The only politically feasible solution to our budget crisis

Congressional Republicans believe fervently that they have the backing of the American people to make deep cuts in federal spending. But as poll after poll indicates, they don’t. And if they remain oblivious to that fact, they’re going to end up in deep political trouble.

Ordinarily, that prospect wouldn’t exactly break my heart. However, since more important things are at stake here, such as the nation’s financial stability, I hope that doesn’t happen. I hope they come to their senses and realize that compromise — much as they hate that concept — is essential.

Last month, for example, the Harris Poll asked poll respondents which federal programs they would be willing to cut, echoing similar questions asked by Harris in 1980 and 2008. Here’s what they found:

Source: Harris Polls

Source: Harris Polls

Harris shows what every poll on the subject shows: Everybody wants to cut foreign aid and foreign military assistance. Fine. The only problem is, we’ll spend a grand total of about $40 billion on those programs this year. Eliminate it altogether — and remember, Israel and Egypt are by far the biggest recipients of such aid — and we’ve achieved almost nothing in terms of reducing the deficit.

Next, take a look at what has happened to our appetite for reduced spending since 1980, the year that Ronald Reagan won office. In every category except one, we are less supportive of spending cuts today than we were 30 years ago. Support for cutting food stamps, for example, has fallen by 25 points. The sole and very interesting exception is defense, where 41 percent of Americans now support spending cuts, an increase o seven percentage points.

Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under Reagan and a voice of fiscal sanity on the right, looks at those numbers and makes an interesting point:

“(The table) suggests that Republicans may have a lot less political capital to play with than they imagine. It also suggests that their strategy of front-loading spending cuts in the fiscal year 2011 is very ill-conceived. They are using up all the political capital they have for cutting spending in a way that is highly unlikely to be successful and that will not yield long-term savings…. By the time they get around to doing something about entitlements, they may find that budget-cutting exhaustion and frustration has set in and there is no support left for big budget cuts. It may be that they have one bite at the budget-cutting apple and they are squandering it.”

That’s a wise observation. For example, in their proposed spending cuts, the House GOP wants to slash the EPA’s budget by 29 percent. However, cutting spending on pollution control is backed by just 37 percent of Americans. A good chunk of that 37 percent may be voters in Republican primaries, which is why Newt Gingrich has proposed abolishing EPA and replacing it with something called the Environmental Solutions Agency. But Americans as a whole aren’t likely to look kindly on that idea.

Most importantly, look at the levels of support for cutting health care (24 percent), Social Security (11 percent), education (21 percent) and even mass transit (35 percent). If Republicans honestly believe that they’re going to make large-scale spending cuts in such programs and live to tell about it politically, they’re simply wrong.

On the other hand, of course, tax increases are probably even less popular than spending cuts. We, the American people, don’t want cuts in spending, and we don’t to pay more in taxes. And as long as we have leaders willing to pander to those unrealistic and even childish demands, our financial situation will worsen.

So does that mean we’re doomed? No. It means that the only path out of this mess is a deal to which both parties agree, a deal that both cuts spending and raises taxes while giving neither side a political advantage.

– Jay Bookman

790 comments Add your comment

Left wing management

February 17th, 2011
9:28 am

Republicans to American public: “Let them eat seed corn!” – Paul Krugman

buck@gon

February 17th, 2011
9:35 am

“So does that mean we’re doomed? No. It means that the only path out of this mess is a deal to which both parties agree, a deal that both cuts spending and raises taxes while giving neither side a political advantage. ”

So, the logical solution isn’t logical at all: it’s political. You are a Washington Man, Jay, through and through. I say this because only a Washington man considers the solution second after considering the political advantages first. NOTE: This is what the tea party is about WMJ!

The dominating defeat of the House will haunt Democrats for decades and decades if they don’t get with the program.

Since when do you care about opinion polls anyway? When it’s convenient for you? Look at Obamacare, and look at the polls. Naw, that wouldn’t suit your version of civility.

For this problem, the budget, what is required is real leadership, not poll-watching and not gaming political advantages–and certainly not high speed rail–that all Washington men, and our dopey adolescent President think is of paramount importance. Lead properly and people will go along. Watch polls, and you get more… well, Washington Men, like yourself.

