Atlanta, Washington singing from same hymnal on tax reform
When politicians in Washington and Atlanta talk up the same idea, they’re usually onto something or up to something. In the case of the suddenly fashionable idea of making taxes broader, flatter, simpler and lower, taxpayers can be more relieved than suspicious.
The “Fiscal Solutions Tour” rolled into Atlanta last week. Its barnstorming economists and politicos want to solve the federal debt problem by cutting spending and reforming entitlements and taxes.
They described a tax code for individuals and business alike with fewer, if any, deductions and credits. The changes would be offset in part by lowering tax rates, though revenues on the whole would likely rise. (The group also favors a consumption tax to supplement existing levies; another bipartisan debt commission, as well as yours truly, believes the budget can be balanced without a new national sales tax.)
Listening to them, I was reminded of similar reforms for Georgia a special panel proposed earlier this year.
Unlike on the federal level, the state’s proposed changes are designed to keep revenues flat. Of course, unlike Washington, the state balances its budget each year and hasn’t racked up trillions in debt.
The idea of broadening the tax base, closing loopholes and setting marginal rates as low and flat as possible isn’t new. Economists have long said such a tax code would cost less to enforce and follow, reduce distortions in the market, and punish success to a lesser degree.
What is new is that politicians on both sides of the aisle are warming up to the concept, albeit still slowly in some cases.
In Georgia, after proponents addressed initial fears that their plan would lead to a massive tax increase, a tax-reform bill (HB 385) is before the Legislature. With Republicans in control, these conservative ideas ought to prevail — if legislators can resist special interests favoring the status quo.
Things haven’t progressed as far in Washington, where Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss is among a bipartisan handful of senators pushing reforms.
“Fiscal Solutions” member Alice Rivlin, a former White House and congressional budget chief, said the right is more accepting of the idea.
“The shift that I’ve seen recently,” she told me, “is among Republicans who have come to realize…that there are a lot of subsidies in the tax code. And they used to resist that idea, and [said] anything that lowered your taxes was good.
“But I think a lot of Republicans have come to realize, we subsidize a lot of activities. And we do some of it with direct spending, and we do a lot of it in the tax code. And doing it in the tax code isn’t better.”
Not all tax cuts are created equal, of course, and government shouldn’t pick winners through tax or spending policy. Better to let individuals and businesses make decisions on the economic merits, rather than inviting them to choose based on tax treatment.
Rivlin continued: “And then there’s the liberals. I’ve found that the knee-jerk reaction of most liberals is negative, because they think, ‘Lower rates for rich people? That’s terrible!’
“But you have to look at the whole incidence [of taxation]. Because, actually, most of the benefits of the deductions and exclusions and so forth goes to upper-income people. So, they aren’t getting off the hook.”
The bulk of the work, in Washington as in Atlanta, remains on the spending side of the ledger. But if politicians back off these sensible tax reforms, start getting suspicious.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter
Or tweet this blog post: Tweet
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
149 comments Add your comment
Cutty
March 5th, 2011
2:15 pm
Linda, that may have been true years ago when you had somewhat ethical businessmen, but these honchos who are running corporations now are all about themselves. Record profits, but high unemployment is indicative of companies hiring less and keeping the profits.
Everyone, including Wingfield, enjoys bringing up the strawman theory of taxes, i.e., cap and trade, national sales tax, et al. But the fact is we’re paying the lowest rate in taxes in decades. And that is aside from the Bush tax cuts which are aimed at reducing the levels of taxes paid on money made on the stock market. Dividends for example. Income has stayed stagnant while consumer prices have risen since beginning of this decade. Kyle states that success shouldn’t be taxed. Well, success by any means necessary, like hedge fund managers and oil speculators who contribute nothing of value to anyone but themselves, should be taxed.
