Create stringent earmark prioritization and funding policies (i.e. mandatory competitive bidding, independent private studies on projects) that will weed out unnecessary pork projects (i.e. “bridges to nowhere”).
Shoot for budget surpluses that go strictly to paying off the national debt (no new government spending) — our children do NOT deserve to be burdened with the excesses of bad financial decisions.
Reform the archaic tax codes into a more simplified system that benefits ALL Americans and rewards hard work and success, not greed and incompetence.
Yes, what I just said may seem sketchy, simplistic and vague, but these should be some points to build on to create a compelling economic agenda that will benefit our country and our future. There is no more time to waste. We cannot afford to wait for the Democrats to completely crumble…we must start taking action while they are still having a ball. Republicans need to unite and start offering REAL solutions to our fiscal and economic challenges NOW!
The reason why they say that the Repubs have no written plan is the lefties (like myself) have only heard “tax cuts, tax cuts”. Tax cuts dont bring an immediate recovery (im not saying President Obama’s plan will bring an immediate recovery either) but the lefties need some evidence of seeing big business put money BACK into the hands of the people. I agree it is the fault of both parties with this unreal spending but the public perceives the Repubs as being for the rich and big business.
I have never believed this (only with the rich Repubs and Dems I do). Leona Helmsley told the truth when she said the rich dont pay taxes I have heard other rich ones say that. I knew someone who was a Democrat and when he became a successful business owner he said he became Republican so he wouldnt have to pay as many taxes, that told me something. I agree with Huckabee and the fair tax plan and like the above poster said this is an American problem not a Dem or Repub problem. One thing I like about Mr Huckabee is that on his show he is “fair and balanced” and lets both sides speak unlike Mr Hannity and Mr OReilly and Mr Limbaugh, heck I have never seen Mr Romney be unruly either.
Diane Stafford of McClatchy Newspapers wrote in the Charlotte Observer 3/22/09 an academic study found that employee well-being is inextricably tied to higher performance. Stressed, unhappy workers hurt the financial productivity of any organization. Republicans must focus on common sense alternatives to Democratic plans in such a way as to relieve some of the stress unhappy Americans are experiencing. Take education, for example. Schools in which the teachers decide who will be that school’s Principal would go a long way towards increased harmony and relieved stress among respective public school staffs. Similarly, financial payments to tax paying Americans would relieve their stress and tend to make them feel 1.) that government officials really do care about average Americans, and 2.) that average Americans using received funds to pay for goods and services would, indeed, help relieve the economic stress the country is currently feeling.
Recap–some great alternatives have been offered and summarily dismissed. We need to offer a final solution. The fair tax is one such solution as is the flat tax. Of course, I think state’s rights are the best solution as it fragments the currently abused power structure. Imagine, what if the money structure was as responsive to the will of the people as the house of Rep? I think there would be far less misuse by either party.
Here’s the HR 1207 Bill Ron Paul mentioned during CPAC:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13149
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h1207_ih.xml
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/
Audit the Fed!
Let’s face it, whatever move we make at this point amounts to an extreme social experiment. Honestly, I don’t think anybody can plan with great certainty here… but then, I’m just an old fool who understands how to do his taxes.
So what have we gained from the experiment so far? We’ve learned how our political system’s longing for transparency yields quite the parade of showmen waving their reports & charts, all trying to make us believe that they can piss the farthest. It seems that the new definition of “transparent” is “whatever we tell you transparency is“.
It’s unfortunate that all the ants in this hill cannot rise to the occasion of disputing these items. The whole act of punishing my dissent just makes a person look stupid. Still, it seems that everybody feels the need to be innocently generous. What is the statute of limitations when it comes to a tough question that the prez doesn’t want to answer? Why don’t any Republicans have any conspiracy theories here? It’s that whole “tinfoil hat” thing, isn’t it? Ha ha ha… such is the paradigm shift.
You want a GOP plan? see Mitt Romney.