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
9:37 am

And of course the Republicans read that as meaning that people want the social security checks eliminated. :roll:

USinUK

February 17th, 2011
9:38 am

dum … dum … dum … dum da-dum … dum da-dum …

buck@gon

February 17th, 2011
9:38 am

Oh, and if you don’t believe me, watch the media in the next couple of months–and your own column. There is about to be a plethora of stories coming out about homelessness, senior citizens eating dogfood, rape of the environment by evil corporations, the evils of the internal combustion tailpipe and poor government bureaucrats losing their jobs.

Political gamesmanship indeed.

It will be coming from YOUR side, Washington Man.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
9:38 am

“Ordinarily, that prospect wouldn’t exactly break my heart. However, since more important things are at stake here, such as the nation’s financial stability”
——————–

How very big of you to put the country first. Now go convince your trillion-dollar-deficit-proposing Idiot Messiah to do the same.

Time for the adults to step in.

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
9:41 am

It a good thing we have an adult in charge in the White House.

RB from Gwinnett

February 17th, 2011
9:43 am

As long as the option being presented to the mindless masses in this country is “let the governmnet cut your free ride services or increase the tax on the rich”, this is what you’re going to see in polls.

Change the poll to “what percentage of YOUR income are you willing to contribute to maintain these services” and you might see a little different perspective.

BTW, Jay. You keep dodging my question to you. Are you committed to fudging your taxes to throw in that “few thousand more” to the feds this year or were you not really serious about that?

USinUK

February 17th, 2011
9:43 am

damn,. Jay … you should never have called him Buck Vader … now, everytime he posts, I see this

http://www.virginmedia.com/tvradio/galleries/scifi/scifi-best-dramas.php?ssid=7

with the Imperial March playing in the background

Jay

February 17th, 2011
9:44 am

Barry, calling the president childish names such as “Idiot Messiah” pretty much disqualifies you from sitting at the adults’ table.

jm

February 17th, 2011
9:44 am

You left out hyperinflation and currency devaluation…. that will solve the problem. Fixes the deficit and makes American labor cheap again. Of course, it has the minor side effect of making us poor.

But in the spectrum of choices in front of gutless politicians, its probably the easiest route. We’ll see….

StJ

February 17th, 2011
9:45 am

So I guess the concept of keeping what you earn is a “childish demand”. :roll:

What people want is ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT WASTE. They’re tired of paying taxes out the wazoo, only to see the government waste their money. But somehow that subject wasn’t mentioned.

Wonder what that poll would look like.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
9:46 am

Calling him the Idiot Messiah works because it says so much about Obozo and his acolytes, all in two little words. I absolutely love it.

Doggone/GA

February 17th, 2011
9:47 am

“What people want is ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT WASTE”

Ok, here’s your chance: what waste would you target, and more importantly, how much would it save? Then take that figure and tell us how long it would take to pay off the debt with that savings.

Left wing management

February 17th, 2011
9:47 am

Lil’ Barry Bailout:

You still around?

Comrade, c’mon. How are those re-education classes I got you hooked up with coming? You seein any results yet for your insomnia and anxiety?

Keep the faith, brother. We’re pullin for you.

USinUK

February 17th, 2011
9:47 am

LBB – “Calling him the Idiot Messiah works because it says so much about Obozo and his acolytes”

actually, it says more about you.

in 2 little words.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
9:47 am

Spending cuts first, second, and third. Economy-slowing tax increases last. Show us the cuts.

Republicans are doing that. The Idiot Messiah didn’t show up for work.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

February 17th, 2011
9:48 am

I respectfully disagree. I hope my Republican party friends do all that is really needed, compromise or no, without regard to political consequences. I suspect that, if they really show some backbone – as they did on the GE aircraft engine yesterday – they will find the rational democrats joining them. A promising start.

Bosch

February 17th, 2011
9:48 am

OMG, USinUK, I just realized that’s the Darth Vader theme.

carlosgvv

February 17th, 2011
9:49 am

“So does this mean we’re doomed”?