For the life of me, I will never understand why those in the middle class continue to vote for politicians who want to shower the rich with all the riches, then stick them with the bill. Prime example, Georiga republicans want to tax everything from a haircuts, to groceries and cell phone use, but cut taxes for corporations even though we have the 4th lowest tax climate in the nation.
retiredds
March 5th, 2011
2:24 pm
Cutty, we all know the reason why (even Kyle does, but he won’t admit it). Political contributions!!! The corporations, and their moneyed executives, have the $$$$ and the politicians like their $$$$. You and I can only contribute, if we contribute, .00000123% of what a corporate executive can contribute. It’s all about, follow the $$$$. And the Supreme Court has opened the flood gates with its most recent decision. And Kyle, tell me it ain’t so. Convince me with a well documented piece that what I post here is not true.
poison pen
March 5th, 2011
2:44 pm
Retireddds, I tried peeing in my cars gas tanks but then they wouldn’t start. We all know that all countries are addicted to oil, isn’t this better than cocain?
Seriously though, I think we all would like to be rid of the Saudies & other countries oil, but how? and at what cost?
poison pen
March 5th, 2011
2:51 pm
Cutty, whil I agree with a lot of what you say, I also believe that the Dems are just as bad as the repubs when it comes to their hand out for contributions.
They both get money from the large corporations and the dems also clean up with the unions. I think we need a third party for more competition or term limits for all politicans.
retiredds
March 5th, 2011
2:54 pm
Spread out over the next 15-20 years much less than the cost of doing nothing. Yes, there will have to be some subsidizing of alternatives, but what start-up, including oil, rail, the auto, air, roads, etc. have not been subsidized at some point in our nation’s history? My best guess is that if the U.S. could reduce its oil dependency to 25%-30% of total energy consumption, that would minimize the global price impact. I have no scientific basis for this other than a reasonable guess (sort of like and investment portfolio of having no more than 25% of one’s portfolio exposed to one industry). Someone else out there might have a more scientific based ratio.
Left wing management
March 5th, 2011
2:55 pm
Linda: 7:31: “Let’s try it! If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it”
Well, I guess that disqualifies me from the get-go.
C’mon, Linda, politics ain’t beanbag, Nor is the Wingfield page.
The Original Get Real
March 5th, 2011
2:59 pm
retiredds….I agree with all of that, but I am sick and tired of the one sided BS from the mainstream media.
Back to your main point, all forms of new energy sources should be explored but this will take time. In the meantime, shutting down the Gulf for new drilling is not the way to go….very short sighted and it is only playing to the far left….jobs lost and higher gas prices are the direct result
Ken
March 5th, 2011
2:59 pm
The state is now in the midst of reviewing tax reform recommendations. “Tax Reform” being a euphemism for taking money from people while making them think taxes are being lowered. Even now when Georgia unemployment is over 10% one suggestion is to tax groceries. Why? Because everyone must eat. Another suggestion is to create a funky new equation to tax gasoline. Why? Nearly everyone drives. T-SPLOST, E-SPLOST, taxing personal services… There is no end to the states desire for more and more money.
Under the guise of attracting business to Georgia, the State shows its true intention. Businesses are taxed more than people. Hence, more business in Georgia equals more tax money. The Oxford Dictionary defines greed as “a strong desire for more wealth, possessions, power, etc. than a person needs.” How much does the State need? Clearly, there is no end to the government’s desire to take money from its citizens and spend it.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines reform as “to put or change into an improved form or condition.” How is creating more tax targets an improved form or condition? Many small businesses will suffer an added cost of capturing, recording, reporting, and remitting taxes. Where is the benefit here except to the State? Driving some small businesses into the ground with onerous requirements doesn’t seem like an improvement to me.
Georgia was the last of the 13 original colonies to tax its citizens. But, in 1951, Georgia enacted what at that time was the most all-inclusive sales tax in the US.
The state broke its promise about ending the GA 400 Toll. As reported in the Atlanta newspaper, “The Ga. 400 toll was originally scheduled to come down when the bonds were paid off this summer. But in September the State Road and Tollway Authority board, with Gov. Sonny Perdue as its chairman, extended the toll until 2020 in order to build projects along the Ga. 400 corridor.”
In 2008, the Lottery surplus was sent to the State Treasury for the general fund. When it was voted in, the promise was that all of the money would be used for education and lottery expenses. The State again broke its promise to voters. Have we any reason to believe Georgia about tax reform being an improvement?