Romney already outlined in numerous public interviews what the path to recovery should look like. No government bailouts for Detroit or corporations and certainly no new taxes on entrepreneurs and small business owners.
Gee, if only we had an experienced President with a history of turning around economic problems into successes (Romney)….oh wait we decided it would be better to have a 78 year old career politicain (McCain) as our Presidential candidate instead…
You want a New Republican Party? Lets stop nominating GOP candidates based on tenure and start nominating on merit.
Tax Cuts - Tax Cuts - and more Tax Cuts, until the Obama-Bush depression ends.
Tax collection is little different than a punishment for being successful and honest; the gov’t should stop punishing the successful & responsible.
Why not tax cuts? Because some studies show that not all tax cut increased revenue to taxpayers is immediately spent — some is saved, some is used to pay down debt.
But both of these alternatives to spending are also good for the economic health of the taxpayers: either less household debt, or more small investor investment.
The real reason the elite are against tax cuts is power & control — letting taxpayers keep the wealth they create reduces the power of the elites to choose the future ‘winners’; it reduces the need for lobbyists to wine and dine the greedy AND incompetent politicians, who yet want to be treated like nobility.
Tax Cuts worked for Bush in recovering from the dot.com bubble, they would work now. Stimulus failed to restart growth in Japan after their 1989 real estate bubble pop — the ObaPorkulus will fail to restart growth in America.
Fair Tax or Flat Tax are both far better than lobbyist tax like what we have.
House buyers should get a 50% tax credit on their house payment, not just interest, up to a lifetime maximum of 10 years of median taxable income. (~$350 000, but slowly rising with wages).
“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse.” - President George W. Bush, Dec 15, 2008
The only alternative is “free markets” - and this Harvard MBA Republican President politically sacrificed them in a panic. This, not Iraq, not 9/11, will be the lasting legacy of GWB and “compassionate conservatism.”
The problem isn’t that these risk swap securities are worthless - they’ve been worth 37 cents on the dollar when they are sold with the risk discounted - but their holders are waiting for the government to pay much more - as much as 97 cents on the dollar - to put them in a zombie bank and let present and future taxpayers take the more-ginormous losses with the proceeds going into the pockets of shylocks.
So, what is it “New Republicans”? Are you willing to toss GWB under the bus and repudiate his actions? ‘Cause if you aren’t, his is the plan you - and Obama - live with…as well as the results.
1. Eliminate the Federal Reserve and restore Congress’ constitutional role of regulating money.
2. Deal with AIG and the trading houses from an antitrust perspective instead of nationalization; break them up into smaller entities.
3. Illegalize, monitor and penalize naked short selling.
4. To lower government’s burden, immediately privatize the NEA, NEH, ED, USDA and DHHS, except for FDA.
5. With the money saved, immediately eliminate all estate and payroll taxes.
6. Legally change Social Security from being an entitlement to being a real insurance so it can’t be raided.
7. Pledge to systematically reduce the amount of business regulation law on the books by 50% in volume within the next four years, starting with OSHA.
8. Immediate deportation of all illegal aliens and completion of the Mexico border fence. That’s not harshness; that’s respect for the rule of law and fairness for legal citizens.
9. Initiate limited, “no strings attached” stimulus spending, including some FDR style “make work” programs, some investments in national infrastructure and limited TARP funds for companies created by antitrust enforcement.
10. Fireside Chats (they worked).
11. Remove speech and political activity restrictions on religious 501(c)(3)s. This would do more to get ordinary people involved with politics than any other action we could take as a nation; The reason 501(c)(3) prohibitions arose in the first place was to discourage average citizens from being involved with politics.
12. Drill baby, drill!
I don’t care if anyone says we can’t get all of these things, or that they might raise the ire of the other side of the aisle. The fact is, if we can get any of these items they will viable alternatives to help stop a spiraling economy.
What we need is a constitutional amendment. I have one in mind. It will immediately cure our economic problems, our energy problems, and our employment problems and most, if not all our social problems. Try it, and if it doesn’t work, e-mail me and I will cheerfully refund your money. The Amendment I suggest is simple and to the point.