Yes, if the only solution is a deal that both cuts spending and raises taxes while giving neither side a political advantage. The overall quality of our political parties assures this will never happen.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
9:49 am

USinUK
actually, it says more about you.
—————

Yeah, that I know how to get under your skin. And that I should consider a career as a brand consultant.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

February 17th, 2011
9:49 am

Dear Jay @ 9:44, does my cinematic allusion – “Chauncey” – so disqualify me?

Bosch

February 17th, 2011
9:50 am

“What people want is ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT WASTE”

And saying that over and over again apparently isn’t working. Government budgets have been slashed and people are still complaining — it’s like that bumper sticker term is on autopilot in many minds.

Of course we need to cut government waste, the problem is one man’s “waste” is another man’s “economic development”

Or woman’s…..sorry ladies.

Lord Help Us

February 17th, 2011
9:51 am

‘Yeah, that I know how to get under your skin. ‘

Reminds me of a lot of teenagers…some think they are adults…

Doggone/GA

February 17th, 2011
9:52 am

“Or woman’s…..sorry ladies”

Person is the word you need!

AmVet

February 17th, 2011
9:52 am

It would seem that there is only one spending cut category where the results are unequivocal.

Defense spending.

But the US Chamber of Commerce and the parasitic, spoon fed, welfare kings at those DoD contractors are not going to allow that to happen.

So we will continue to chip away at that MASSIVE boondoggle disguised as national security. And hope the old chickenhawks die off soon…

jm

February 17th, 2011
9:52 am

Jay, this column, would seem to offer some countervailing opinion though.

Next comes the “how to” question. Americans overwhelmingly favor a reduction in government spending (62 percent) to an increase in taxes (29 percent).

Here comes the catch. Everyone knows that to cut spending you have to cut where the spending is. Given a choice of reducing federal outlays for Social Security, Medicare or the military, the budget’s Big Three, guess which one Americans prefer?

Bingo. The military (55 percent).

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=ae2lPEkX5.rM

I think the poll questions are being asked in the wrong way….

ByteMe

February 17th, 2011
9:52 am

@jm: I’d disagree that currency devaluation is bad. The dollar declined quite a bit against other currencies last year and we’re still here and the only effect it had was to improve our ability to export products and it made imports — like oil — more expensive. I think we need more of it at this point in order to reduce the Federal deficit. More people are employed, more revenue is generated locally, and more taxes are collected from the activities that create exports than the activities that resell imports.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
9:53 am

If we cut the parasite maintenance programs, there wouldn’t be any jobs that Americans won’t do.

50% of the problem solved.

Del

February 17th, 2011
9:53 am

“But as poll after poll indicates, they don’t.” What about the poll taken on November 2, 2010?

kayaker 71

February 17th, 2011
9:53 am

Wonder if it was all liberals who responded to Bookman’s pol.

Jay

February 17th, 2011
9:53 am

USinUK

February 17th, 2011
9:53 am

“Yeah, that I know how to get under your skin”

:lol:

you remind me of the schmidiots who come on here, lose their arguments but stand up and crow about how they’re taking all of us on.

deluded, thy name is LBB

jm

February 17th, 2011
9:54 am

Average American voter is ignorant. That’s why we have an representative form of government. When idiots think we can balance the budget with eliminations to foreign aid, you know people are clueless.

Jay

February 17th, 2011
9:55 am

OK, quick poll:

Everybody opposed to cutting government waste, raise your hands….

ByteMe

February 17th, 2011
9:55 am

I think the poll questions are being asked in the wrong way….

I think people just don’t grasp the actual numbers involved because it would involve taking off their socks to count with their toes.

USinUK

February 17th, 2011
9:56 am

Ragnar – Being There – cinematic BRILLIANCE

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
9:57 am

The poll tells me one thing…we need leadership, and the Idiot Messiah is still in denial that a problem even exists.

Time for the adults to step in.