I remind the reader of the original Georgia Constitution of 1777 which states in part, “Whereas the conduct of the Legislature of Great Britain for many years past has been so oppressive on the people of America that of late years they have plainly declared and asserted a right to raise taxes upon the people of America, and to make laws to bind them in all cases whatsoever, without their consent; which conduct being repugnant to the common rights of mankind, hath obliged the Americans, as freemen, to oppose such oppressive measures”. We should not forget our state began with an opposition to constant tax increases.
The State of Georgia should confront the recession by making spending cuts as Georgia families have, not with sleight of hand ways to take money from its citizens. If our elected representatives won’t curtail State greed, we need to elect those who will.
CarGuy
The Original Get Real
March 5th, 2011
3:02 pm
Newsflash…yes corporations make political contributions but of the top 20 contributors, 10 are unions and only 5 are corporations…
independent
March 5th, 2011
3:18 pm
Just over two years into his administration and the GOP and Teaparty call the economy: Obama’s economy. That may be up for discussion, maybe not.
How many years does it take for you and the people of GA to consider the economic mess in GA to be a GOP mess? The GOP has been in control of the State House and Legislature for years. They spend their time fighting each other, fighting federal laws, cutting taxes, spending state money on private schools, cutting taxes for the wealthy, building fishing ponds, passing state laws that save the Governor money, cutting public education, furloughing public workers, selling the public highways to the private sector, blocking or ignoring federal funds for high speed rail and public transport, and destroying the economy of GA.
Mr. Wingfield, isn’t time for the GOP to get the GA house in order, or get out?
Mark
March 5th, 2011
3:56 pm
Fairtax is a hoot — a massive hidden tax. A preposterous bunch of nonsense.
http://fairtaxfineprint.blogspot.com/
jd
March 5th, 2011
4:03 pm
Georgia does run a deficit every year. It has been borrowing money to do maintenance since 2003. It has been refusing to fund long-term liabilities such as healthcare for retirees. It has deferred maintenance on bridges, buildings, and other major infrastructure upwards of $30 billion every year… And, it has been making swiss cheese of education budgets — on a per person basis spending less than we have in more than 25 years.
Linda
March 5th, 2011
4:21 pm
Cutty@2:15, Businessmen have not changed & neither have businesses. Whether they are a Pa & Ma alteration shop, a moderate sized business or an international corporation, businesses are in the business to make a profit. If they are not “keeping the profits,” what do you propose they do with them? Donate them?
You criticize money made in the stock market. Do you realize that 8 states have pensions invested in some type of 401 (k)? In ‘08, only 33% of private sector employees had a pension plan, which means that the other 67% of workers rely on social security or consider the stock market as a retirement plan. By investing in the stock market, Americans are investing in corporations that provide jobs. Americans are helping to pay for corporate facilities, plants, equipment & labor. Most corporations are OWNED by the American people, many of them old.
The Dems. didn’t even pass a budget last yr. The budget O came out with 2 wks. ago has a $1.645 T deficit! If the govt. taxed every person who makes over $500,000 100% of their income, the additional tax revenues would be $1.3 T & would still leave a budget deficit of $345 B! If the fed. govt. raised another $2 T in taxes, there would still be a $3 T deficit! O’s budget raises taxes & spends every penny & still leaves a deficits of $7.2 T he proposes to add to the $14.3 T debt we already have.
High income earners don’t stuff their money in their mattresses. Bottom line, should they be allowed to keep their own money & invest it in stock, bonds, products, plants, facilities, equipment, innovation, labor, etc. OR should they be forced to give it to the fed. govt. who is a better steward of money? Are jobs created by private enterprise/the private sector through free markets & capitalism OR thru the fed. govt.?
I'm with Stupid
March 5th, 2011
4:23 pm
Will,
“Why are all the republican newspaper writers and radio entertainers so grumpy about another month of declining unemployment numbers?”
In our age of ‘tit’ for ‘tat’, the answer to that would be that the Dem writers and Dem radio types, started with the “terrible” economy business almost from the beginning of Bush taking office. As in 2006 all you heard from the Dems was how bad the economy was, and how bad life had become. Think they were grumpy then because the economy really wasn’t that bad, but they were afraid Bush was going to be re-elected? It’s not right, but our sheep-like pundits, on both sides I might add, and their followers demand it.