The new amendment would read:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
Damn! Someone else already thought of it.
I think that ammendment should be the focus of the GOP. I think it is a winner.
@Ted…great minds think alike. I recently composed a “Deconstruction Proposal” to Michael Steele, Pete Sessions, etc. that has striking similarities.
Sidebar on the drill baby drill point: The Department of Energy was created by Jimmy Carter in 1977 to….drum roll please…reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. $24.2B per year, 16,000 federal employees and 100,000 private contractors later…we have Al Gore, Global Warming and Cap and Trade.
America is in her adolescence and the choices made today will determine what kind of adult she matures into–or whether or not she survives at all.
I don’t know why my post never made it, but you guys should look into HR1207. Ron Paul is sponsoring The Federal Reserve Transparency Act. The bill is only one page long with one simple goal: Audit the Fed.
Republicans need to make the Fair Tax their own. The best ways to do that is the Liberal Capitalist way: The Zero-Tax Society.
“Pay as you go” taxation schemes like we currently have are primitive, not progressive. The Zero-Tax Society would take the Fair Tax and add another component: a compulsory payment into a National Trust that in the future will make government self-funding, offering our children’s children a life free of all taxation.
wansn’t the income tax supposed to be just a temporary thing? i think that Republicans have offered several different alternatives, all ignored by the present adm. and the liberal Dems. The problem is that they don’t want to listen, because they are all set in this thinking that Bush screwed things up, even though he really didn’t have much to do with it.
Kind of pointless to accuse the GOP of not offering alternatives when they have been cut out of the process. Maybe they should be doing a better job of publicizing their proposals. But you can only try so many times before what you are saying gets ignored because it’s not acted upon on Capitol Hill.
@Karen C - way to go. If 1207 passes, heads will roll. We will finally be able to deal with the real cause of this economic crisis: the greedy criminals bringing our economy to ruin.
I don’t know why, but I just didn’t see it from earlier, so I assumed the post wasn’t made and reposted.
Everyone read HR 1207 - the bill is one page long and just about the finest stroke of pen I’ve seen in a long time.
@David…I FORGOT to say it’s also posted at the 912 Project. On the first Tue. after its launch there were 63K of us and now nearly 260K! Glenn is a big Ron Paul fan.
I don’t really care WHAT party anyone belongs to as long as they uphold his/her oath to the CONSTITUTION. Everything else can be debated and drilled down on a give and take from there.
I just finished a seven page “what for” “want to be part of the solution” letter to Michael Steele. At the end I put “Copies for Distribution.” Even if nobody ever reads it at least I got a cohesive order to my thoughts and priorities.
Those who do not know history … you know the quote, right?
1. Energy Independence: Carter started it, Reagan gutted it. Symbolically, he took the solar panels off the White House; most importantly, he eliminated the Synthetic Fuels Corporation and other efforts to wean us from foreign oil. True, SFC was having tech problems but then again, what start-up doesn’t? Y’all need to come clean on this.
2. Flat Tax: The complication in our tax code comes not from the progressive tax rate, but from the deductions, credits and other complications. You want to eliminate the child tax credit, mortgage home interest deduction, contributions to your church & charity, credit for exporting wheat germ to countries ending in “-stan” (o.k. I made that last one up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it existed…). Sure, fine with me: taxes should be for raising revenue. If Congress & the White House want to encourage raising kids, owning a home and exporting wheat germ, it should do it by direct appropriations. I don’t see it happening but go ahead.
Meanwhile, the progressive tax rate is the REAL target of the inventors of the Flat Tax (and its cousin the Fair Tax), making either F.T. merely another excuse to shift cost of government away from the rich onto the middleclass/workingclass. Go ahead and destroy yourself if you wanna.
