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
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
12:37 pm
Obama is the President of the Untied Sates of American (for only two more years), he is not my “dear leader”, since I’m not enamored and I don’t buy into him as the North Koreans buy into their “dear leader” mm, mm, as being anything more than a socialist with a socialist agenda, not plot, to serve.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
12:44 pm
Socialism:
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and ["or"] controlled by the state.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
12:50 pm
however, modern command societies have virtually all been organized in the name of socialism—that is, with the function of command officially administered on behalf of an ideology purported to serve the broad masses of the population.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/178493/economic-systems/61121/Centrally-planned-systems#ref843203
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
12:51 pm
command economy, economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned and economic activity is controlled by a central authority that assigns quantitative production goals and allots raw materials to productive enterprises.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/127708/command-economy
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
12:55 pm
MHS: 12:37:
Like I said, he’s your leader, just like mine.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
12:58 pm
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
12:55 pm
Like I said, no he is not my “dear leader” mm, mm, mm. Two more years and he will no longer be an acting President of the United States.
And, my question remains constitutionally unanswered.
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
1:00 pm
MHS: Re your last posts. I don’t know what purpose all the yammering about ‘command economies’ really serves. It only further demonstrates your ignorance. There’s no such thing as a completely free market system, but certainly the UK and US economies are very close, certainly closer than the more coordinated economies of continental Europe.
That said, it’s true that we now have a more socialistic economy than we did a decade ago, and there’s a simple reason for that: we have a socialized financial system, but harsh capitalist conditions for everyone else, as Michael Lewis has said.
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
1:02 pm
I think I’m going to make it a habit of avoiding extended discussion with people who intersperse their posts with “mm, mm, mm”.
Good day.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
1:10 pm
That said, it’s true that we now have a more socialistic economy than we did a decade ago, and there’s a simple reason for that: we have a socialized financial system, but harsh capitalist conditions for everyone else, as Michael Lewis has said.
As Royal Marshall would’ve said: Just Damn!
At least you have the guts to admit to the socialist agenda and that we have moved away from the regulated capitalism as prescribe under the Constitution that gave the federal government a very limited ability to regulate the economy.
However, what you fail to see or acknowledge and certainly don’t accept is what constitutional conservatives object to, which is the circumventing to replace the regulated capitalism as prescribe under the Constitution that gave the federal government a very limited ability to regulate the economy with socialism in progressive degrees without amending the Constitution first.
Common Sense
March 6th, 2011
1:13 pm
Most of those republicans referred to as pigs at the trough were democrats first.
Deal has been a Republican for less time than many of you have been driving.
Georgia had a chose of an old democrat, an old democrat who turned republican, and a libertarian.
And when you voted in the last election more than 90% of you proved the way you vote is the biggest problem Georgia faces.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
1:19 pm
Left wing management
Do whatever you like with your habit of avoidance, day and time.
BTW, let it be known that this “mm, mm, mm” business was a creation of the left, as part of a song praising Obama that was being taught to school children. Something one would expect to happen in North Korean where propaganda to indoctrinate at the earliest age is the acceptable status quo of that communist society.
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
1:25 pm
However, what you fail to see or acknowledge and certainly don’t accept is what constitutional conservatives object to, which is the circumventing to replace the regulated capitalism as prescribe under the Constitution that gave the federal government a very limited ability to regulate the economy with socialism in progressive degrees without amending the Constitution first.
Ah! That’s just it. There is such a thing as amendments.
There are, you know?
And, my question remains constitutionally unanswered.
See above. It’s not that I’m refusing to address your question, it’s that we disagree on the premise, so we really have no basis for discussion.
The restricted list of rights you cite are subject to later amendments which revise the relationship between federal and state authority.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
March 6th, 2011
1:28 pm
ROMNEY TO NH: WE NEED A NEW PRESIDENT
As long as it ain’t Romney, I tend to agree.
Linda
March 6th, 2011
1:34 pm
Left@11:49 PM, During the Bush adm., $4.4 T was added to the natl. debt, an average of $544 B per yr.
During the O adm., $4.2 T has been added to the natl. debt., an average of $1.7 per yr. That’s 3 & 1/4 times the overspending during Bush!
There’s no comparison between the 2 adms. O is not just continuing a pattern pursued by the previous adm. O makes Bush look like Scrooge.
The prescription drug program liability is not even included in the natl. debt. The Dems. have had 5 yrs. to change or delete the problem.
With the debt ceiling looming & threats of the fed. govt. being shut down, O used his State of the Union Speech demanding more spending, ignored his own debt commission & produced a budget that adds another $1.645 T to the deficit this year, $7.2 T over 10 yrs.!
These high gas prices are a part of his energy plan & his adm. is to blame for a great extent of them.