Jed
March 5th, 2011
4:38 pm
We could balance the budget in Georgia if we did away with one district and senate seat at the dome/district. And a hiring freeze for the Deal!
Dusty
March 5th, 2011
4:39 pm
Folks,
I love your ideas with all the variety, but could you make it a little shorter and simpler. That would be nice.
As for me, I will go for “cut the taxes and cut the spending”. You see, I don’t profess to be a great economist or world wide scholar of finance. But it does not take a scholar to know that a 14 trillion $$$ debt is too much. Or that 8.9 unemployment is acceptable. So I am back to cut & diminish. Still sounds good.
Keep giving all the ideas. Someone might be listening who needs to know…
Linda
March 5th, 2011
4:39 pm
retirredds@2:24, Here’s the list of the top campaign donors for the last 20 yrs. You might notice that of the top 20 donors:
10 are unions & only 4 are corporations
15 gave more to Dems. than to Reps.
90% of all contributions went to Dems.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
Yes, “it’s all about, follow the $$$$.” Convinced yet?
Linda
March 5th, 2011
4:52 pm
Left@2:55, I’m tired of the petty name-calling. I had not been called names since childhood until I got on these blogs. Initially, I was insulted until I realized the strategy of attacking the messenger when facts could not be argued. I also just realized that the other two AJC blogs are government/union blogs. I hope we can keep more civility on Kyle’s.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmmmm, mmmm, mmm! Just sayin...
March 5th, 2011
5:14 pm
Geez, liberals don’t pay taxes, even if they do somehow owe them, so what do they care what the rate is?
Know what I’m sayin?
killerj
March 5th, 2011
5:26 pm
Smaller Government is the way to go,more money in your pocket, they are singing a different tune because people are fed up.Go Tea Party.
Left wing management
March 5th, 2011
5:32 pm
Linda: “Initially, I was insulted until I realized the strategy of attacking the messenger when facts could not be argued. I also just realized that the other two AJC blogs are government/union blogs. ”
I’m not sure about that, Linda. People here with fierce differences about first principles and so often people are arguing past each other. It’s almost easier to imagine the end of the world than someone on here actually having their opinion changed by the force of argument of an opponent. Just how it is. Not sure about the name calling. I don’t know about Wingfield, but Bookman’s blog is monitored for personal attacks. But again, it’s easy to insinuate evil things to those advancing arguments you find loathsome without calling names outright. Just goes with the territory.
Corey
March 5th, 2011
5:35 pm
A bi-partisan bill was passed under the last administration to phase out the use of filament light bulbs and move to a more energy efficient, longer lasting flourescent type bulb. Just yesterday one of Gerogia’s brilliant politicians held a press conference touting a way Georgia could opt out and continue to produce and use filament bulbs. The mean old federal government in Washington should not tell us what kind of light bulbs to use was basically his reason. The thought of a longer lasting bulb that’s more energy efficient is a double win is not as important as sticking it in the federal government’s eye with a shallow gesture to states rights.
Chris Matthews
March 5th, 2011
5:46 pm
The Fair Tax is the only way to go!
Linda
March 5th, 2011
6:17 pm
Corey@5:35, The packaging on these CFL bulbs merely gives a phone number & a website. According to the EPA website entitled “CFL Cleanup & Disposal,” the instructions include:
Have people & pets leave the room
Air out the room for 5-10 minutes…
Shut off the central forced air heating/A/C system…
Place cleanup materials in a sealable container
Promptly place all bulb debris & cleanup materials outdoors…until materials can be disposed of property…
If you click on “Find out how to recycle & dispose of a CFL after it burns out,” you will read that “some areas prohibit CFLs from being discarded into landfills” & should be taken to “HAZARDOUS WASTE drop-off locations.”
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflrecycling.html
These light bulbs will be in our schools, hospitals, places of employment & homes. These light bulbs are dangerous to humans, pets & the environment. They are over-rated as to their life. They are many times more expensive & will hurt the poor & the elderly on fixed incomes. They are inefficient (dim). They will not keep pipes from freezing in the winter or cause my yeast bread to rise. They represent Big Brother.