3. Inheritence Tax: This was the idea of our nation’s founders, who hated the idea of an inherited aristocracy of wealth. In today’s money, the richest of the Founders might be worth something like $3 million, tops. The inheritence tax was DESIGNED to keep the wealthy aristocracy from having excessive political power, so I see why the aristocracy of the political parties might like getting rid of it but why on earth would the 95% of all Americans who will never come close to paying the inheritence tax want to get rid of it?
4. States Rights: Surely if the feddies impose a Mandate like No Child Left Behind, they should fund it, right? They haven’t, right? I think we might agree on this.
5. The Free Market in Federal Assets: how about requiring that any sale of substantial public assets be at auction? Currently, mineral rights are sold at a dollar amount set in the 1880s. Surely we’all can agree a freer market would be appropriate here?
6. Trustbusting: The Republican Party used to be the party of the trustbusters. Remember Teddy Roosevelt? Y’all oughta seriously look into reclaiming your heritage. Of course, you’ll have to fight the corporate owners of your party. I sincerely wish you luck on that!
Federal Reserve: sorry I left this one out.
Why we let a private organization control our currency, I can’t imagine … especially given the results.
The Party that can explain why we need to regain control of our money … creating the Third Bank of the United States … just might have an advantage.
I’m not a Republican. In a purely partisan sense, I hope you don’t go for it. But if MY party doesn’t, I hope you do … because it’s good for America.
Don’t we all agree we’d rather America succeed even if our Party fails?
Heritage Foundation is offering alternatives daily in the email blasts that they send out. And, IMHO, its a waste of time. The democrats are hell bent on pushing as much of their agenda through as possible. They want to insure that they never, ever lose power again.
The Republicans have 3 important tasks. 1) analyze why they lost voters on 11/7/06 and 11/4/08. 2) re-connect with the estranged Reagan Democrats that have kept the GOP in power. & 3) continue to shine a spotlight on the dangerous policies of the democrats.
Unfortunately the Repub’s are hung on on item 3. They’ve totally dropped the ball on the 1st 2 items. No self -analysis and no attempt to re-connect w/Mom and Pop Middle America.
I’m not optimistic, Steven, about 11/2/10 - mid terms. Republicans are not doing what needs to be done. They’re in denial regarding how they and the conservative movement as a whole has veered off course. Getting back on course needs to be their strategy. Putting their own dysfunctional house in order must be “the alternative plan”. Winning either the House, the Senate or both in 2010 should be a priority. Yet there remains a great gulf fixed between the GOP and its “former” voting Base. Darvin Dowdy
@Theophilus
Are you REALLY one of the one-quarter of one-percent of Americans affected by the estate tax? I sincerely doubt it, but if you are, then come clean about your bias. Why would you, who claim to be wealthier than 99.75% of all other Americans, so unwilling to contribute a little extra to pay for our wars and other problems?
The vast majority of the wealth covered by the estate tax has never been taxed; it is capital gains that are not taxed until the value is realized (e.g. the stock is sold). When it is inherited, the inheritor doesn’t pay capital gains; it’s just never taxed at all. That’s why the Walton family and other uber-rich kids; are funding a huge effort to reap their unearned billions without paying their share toward the upkeep of our great nation, which made their comfortable living possible.
I understand that paying ANY tax displeases some people, but it you prefer to live in untaxed nations go ahead. They say that Somalia is lovely this time of year and those who are wealthy enough to be affected by the estate tax can surely afford a private army.
It’s worth noting that nearly all income is has been “taxed before” … for example, typically your WAGES come from money given to your employer in a transaction that often includes sales tax. If your WAGES has been “taxed before” why are you paying income taxes on top of that? Indeed, income taxes are MORE UNFAIR than inheritance tax, since you EARN WAGES by hard work; in contrast, an inheritance you get solely because your father met your mother.
As to the attitude of our Founding Fathers, I suggest you read the biography of George Washington (one of the wealthiest of our Founders and the person most responsible as an individual for our freedom … not so much for winning our Revolution as for choosing not to make himself nearly a King…). A good start wold be “His Excellency: George Washington” which discusses his attitude toward the hereditary aristocracy in detail.