He’s a smart man, knows what he wants, how to achieve his goals & he’s getting close.
With the debt ceiling
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
1:36 pm
See above. It’s not that I’m refusing to address your question, it’s that we disagree on the premise, so we really have no basis for discussion.
The restricted list of rights you cite are subject to later amendments which revise the relationship between federal and state authority.
Yes you are refusing to answer the question and no it is not that we disagree as much as it is that you disagree with the Constitution and the listed rights it gave to the federal government. Name the amendments that give the federal government unrestricted rights or the specific right to act on healthcare?
To my knowledge there are no such amendments and there is no enumerate right under the commerce clause of Article 1 section 8 that gives the federal government authority to do anything with healthcare so long as the commerce thereof does not cross a state-line.
jconservative
March 6th, 2011
1:45 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.”
Congratulations on the long successful marriage.
I will speculate that one of the reasons for your successful marriage is that you slept through the four presidents immediately preceding the current president.
Had you been awake you would have really been hollering just as loud as I was. Because what those four, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, did was “…the intentional attempt to bring down the USA with debt, unemployment & entitlements…”.
Notice I left out inflation. “We don’t got none”, as my grandson says.
But hang on, we will have some in a couple of years, unless deflation hits first.
Lets look at those presidents one at a time.
Reagan invented the concept of cutting Federal revenue and increasing Federal spending in the same budget. He signed 8 deficit budgets in a row and created the first multi-trillion dollar national debt. And he expanded the entitlements of Medicare/Medicaid far beyond the original intent of both. A man of vision.
Bush 41 simply continued the Reagan policies of cutting revenue and increasing spending. Although he did go through a period of sanity with a tax increase in 1990 in an attempt to increase revenue and reduce the deficit. But the electorate does not like tax increases and he was sent to the employment lines after one term. Pity.
Clinton more of the same. But he did manage to sign 3 balanced budgets presented to him by a Republican Congress. Give that Congress credit for doing it and give Clinton credit for signing them. Historical trivia – name the last 4 US presidents to sign a balanced budget? Answer- Clinton, Clinton, Clinton & Truman.
Scary, ain’t it?
Bush 43. Interesting study, this administration. Came in with 3 straight balanced budgets signed by his predecessor. Came in saying he was a conservative. And immediately sent all taxpayers a $300 check from the “surplus”. The “Surplus”! This was step one of several that ended up with the National Debt being doubled by this president. Oh, and entitlements? Created the first new entitlement in over 30 years with his Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Now seniors get taxpayers income tax money to help them pay for their drugs. Socialism, as the Tea Party is fond of saying. Not cheap either, $4 trillion dollars in the first 30 years. But FREE for everyone on Medicare/Medicaid. Taxpayers just love Free Stuff!
Oh, do I need to mention President Bush and Ted Kennedy getting together for “No Kids Left Behind”? No? Good! Makes my stomach queasy to even think about it.
So Linda, glad you are awake and glad you have joined the few of us who are really, what is a nice word?, “disappointed” in the way the Last Five presidents have handled spending.
And yeah, you are correct about the present one. Five peas in the same pod, can’t tell them apart. The “D” or “R” after their names haven’t made any difference when it comes to spending
The last 5 presidents apparently decided that the best way to handle federal spending was to just ignore it. And so they did just that.
Out of sight, out of mind!
But they cut taxes! All five of them!
And for the last 30 years that is all that has mattered.
Have we changed? Will we change? Or will taxes remain more important than spending.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
1:46 pm
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin…
At least Romney acted Constitutionally with his RomneyCare law whereas Obama didn’t act Constitutionally with his ObamaCare Law.
Left wing management
March 6th, 2011
1:49 pm
Linda: 1:34:
We need more spending. Only that has a chance to boost lagging demand. More than that though we need spending to make this nation more competitive and pave the way for the innovative markets of the future.
MHS: The amendments during and in the aftermath of the Civil War in particular revised – i.e. further clarified – the relationship of powers between Federal and state government.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
1:55 pm
will taxes remain more important than spending.
Not for me and they never have been. The problem is that the majority in this country doesn’t like spending cuts and the politicians know it. How many get elected or re-elected by campaigning solely on the spending cuts they’ve made?
Now we know why neither major political party is willing to deal the Mothers’ of all Subsidies, Medicare and Medicaid. Which again the federal government exceeded its’ Constitutional authorities enact without amending the Constitution.
Yeah, socialist liberals the same unconstitutionality goes for the BushDrugCare law.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
2:01 pm
The amendments during and in the aftermath of the Civil War in particular revised – i.e. further clarified – the relationship of powers between Federal and state government.
No way, LWM, amendments 13 and 14 mostly clarified only slavery and citizenship and have NOTHING to do with a federal power or right to act on healthcare.