Linda
March 5th, 2011
6:38 pm
Corey, I made a mistake. The above EPA website is for disposal. This is the EPA website for cleanup:
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
Linda
March 5th, 2011
8:12 pm
Left@5:32, Are you sayin’ I haven’t changed your opinion? I don’t know if I have changed anyone’s opinion, but I feel that I have contributed by confronting the lies & rhetoric from those of you from the left with govt. websites that prove otherwise & by injecting humor into the debates.
Conservatives, especially Tea Party members, have been called every name in the book by the left & the corrupt media. Rather than lash back & defend ourselves, it has emboldened us to continue our crusade for reducing the fed. govt.
I’ve been attacked on one of the other blogs by the host.
My husband & I have lived thru 12 presidents. We have NEVER seen anything like what is going on today, the intentional attempt to bring down the USA with debt, unemployment, entitlements & inflation.
Left wing management
March 5th, 2011
11:49 pm
Linda: My husband & I have lived thru 12 presidents. We have NEVER seen anything like what is going on today, the intentional attempt to bring down the USA with debt, unemployment, entitlements & inflation.
That’s quite a claim, Linda. I assume that you see the perpetrators of this “intentional attempt” as liberals in the current administration? Which would be an odd argument to make, especially since this government is only continuing a pattern of mostly unfunded expansions of debt pursued by the previous administration, such as the TARP bailout, two foreign wars, and a prescription drug plan. If there is a pattern of debt that threatens the country’s long-term fiscal viability, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
John Galt
March 6th, 2011
7:59 am
The problem is the perspective of the liberals left wing. Liberals cannot differentiate between a drink to relieve stress and lots of drinks getting you sloppy drunk.
They both involve consumption of alcohol. But the results are far different.
It goes the same for presidency’s. They both use the same tools, with different results as objectives.
An easy concept really. But we are all certain you will reject it.
Just as Ted Kennedy did…..
don
March 6th, 2011
8:53 am
Read / educate yourself on the Fair Tax. It is completely Non partisan and yes, Fair. See recent mention in Huffington Post. Anyone who speaks against it clearly knows nothing about it. This would create the biggest economic boom in generations. It eliminates the ridiculous IRS, and it stands by itself. It is not in addition to any other taxation.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Credible, Compelling, Complete....Bwahahahaha, just sayin...
March 6th, 2011
9:07 am
Remember when Hitler was being bombarded in Berlin and he started giving orders to armies that didn’t exist?
Organized labor has been on a long decline, but the recent attacks against it in Wisconsin and elsewhere have had a surprising result — they have energized the nation’s unions.-Urinal
The libs and their union thugs have thrown hysteria at us, they’ve whined and they’ve moaned, the collapsed in a heap, they gnashed their teeth, they tore at their garments and now they are……..delusional.
Just “die” already, would ya?
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
9:47 am
As to claims and patterns set, that was established by the left in this country during the progressive or socialist era, beginning with President Woodrow Wilson (D). It has only progressed for the worse with ever expanding federal powers that were never given to the federal government in the Constitution. Only one amendment was ratified that took from state governments’ their rights of representation, the rest of the federal power grab perpetrated by the socialist left in this country has for the most part been done outside of the Constitutional process of amending the Constitution.
I agree with you Linda, I have never in my lifetime seen what appears to be the most aggressive agenda to dissolve America. Of course, had anyone been listening to Comrade dear leader Obama and his message of transforming America (NOT REFORMING) then we should not be so taken aback by the events we’ve witnessed. The fearful question we must ask is what does dear leader plan to transform America into, since it is obvious he had a very poor view of the unique America we knew before he took office.
The divide between socialist liberals and constitutional conservatives in this country has never been so clearly distinguished, even for those in the muddle middle riding the fence so to speak that can’t quite figure out where they belong can see the sharp dividing line of contest that is cast in political concrete. The philosophy of both sides are too principle based for either to ever possibly find a settled compromise. We of the conservative camp want absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with dear leader Obumer’s transformation of America into something of the lesser else and Comrade dear leader Obumer and socialist Company want absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with with our conservative reforms designed to bring the country back into compliance with the constitution of the founder intent, made know clearly by their various writing of the their time e.g. the federalist papers.