You can learn more from ACTUAL wealthy Americans at
<a href=”http://www.responsiblewealth.org/”>http://www.responsiblewealth.org/</a>
The GOP “could” in theory take up the populist cause but to do so, it would have to turn its back on its big-money backers. Since the Democrats are in power, this would be the time to do it, as Money Follows Power and, let’s be honest, the Democrats are the ones worth bribing right now. A smart Republican party would say to the Waltons etc: “Hey, go bribe THEM, we’ll go back to our Teddy Roovesvelt roots”.
The GOP could work to keep Americans employed instead of allowing businesses to charge off the expenses of exporting jobs; it could abandon the lunacy of using tax breaks to create jobs … the math don’t work! It would try to work across the aisle to make health care no longer an employer-provided benefit … how many employers WANT to be in the health care business … We build cars in Ontario instead of Detroit because of health care costs…). The GOP used 70 or 90 filibusters to block legislation last Congress and so far it’s repeating its mistake. I don’t think the GOP has the self-awareness to turn around but if they did … if there were TWO parties COMPETING for the interests of the average American … the average American would win either way.
Rewinn, do you not believe the rich sould pay a greater ratio of taxes?
For amounts not greater than $10,000, the tax liability is 18% of the amount.
How is this right?
Theophilus:
No federal estate tax is paid on amounts under $10,000.
In fact, the threshold is much higher, several million for a married couple IIRC.
Really, the GOP needs to get its facts straight if it wants to come back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States
@Rewinn: I have found that debating issues in the style that you demonstrate is, in many ways, what stalls effective dialogues and prevents concrete solutions to vital challenges (i.e. cluttered lists of what look to be detailed “facts” but in reality are merely grains of truth wrapped in rhetoric that sideline real progress).
For example, there’s a lot more to the Dept. of Energy than “Jimmy Carter started it and Reagan gutted it.” Considering it was started to “stop our dependence on foreign oil” and has had billions funneled through it I hardly think it could be called a success no matter who’s been involved.
Lines referencing “the big money backers of the GOP” are old and inaccurate…as if there isn’t big money in the Democratic Party. Kennedy, Heinz-Kerry, AAUW, SEIU, etc. are all “names” most of us are familiar with. Hollywooders gave such an incredible amount of money to Democrats that they now have their own representation in Obama’s administration. Next thing you know the owner of the Steelers will have a cabinet post.
Regardless of party, I usually choose not to expend my time and energy with people who simply want to indulge their voices regardless of what the “whole” truth is. However, at least with your tax stance, it is not right to let it stand in a published forum without pointing out that in your sweeping statements you simply use “the usual” talking points that don’t hold up in serious discussions.
1. Fair/Flat Tax Programs (written by OTHER than the Barney Franks, Chris Dodds and Timothy Geithners of our world)…elminate loopholes, provide avenues for everyone who purchases goods and services in America to pay taxes (including drug dealers and pimps), give incentives to make responsible choices and ensure that we each pay the consequences of those choices.
Those of “uber wealth” who buy $10M yachts pay taxes on those purchases thereby contributing the “more” you say they should. If I buy a $30K car and my neighbor buys a $60K car then we each freely have chosen where to put our money and “paid to play” according to our desires and abilities.
2. Inheritance Taxes: My parents built a house on several acres and they paid taxes on it from the minute they bought the raw land. Property taxes, sales taxes (on everything from lumber to appliances), permits, utility taxes, use taxes, build-ins on every subcontractor’s bid included helping to pay for their licenses (i.e. taxes), fees for easements, recording deeds, etc., etc. Throughout the forty years they’ve owned it they’ve paid taxes on the income they produced to pay for the mortgage. It’s been paid off for years but those pesky property taxes, insurance premiums that include taxes, taxes on products (let’s say a furnace) and services (to the roofer for a new roof) for upkeep continue. Now, when they die you think it’s okay for me and my siblings to pay the government MORE?