Joe the Plutocrat

February 17th, 2011
9:57 am

JB, can I expect a royalty check for my kids’ table/adults’ table concept (should have trademark/copyright)? we need look no further than the “jet engine” scenario to see this for what it is; the DC spending shell game. the estimated DoD buget for FY 2012 is just under $700 billion. does it matter if the funds are spent on redundant spare parts for fighter jets, contractors/mercenaries, or nation-building crusades in Central Asia, the Middle East, or the horn of Africa? as you noted yesterday (Sunday liquor sales), ’symbolism’ means something in politics, so if yesterdays’ vote is merely symbolic, it is, as the joke about 1,000 dead lawyers, “a start” – but addressing the budget is not so much about which special interest gets to feed at the trough, so much as it is redesigning (shrinking) the trough; and I just don’t see any “new ideas” coming from the GOP, Dems or tea party types.

jm

February 17th, 2011
9:57 am

“Everybody opposed to cutting government waste, raise your hands….”

Every labor union / US Gov’t employee hand just went up….

Lord Help Us

February 17th, 2011
9:58 am

:
:
:
(that’s my hand…fishing accident…)

Left wing management

February 17th, 2011
9:59 am

Everybody opposed to cutting government waste, raise your hands….

No hands raised here.

The waste I’m interested in cutting is that introduced to the system by the financial industry and their parasitic instruments. Oh, and bloated hedge fund CEO bonuses. Stuff like that. The rest I say is fine and dandy by me.

ByteMe

February 17th, 2011
9:59 am

Oh, Lord help us.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
9:59 am

Where are Obama’s cuts?

jm

February 17th, 2011
9:59 am

Jay, no one in the public sector has a motive to work themselves out of a job. Private sector workers individually don’t either, BUT the profit motive inherent in business drives the elimination of useless jobs. Since government has no profit motive, there is never a drive for efficiency. Unless the voters insist on it, year after year after year. And voters do get weary…. as soon as the street cops disappear, the crack dealers and prostitutes just come right back out on the street. Eternal voter vigilance is needed, and difficult.

jm

February 17th, 2011
10:00 am

“Where are Obama’s cuts?”

On vacation in Hawaii.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
10:00 am

bloated hedge fund CEO bonuses
—————

Please explain to us how private sector pay has any impact at all on the federal deficit.

Thanks in advance.

jm

February 17th, 2011
10:01 am

Jay, the President is clearly a hypocrite, patsy pandering politician on this issue. Republicans don’t like government spending, so they’ve come out honestly for cutting spending that will affect everyone.

The Dems are for more government spending. BUT THEY HAVE YET TO COME OUT OPENLY FOR THE TAX INCREASES THEY WANT TO PAY FOR THEM, except to say sock it to the rich which won’t pay for the deluge enema of spending coming out of Washington.

AmVet

February 17th, 2011
10:03 am

…estimated DoD buget for FY 2012 is just under $700 billion.

Not counting the shadow accounting/hidden numbers due to “national security”.

Nor does it include the sizable chunk of our annual $170 billion dollars in corporate welfare allocated to the DoD contractors…

ByteMe

February 17th, 2011
10:03 am

@jm… oh, puh-leeze. Such nonsense. You should watch what they do not what they say.

Del

February 17th, 2011
10:03 am

Great praise for the State of Wisconsin.

jm

February 17th, 2011
10:03 am

Obama’s just another prostitute looking to get re-elected. Leader, he is not. Follower, maybe. He’ll sign off on stuff after everyone else has stuck their neck out and put their names on the line.

This is not the type of person I think Americans look to for a President.

Lord Help Us

February 17th, 2011
10:06 am

‘except to say sock it to the rich’

It’s a pretty big ‘exception’ when combined with practical spending cuts…

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
10:06 am

jm
This is not the type of person I think Americans look to for a President.
——————-

But he has such cool bumper stickers.

Lord Help Us

February 17th, 2011
10:07 am

‘This is not the type of person I think Americans look to for a President.’

Who do you think can beat him in ‘12?