It is no small wonder that conservatives should expect personal attacks. In fact, we should accept that those on the socialist liberal left will attack the messenger rather than honestly debate the message solely on the constitutional merits of any given issue.
To the comment made about a hint of states’ rights: The Constitution does far more than hint that the states have rights superior to the federal government. In fact, if anyone dares to read the truth as it was written concerning states’ rights, President James Madison made this point very clear in his federalist papers numbers 41 and 45. Wherein, he makes it very plain that the states were to have more rights and powers than the federal government.
Centralized power is always a key structural component of any socialist government.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
10:04 am
Federalist No. 45
The idea that the reach of the federal government would be restricted to a few enumerated powers is articulated by Madison in Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45
Was healthcare “specifically listed”(enumerated) or “defined” as the right of the federal government?
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
10:48 am
MHS: The fearful question we must ask is what does dear leader plan to transform America into, since it is obvious he had a very poor view of the unique America we knew before he took office.
Nonsense. This president is arguably the most “apple pie” idealistic about America of any president in recent decades. To say he had a “poor view” of America is laughably false. As George Will – hardly a socialist – put it yesterday:
To the notion that Obama has a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview, the sensible response is: If only. Obama’s natural habitat is as American as the nearest faculty club; he is a distillation of America’s academic mentality; he is as American as the other professor-president, Woodrow Wilson.
I guess if you’re the type who listens to George Will, this settles the argument, but if you’re the type who watches Glenn Beck, it’s all the more damning since from what I hear Wilson is his bogeyman. Whatever negative can be said of the Wilson-Obama style of American leadership – and I have plenty of problems with it – saying that it’s part of a socialist plot to bring it down from the inside is not one of them. That’s sheer delusion.
The philosophy of both sides are too principle based for either to ever possibly find a settled compromise.
Exactly. What we have here are the seeds of possible future civil wars. History is filled with examples of this.
Centralized power is always a key structural component of any socialist government.
But what if the centralized power is all held by the corporations and their puppets in government? Is that socialist? In my book it is, but something tells me that kind of socialism is a-okay for you. And that’s where we differ.
independent
March 6th, 2011
10:55 am
The ‘Fair Tax’ is another attempt for the high-net-worth (HNW) class to deceive those who are angry, skeptical, conspiratorial, etc., support a program that will solidify the position of the HNW class. Those who have not taken the kool-aid say that objective analysis shows a necessary tax rate of at least 36% just to recover the amount of revenue the Government needs today to function, and the much ballyhou’d ‘pay-back’ checks are a myth.
If you want to propose a reasonable approach to applying the principles of the ‘Fair Tax’, which more people could support but the HNW people will not: suggest implementation of a fair tax at 8% as a supplemental tax source. Add to the proposal that funds received thorugh that source will go into a lock box to fund SS, Med, and eliminate employment taxes. This proposal would be reasonable, could generate revenue from currently untapped sources, lower taxes for individuals and business, but will be rejected by the HNW class. Why?
AmVet
March 6th, 2011
10:56 am
This will infuriate the right-wing’s Uncle Sam haters here:
WASHINGTON — When the airline industry took a nose dive a decade ago, executives at global carriers scrambled to find a quick fix to avoid financial ruin.
What they came up with, according to federal prosecutors, was a massive price-fixing scheme among airlines that artificially inflated passenger and cargo fuel surcharges between 2000 and 2006 to make up for lost profits.
The airlines’ crimes cost U.S. consumers and businesses — mostly international passengers and cargo shippers — hundreds of millions of dollars, prosecutors say.
But the airlines caught by the Justice Department have paid a hefty price in the five years since the government’s widespread investigation became public.
To date, 19 executives have been charged with wrongdoing — four have gone to prison — and 21 airlines have coughed up more than $1.7 billion in fines in one of the largest criminal antitrust investigations in U.S. history.
Justice is served – great news for American consumers, bad news for the criminal coddling neo-cons…
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
11:01 am
Nonsense. This president is arguably the most “apple pie” idealistic about America of any president in recent decades.
HOOEY!
Nice quotes but I didn’t make any of them. Can you debate the ones that I actually made and not attempt to frame me into your own arguments?
Delusional? Thanks for the confirmation of personal attacks that poorly substitute constitutional debate of the issue’s merit.