It wasn’t only Republicans who created the complicated tax laws that encourage people to transfer property rights while they’re still alive so the government doesn’t get all they want to then give to the ACORNS and Planned Parenthoods that my parents vehemently opposed in life? Talk about adding insult to injury.
I’ve never seen so many people with so little pride who think they “deserve” pieces of other people’s hard work and perseverance as I do today. While you’re suggesting books to read you might want to get a copy of “The Little Red Hen.”
@Karen C
I have found that starting a posting out with a personal attack, as you have, is the sign of someone not interested in actually talking about issues.
In particular, where I deal with an issue briefly, you complain that there’s more to it than that.
Where I go into an issue in more detail, you complain about that too. “Grains of truth wrapped in …”
As I’ve said before, I’m happy to let the GOP wallow in personal attacks and adulation of the wealthy. Look where it got you in November!
But for the sake of America, I would hope that your party would try something new.
P.S. I recommended you read a great biography of George Washington; you recommended I read a children’s book.
Indeed!
Rewinn–are you willing to admit that you favor rich Americans paying a higher ratio of taxes?
@Theophilus - not only am I “willing to admit” that in America, the rich should pay a higher ratio of their income and/or wealth in taxes, but I positively promote the concept as being thoroughly in line with the vision of our Founders in opposition to the development of a hereditary aristocracy of wealth.
We can disagree as to the best means of achieving this goal; what is your alternative?
There are lots of great ideas here.
Here is what the 2nd Contract with America should be:
Term limits will be created for congress, both house and senate. These limits will be not have a grandfathering. 12 years maximum total in congress (3 terms in the house and 1 in the senate or 2 in the senate terms, 6 terms in the house). If you are beyond these years now, you can’t run for re-election.
Removal of all post government service benefits for elected officials. No lifetime heath insurance, no lifetime pensions. The member of congress was voted out of office because your bosses (the voter) fired you. Why should you continue to collect paychecks and benefits after you are fired? Talk about golden parachutes, a CEO does not have a parachute as good as members on congress.
Federal budget (spending) will be required to decline by 1% of GDP per year until the budget is 15% of GDP. All spending must be on budget, no off budget spending. Taxes shall be limited to 1% of GDP greater than the budget until the federal debt is $0. The budget is then required to be balanced on an annual basis.
A constitutional amendment which removes the ability to collect income taxes will be sent to the states for ratification in the 1st congress which the republican party has a majority in the house and senate.
A 2nd amendment which implements a consumption based tax system which is capped at 22%. The federal government will not be allowed to collect taxes in any way other than the consumption tax. There is one standard deduction for all American citizens which is 3 times the current poverty level. Citizens can apply on a quarterly or yearly basis for the refund of the taxes. Non-citizens (legal visitors to America) can apply for 50% of the consumption tax that is collect to be refunded with 30 days of exiting the country.
suemdonk
How about also some sort of free-market-in-government:
* Rights to mine gold and other minerals on public lands shall be sold only at auction (currently they are essentially given away, since the fee was set in 1872. Billions in gold is taken from our land and we get almost nothing, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=49754
* No no-bid contracts except in time of emergency and only then not to extend longer than the length of time it takes to conduct a bid. (Sure, I understand Halliburton got its first no-bid under Clinton; that was wrong, right?)
* All spending shall be publicly audited and the audits posted on the web for all to see. No more pallets of cash being airlifted into the Iraqi desert.
@Rewinn
Flat tax.
Jefferson
Jefferson, to “promote the general welfare” once wrote:
@Rewinn
To which founding fathers were you referring
JP Morgan to own EMC Mtg.—Merrill Lynch to own Saxon Mtg.
(Talk about a Monarchies)
Subject: Quote by Thomas Jefferson “Is a Central Bank is ever created in America- Through Inflation and Deflation the “Bankers” will Rob The “Americans”
Madison on taxes
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
Rewin,
1) need to do research on the public land rights, do not have enough information
2) contract bidding leads to lots of corruption, as much or more cost overruns than no-bid contracts. I would agree as long as the bid contracts include a clause as well which the company that bids much complete the project even if they underbid. To many bid contracts are underbid to win and then use the “change control” process to jack up the costs by 300% to 500% of the original bid since the winner of the bid knows that last things that a government agency will do is cancel a project or have a project half done.