Del

February 17th, 2011
10:07 am

Governor Christie for president.

kayaker 71

February 17th, 2011
10:07 am

And if all of you big spenders out there believe that this wild spending spree is sustainable, I have little hope for this country. We might not want our food stamps cut or our SS payments reduced but our turn at the trough is going to have to change if want our country to survive. Bookman reminds me of an errant teenager who wants a pair of $250 Nikes and refuses to admit that we just can’t afford them. Christie is the Repub governor of one of the bluest states in the nation and is receiving kudos from all segments of the electorate for his budget cuts. Rather than asking “how many of you out there want to cut the federal budget”, you might ask if we want to survive as a nation. The Christies of this great country will pull us out of this debacle, despite of our mindless irresponsibility. But they will receive little help from the liberals.

stands for decibels

February 17th, 2011
10:07 am

And if they remain oblivious to that fact, [the GOP are] going to end up in deep political trouble.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Dave R.

February 17th, 2011
10:09 am

Boy, Jay, you’re a full day behind Cynthia in using this poll. You’re slipping.

I love it when polls are important to make your case, but are dismissed when they don’t, as in health care reform enactment.

Inconsistency, thy name is – BOOKMAN!

AmVet

February 17th, 2011
10:10 am

jm, at the risk of speaking in specifics instead of your beloved slogans, would you favor instituting a one tenth of a percent tax on all derivative transactions that would raise $500 billion a year for Uncle Sam (you and me)?

Or in Republispeak is that socking it to the evil rich?

Dirty Dawg

February 17th, 2011
10:10 am

Dealing with the ‘elephants in the room’? Easy…remove the cap on Social Security contributions – you make over $106K, you still pay into the fund…establish ’single-payer’ healthcare and the associated ‘negotiated’ costs for same…cut our military (bases, weapon-systems, personnel) by, at least, one third – we’ll still have the biggest and baddest in the world.

See how simple that is?

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
10:11 am

Will the right wingers pick Trump over Paul in the primary. The suspense. I mean, they did pick McCain/Palin so that pretty much opens the door for just about anything from cartoon character or less on the Republican ticket. I’m still putting my money on them digging up Reagan’s bones and propping them up on stage. He’ll be a shoe-in.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
10:13 am

“It may be that [Republicans] have one bite at the budget-cutting apple and they are squandering it.”
——————

Meanwhile, the Idiot Messiah and the Democrat party are still on a cotton-candy-induced sugar rush. More spending! More! More!

0311/0317 - 1811/1801

February 17th, 2011
10:14 am

Ah …………………….. another chart.

Nice Guy

February 17th, 2011
10:15 am

“I’m still putting my money on them digging up Reagan’s bones and propping them up on stage. ”

There’s your sign.

Del

February 17th, 2011
10:16 am

I think Obummer and the Dem’s are wishing in one hand and relieving their intestines in the other if they believe that the American VOTER isn’t deeply concerned with government spending and the growing deficit. The old tired left wing mantra of raise taxes on the wealthy isn’t resonating anymore.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 17th, 2011
10:16 am

So to translate Dirty Dawg, what we need are higher taxes, bigger government, and of course the obligatory cuts to national defense.

Mr. Right

February 17th, 2011
10:19 am

So does that mean we’re doomed? No. It means that the only path out of this mess is a deal to which both parties agree, a deal that both cuts spending and raises taxes while giving neither side a political advantage.

Jay, That is a profound statement but impossible!

Nice Guy

February 17th, 2011
10:19 am

Jay – “In every category except one, we are less supportive of spending cuts today than we were 30 years ago.”

It’s a nasty evolution, isn’t it? The madness has to stop. The entitlements need to be reigned in. Everybody knows it, yet only the Repubs are willing to do it. All the while, the Left-nuts scoff at their attempts and cite source after source that surely confirms their eventual failure.

kayaker 71

February 17th, 2011
10:19 am

Del,

Great analogy but you are playing on deaf ears. They just don’t get it.

Doggone/GA

February 17th, 2011
10:20 am

“Jay, That is a profound statement but impossible!”

I don’t agree. When push comes to shove, they can do it. They did it in December

Left wing management

February 17th, 2011
10:20 am

Bailout: “Please explain to us how private sector pay has any impact at all on the federal deficit.”

Simple. The financiers (those making very large sums) ain’t payin their fair share to help maintain the 21 C society that they benefit from. They ain’t paying enough dough into the system, got it?