AmVet
March 6th, 2011
11:10 am
Almost inevitably, whenever the parasitic, Georgia Republican pigs at the trough get the chance, they will exploit, extort or simply outright steal from the taxpayers.
Luckily for Gwinnett, Cobb county’s permanent role as the laughingstock of Georgia is secure…
Two Gwinnett County real estate developers made more than $1 million in a day by buying large tracts of land and immediately selling the property to the county’s school district, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution investigation has found.
In two other transactions uncovered by the AJC, a third developer cleared $840,000 and another made $340,000 selling land to the school district the same day they bought it.
At least two of the developers got the land under contract after the school district began looking at the specific property as a potential school site.
School officials insist they have done nothing wrong and describe themselves as victims of savvy real estate investors and a hot real estate market. The transactions, which totaled $23 million, took place between 2004 and 2008. Schools have been built on two of the sites; two remain raw land for now.
Some of the developers who benefited from the flipped properties, including David Bowen and David Jenkins, were, at the time, among the most prominent and politically connected developers in Gwinnett. Bowen and Jenkins also were involved in land deals with Gwinnett’s county government that became part of a grand jury investigation that felled the County Commission’s chairman and another commissioner.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
11:11 am
This will infuriate the right-wing’s Uncle Sam haters here:
Oh another nice personal attack made on an assumption that those holding differing views on the right than your own 1) hate government 2) and don’t see further need of justice being served by eliminating all the subsidies the airlines receive, which is bad news for the American consumers.
Matti
March 6th, 2011
11:11 am
The word “hymnal” in the title of this column about taxes is appropriate when talking about people who claim to worship Christ when everything they say and do indicates that they worship MONEY and the ALMIGHTY FREE MARKET. In the PROFIT’s name they pray, Amen.
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
11:13 am
MHS: “ice quotes but I didn’t make any of them. Can you debate the ones that I actually made and not attempt to frame me into your own arguments”
Excuse me? You certainly did say Obama had a “poor view” of the country he leads. I based my replies to two statements you made. Nothing made up about that. It’s right there in your post.
Delusional? Thanks for the confirmation of personal attacks that poorly substitute constitutional debate of the issue’s merit.
As I cautioned Linda above, we’re not debating place settings for our next tea time here. These are things people have furious disagreements over. Hey look at it this way, I agreed with you in what you said about compromise being almost impossible (”The philosophy of both sides are too principle based for either to ever possibly find a settled compromise”). So wasn’t completely disagreeing with you. I was just agreeing that the differences we’re seeing now in American public life are probably irresolvable and that’s a concern.
AmVet
March 6th, 2011
11:20 am
Oh another nice personal attack…
I know it is utterly hopeless, but perhaps other readers will actually grok the distinction.
Republicans (or any other group) are (fill in the blank)… is NOT a personal attack. (DUH!)
Michael H. Smith (or any other individual here) is (fill in the blank) …IS a personal attack. (DUH!)
Ninth grade grammar brought to you courtesy of AmVet…
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
11:23 am
You certainly did say Obama had a “poor view” of the country he leads. I based my replies to two statements you made. Nothing made up about that. It’s right there in your post.
Yes I certainly did and didn’t your dear leader say that America was no different or of any more importance than nations like Turkey or Greece? Name one other President that has gone on a world wide apology tour for everything America has or has not actually done?
Obama as American as “Apple Pie”? Now that would be a delusional statement. Ever “Apple Pie” President in my lifetime never considered America as a commonplace country among the world’s nations and none of them went around apologizing for America.
As I cautioned Linda above, we’re not debating place settings for our next tea time here.
I don’t give a hang about your cautions and you are not debating any place setting of issues on constitutional merits.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
11:26 am
I know it is utterly hopeless, but perhaps other readers will actually grok the distinction.
Republicans (or any other group) are (fill in the blank)… is NOT a personal attack. (DUH!)
Michael H. Smith (or any other individual here) is (fill in the blank) …IS a personal attack. (DUH!)