3) All spending must be done through the earmarking process, every spending measure done through its own unique bill. No more Omnibus spending bills. No more government agencies getting blank checks to spend how some bureaucrat wants. If Congress or the President wants money spent on anything, list what it is and vote on it. Make the bill go through sub-committees and committees, voting on each bill separately. If the bill can’t survive being looked at in the sunlight it is not really needed. Also, all spending must start in the House of Representatives (per the constitution) and then go to the Senate for an up or down vote.
Sue I think #3 is a particularly strong arguement. However, are you in favor of earmarking or did I read that incorrectly?
@suemdonk
!) Check out the minerals leasing issue; it should be a no-brainer for people who really believe in the free market
2) I can’t agree that bidding is inherently more corrupt than no-bidding. But certainly ALL contracting, whether by bid or not, must be strongly controlled, including the reforms you suggest.
3) I think more, small bills instead of a gigantic Omnibus is a wise move. Difficult, but then, the difficult tasks are the ones worth doing; as a rule, people have already done the easy stuff.
3A) I’m not quite sure where you are going with the earmarking stuff, however I have some comments. Not all earmarking is either good or bad; the big problem is when it is invisible, snuck in in the middle of the night or whatever. All earmarks should be easily visible to the public so We The People can decide whether it’s good or not.
Having more, smaller bills as you suggest would help too.
With NO earmarking, all spending decisions are made by the Executive Branch. I’m not sure conservatives should trust the Executive with so much power. Representatives “should” know their districts better than the President.
3B) Markup of all bills should be fully trackable as to author, much as you can log into wikipedia and see who changed what when. This would let We The People decide whether we like a particular change and then react accordingly. (If this embarasses our representatives, well that’s o.k. ) The technology should be straightforward if the will is there.
My earmark comments must be confusing.
I think all federal government spending should be specific and laid out in clear and concise words in the bill which the house of representatives passes, is approved or disapproved by the senate with no alterations and then either signed or vetoed by the president. No executive branch should be allowed to submit a budget which does not specify where all the money is being spent. There are baseline costs like employee labor, benefit, office space costs, etc.. The money which is given to them without a clear plan as to where it should be spent.
The transportation department is given hundreds of billions of dollars that are just left to the bureaucrats to determine where to spend. This practice needs to stop.
I think every dollar which the DOT gives to states and localities should be required to be have the project identified by a member of the house of representatives and then voted on up or down.
Take a look at this Ron Paul You tube video
Ron Paul “We Need More Earmarks!” - CSPAN on house floor
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq_5H1XKVww]
I will look in to the mining issue.
On government contractsL I have worked with many people who have previously had the job of writing the bid specs for companies who live of government contracts. The government does a very poor job of putting in requirements for what is needed so the companies instruct their employees to not put any specifics in the bid so they can intentially low-ball the bid to win the bid. Then when the specifics are needed, it opens up the cost part of the contract and since they “won” the bid they can pretty much charge whatever they want or the contract is “won” as a cost plus which means that the project will cost the bid plus whatever else is needed to complete the job. Most contracts are very open, ended and can be manipulated to drive up the costs through intential lack of specifics and inefficency.
The same companies will do similar work with a private company and the project will cost 10% of what the government pays since the private company actually cares what the final budget will be and gets the specifics before the contract is awarded.
Bring on the private contractors. Excellent points Sue.
If the problem with government contracts is that the specs are insufficient, certainly the answer is not to eliminate bidding. No private enterprise would pick a vendor and say, “Set me a price!”
Leave a comment!
Latest Video
Recent Events
View more photos >
Connect On
Subscribe
© 2009 The New Republicans. All rights reserved. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Use.