I want our our grubby little socialist hands in their pockets, getting the fair share we’re being deprived of.

On top of that, taxes need to be levied on transactions in the financial industry, esp. those involving very complex instruments: credit default swaps, etc.

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
10:20 am

Are the Republicans going to continue to squander their chance to prove themselves worthy of a role in our government by doing something a little more substantial than promise to think about maybe not increasing their staff too much while in office. Personally, I think that may be asking too much of them.

George W

February 17th, 2011
10:21 am

Hmmmm decrease your output and increase the input, Not a bad idea. Too bad no one in Washington will agree to it.

jconservative

February 17th, 2011
10:21 am

Here is the problem with believing Republicans will take the solo lead on reducing spending for entitlement programs. They had the opportunity and blew it!

Remember Bush 43 being re-elected in 2004 and immediately taking to the road in a series of speeches to re-make Social Security? Spending his “political capital” he called it. And he had a plan that would have “saved” Social Security, in particular for you guys 45 and under.

What happened to the bill? The Republican controlled House and Senate could not get the bill out of sub committee in either the House or Senate. So the bill dies by July 2005. And Bush 43 spent all that political capital on a wasted effort.

Now, would you trust the Republicans in Congress to actually vote up or down on cutting spending on entitlements?

Please!

What was that movie line – “Show me the money!”?

When the President and the Republican House Caucus walk out in front of the cameras and both say they have a deal on entitlement spending controls it may happen. But not a day before that.

0311/0317 - 1811/1801

February 17th, 2011
10:22 am

Headline: “USA TO REBUKE ISRAEL AT UN”

Not, not good .

Del

February 17th, 2011
10:23 am

kayaker 71, I know…the Democrats just continue their Lemming march to the left. Hopefully, they’ll be falling over that cliff in 012.

Nice Guy

February 17th, 2011
10:24 am

Left Wing @ 10:20

Wow…..just…wow.

“Ain’t payin their fair share? I want our hands in their pockets. Tax financial transactions.” All spoke like a true LEft-nut.

And you mention the topic of CDS. I’d be suprised if you actually knew what they were or could name other “very complex” instruments. You know, other than your bumper sticker talking points.

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
10:24 am

The only thing Republicans have shown a willingness to do is yap. They have not actually accomplished anything. Except getting rid of jobs in the private sector. They take office and more people show up on unemployment. Now, President Obama will have to step in again and fix another fine mess the Republicans got us into.

George W

February 17th, 2011
10:24 am

Jconservative….if I remember correctly this is the bill that the Democrats called “privitization of social security”. In other words you get what you pay in. The Democrats fought this idea tooth and nail.

Mr. Right

February 17th, 2011
10:24 am

TaxPayer– Are the Dems nominees any better? Gore, Kerry and you know who!!

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
10:25 am

What’s a CDS and is it sorta like a AIG.

George W

February 17th, 2011
10:25 am

jconservative…Former President George W. Bush called for a transition to a combination of a government-funded program and personal accounts (”individual accounts” or “private accounts”) through partial privatization of the system.[10] President Barack Obama “strongly opposes” privatization or raising the retirement age, but supports raising the cap on the payroll tax ($106,800 in 2009) to help fund the program.

Mr. Right

February 17th, 2011
10:26 am

Now, President Obama will have to step in again and fix another fine mess the Republicans got us into.

HELP US ALL!!!

George W

February 17th, 2011
10:26 am

Mr. Right…..you are right Obama will fix all messes. He is only making things worse.

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
10:27 am

The Dems elected the President. President Obama. K, Mr. Right. As for Gore, he was a VP once which is more than Palin, Paul, et al, ever were or will be.

Nice Guy

February 17th, 2011
10:28 am

“Now, President Obama will have to step in again and fix another fine mess the Republicans got us into.”

Oh my GAWD.

:shock:

George W

February 17th, 2011
10:28 am

TaxPayer….need I remind you that VP is not an elected position?

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
10:28 am

Some people are beyond help — those that think trickle down is good. I’m in favor of letting those eat twinkies.