Ninth grade grammar brought to you courtesy of AmVet…
Yet another personal attack brought to you by Am… yada yada yada
Hopeless indeed.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
11:31 am
Federalist No. 45
The idea that the reach of the federal government would be restricted to a few enumerated powers is articulated by Madison in Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45
Was healthcare “specifically listed”(enumerated) or “defined” as the right of the federal government?
Let me hear your Constitutional answers to this question Am and Left Wing. Yes or No will be sufficient, unless of course you can find a “specifically listed”(enumerated) power given to the federal government. In such case I’d like to see it, not your opinions or statements.
AmVet
March 6th, 2011
11:51 am
“…yada yada yada…”
The best response this man can muster is gibberish?
And quit personally attacking everybody! (LOL.)
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
12:03 pm
AmVet
Just another personal attack, no constitutional answer to my question is the best you can do?
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
12:05 pm
Was healthcare “specifically listed”(enumerated) or “defined” as the right of the federal government?
The rights of the federal government are evolving.
As in all of this nation’s founding documents, the overarching principle is that of a balance of powers (e.g. between federal and state government), not of one or the other having any claim to absolute supremacy. The closest the founding documents come to advocating any kind of absolute principle is in the principle of a balance of powers.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
12:14 pm
Let’s get down to it, Kyle. If our political leaders such as they are intend to really do something about cutting costs, balancing budgets and ending spending through subsidies then they will have to genuinely and constitutionally reform healthcare: Medicare, Medicaid and the rest.
States actually have the constitutional authority over healthcare where the federal government does not. Which means the federal government should transition its’ various healthcare programs back to the states and regulate healthcare concerns only when it crosses state-lines. Until Medicare, Medicaid and the rest are redressed no real progress can be made in bringing government’s monetary house in order.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
12:20 pm
Left wing management, that is an opinion offered to dodge a direct constitutional answer. The balance of powers are established in the Constitution. James Madison made that balance known in federalist number 45.
Federalist No. 45
The idea that the reach of the federal government would be restricted to a few enumerated powers is articulated by Madison in Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45
Once again the question:
Was healthcare “specifically listed”(enumerated) or “defined” as the right of the federal government?
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
12:29 pm
MHS: “Yes I certainly did and didn’t your dear leader say that America was no different or of any more importance than nations like Turkey or Greece? Name one other President that has gone on a world wide apology tour for everything America has or has not actually done?”
Don’t forget – he’s your “dear leader”, too, just as much as he is mine. And contrary to what you may think, I’m not particularly enamored of the man at all. In fact, in your obsession I think it’s you who’s the more enamored of him between the two of us. My opinion of him is more or less what George Will said (one of the few things I agree with him about), which is that Obama is the perfect distillation of the American ‘academic’ tradition: a rather narrow set of ideas that can be boiled down more or less to: the tendency to be naively prostrate before the god of intellectual progress, being ever ready to put one’s trust in a cadre of experts for a solution to this or that problem, the belief that the cream of the crop always rises to the top of institutions, the belief that the American meritocracy – the infamous “best and brightest” who have gotten us into many a quagmire abroad with their group-think – always reflects true excellence, and on and on. It’s very clear that at a deep level the attitude Obama most steadfastly holds to is that of reverence towards this country’s deeper ideals (of equality and meritocracy). And that’s why – paradoxically – he’s probably the least able to actually introduce radical change in the country’s institutional structure at precisely the moment where that radical change is most desperately needed. This is what makes the charge of ‘radicalism’ leveled against him by a cynical, intellectually rotted opposition (Gingrich, De Souza) doubly grotesque. It’s not only false, it’s diametrically opposite to the truth.
By the way, this American Exceptionalism meme you’re rehearsing is frankly one of the most tiring and intellectually shallow that’s bubbled to the surface in recent years. Yes, Obama was naive to suggest that Greeks and other countries view themselves as “exceptional” too. He would have been better advised to put this conservative canard to bed by pointing out that America in fact has a dual exceptional nature: that of being the only nation founded on an ideal and yet the only one with the power to impose its own realpolitik on others in pursuit of its own narrow self-interest, which goes directly opposite of the ideals the country at the same time tries to uphold. Therein lies the true meaning of “American exceptionalism”: a radical ambiguity. But I realize I’m talking to a lot of people who’ve been taught to distrust ambiguity above all else.