Dusty

February 17th, 2011
10:29 am

If our congress people are like me, they don’t know anybody who wants their taxes raised. Also, they don’t know anybody who wants us to keep a huge everlasting budget deficiency/debt. So let’s make it simple for our Congress people whom we elected. CUT THE SPENDING. DO NOT RAISE TAXES.

Americans are not stupid and neither are Congress & president. They will hear our voices. They also have detailed info we don’t have. Tell them to make good decisions because we are counting on them and watching. Repeat to them again: CUT THE SPENDING. DO NOT RAISE TAXES.

They will hear us.

AmVet

February 17th, 2011
10:29 am

LWM, which speaks to my point about taxing derivatives trades with .1% tax.

They were the ones, as much as anybody, who caused the US economy to implode back in Septmeber 2008.

In a system where justice is not just a slogan, they would have been held accountable to pay for it…

George W

February 17th, 2011
10:29 am

TaxPayer….so you are for pumping funds into the lower class aka “entitlement programs” and taxing the rich? Hmmmmm that really makes alot of sense.

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
10:30 am

TaxPayer….need I remind you that VP is not an elected position?

George,

Need I remind you that you vote for the pair. You do not elect the president first and then let him pick the VP once in office.

Joe the Plutocrat

February 17th, 2011
10:30 am

kayaker71 (and little idiot bailout) – your example of the teenager who wants $250 Nikes is spot on. do you think Phil Knight and the Nike Board of Directors cares about the source of the $250 (food stamps, unemployment, the DoD budget)? so “li’l Barry” the connection between “private sector executive compensation” and the budget is symbiotic, if not parasitic. when the federal government (public sector spending) subsidizes farmers to produce “alternative fuels” like ethanol, this can lead to revenue for John Deere executives (and shareholders). when the federal government “bailed out” Wall Street to the tune of $600 billion, a significant (if not ALL) portion of the TARP fund were used to pay executive bonuses AND stabilize the bottom lines of recipients. when a bank receives a de facto “interest free loan” (0%) and turns around and charges 4.5% for a mortgage or 1.99% for an auto loan, or 22% for a cash advance in a credit card; it most certainly is tied to the federal budget/spending. I have argued this 1,000 times, when “entitlement” checks are disbursed into the economy, the money does not remain in the ‘hood; it ends up at Nike ($250 sneakers), Wal-Mart (flat screens and groceries), or Verizon (cell phone plans and internet access). there is no public and private sector. in fact, as one who once operated a business “inside the beltway” I can tell you that “outsourcing” of DoD work to the “private sector” (everything from weapons procurement to IT functions) actually bloats the budget because the “private sector” brokers take their cuts as well. so, a $50,000/year GS-10 computer programer becomes a $60,000 employee of EDS, CSC or IBM, PLUS the “vig” charged by the account rep or lobbyist who brokered the contract between the DoD, DoE or DHS.

George W

February 17th, 2011
10:31 am

here is a great idea……instead of raising taxes on US citizens….why do we not raise the import tax that foreign companies pay to bring their products into America? Problem solved.

Nice Guy

February 17th, 2011
10:31 am

Well….its been about 11 minutes since I challenged Left Wing. No word yet. He must be husy Googling. Doh!

George W

February 17th, 2011
10:32 am

Taxpayer…..no kidding. But does the VP choice honestly affect the voter decision that much. This is why Gore was defeated by Bush. Oh wait let me guess you are going to say that Bush didn’t win the general election?

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
10:32 am

TaxPayer….so you are for pumping funds into the lower class aka “entitlement programs” and taxing the rich? Hmmmmm that really makes alot of sense

I am for social security and the protection that it offers. I also pay into it. I am for taxing those that get the benefits that this country offers, rich included. Yes, that does make a lot of sense to me.

TaxPayer

February 17th, 2011
10:33 am

Taxpayer…..no kidding. But does the VP choice honestly affect the voter decision that much.

You betcha.

Nice Guy

February 17th, 2011
10:33 am

AmVet – “which speaks to my point about taxing derivatives trades with .1% tax.”

Why tax it? Taxes discourage activity, you know. Is that what you want?