You might as well concede to the constitutional reality that a great deal of the rights the federal government uses today were unconstitutionally taken from the states.
Linda
March 6th, 2011
2:08 pm
Left@12:05, Have you ever gotten lost trying to get from point A to point B? Have you ever noticed your turkey was still frozen & undercooked? Have you ever had a home improvement project collapse in front of you?
Your problem might have been that you did not follow the instructions, that you thought that you did not need them, that you thought that you could just wing it.
No wonder liberals are such lost souls. They make up the rules as they go. What they don’t evolve FROM evolves around them. Monkeys.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
2:22 pm
New Words & Slang from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Search results for ‘Obamacare’ (1 of 1)
Obamacare (noun) : health care proposed by President Barack Obama
http://nws.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php
OBAMACARE is officially a new word.
AmVet
March 6th, 2011
2:57 pm
Just another personal attack, no constitutional answer to my question is the best you can do?
Constitutional answer?
What question?
Are you going Sybil?
Step away from the blog.
You’re entire weekend (and life?) revolves around this thing.
Very sad…
Linda
March 6th, 2011
3:05 pm
jconservative@1:45, If you think we have not been experiencing inflation for months, perhaps you should go to the grocery store or fill up your car. Check the commodities market, why don’t you.
I don’t give much credibility to budgets. The Dems. did not even have one last year. Budgets are presented, preliminary, debated, etc. What matters is the debt.
According to the Treasury Dept., Reagan added $1.692 T to the natl. debt, Bush I added $1.456 T, Clinton added $1.609, Bush II added $4.4 T & Obama added $3.5 T (in 2 yrs.).
Clinton might have had balanced budgets, but debt was added during his adm. In his autobiography, published in ‘04, he wrote, “One of the most effective things we did was to reform the regulations governing financial institutions under the 1977 CRA. The law REQUIRED federally insured lenders to make an extra effort to give loans to low- & modest-income borrowers, but before 1993 it never had much impact. After the change we made, between 1993 & 2000, banks would offer more than $800 billion in home mortgages, small-business & cd loans to borrowers covered by the law, a staggering figure that amounted to well over 90 percent of all the loans made in the twenty-three years of the CRA.” The cause of the economic crisis was the relaxation of underwriting standards that began under Clinton in the name of affordable housing/social justice/socialism that created the subprime market that will cost the US trillions.
Spending almost a trillion dollars less than 3 wks. after being inaugurated, on the largest spending bill in the history of the world, unread, more than our entire debt to China, about the same as our entire cost of being at war for 13 yrs. total, differentiated one pea from the rest in the pod.
O’s new budget raises taxes, but he proposes to spend every dime & still add another $7.2 T to the debt. If we were taxed 100%, there would still be a deficit.
2 cents
March 6th, 2011
3:38 pm
increase taxes; obamacare; and NO ENERGY policy in sight….. we (USA) still have zero energy policy after 40 years.
we the ppl; have to dictate what we want cause what they are doing in DC aint helping $^&@
Linda
March 6th, 2011
4:05 pm
Left@1:49, We need more spending? With what?
The DC bunch has been spending for 3 yrs. How many more yrs. will it take to see that it isn’t working? It’s NEVER worked. It didn’t work under FDR, in Japan or Europe.
“…has a chance?” The fed. govt. isn’t a casino (even tho it’s beginning to smell like the stables at the track). We can’t afford any more gambles.
Demand can’t be artificially created/boosted. The govt. has dissolved it in salt.
“…pave the way?” With IOUs?
Say you don’t want to print more money out of thin air, taxation without legislation, taxes on every citizen including the poor & the elderly, those on fixed incomes. Think that’ll get you votes?
Liberals should never be allowed to be bankers, accountants, financial planners, econ or history teachers or to have checking accounts, credit cards or children.
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
4:43 pm
AmVet
You know the question and you will not answer sensibly because the answer is the federal government has no right or power granted to it by the Constitution to act on healthcare. Nowhere enumerated in the commerce clause or anywhere else in the Constitution by an amendment.
And Am you are certainly not the one to talk about the time anybody spends is on this blog. What is truly sad is your inability to discuss anything without your usual all too boring personal attacks via innuendo, inferences and insisting that people you disagree and that you can’t reasonably debate with on the issues are childish juveniles of lesser intelligence than you.
seabeau
March 6th, 2011
5:14 pm
Cut federal spending 5% in every dept.for each of the next 5 years. Stop all foreign aid. Stop payments to the UN until it gives us a better accounting of the spending.
Jason (Duluth)
March 6th, 2011
5:21 pm
May I add a small story about drilling for our OWN oil? Having worked up near Barrow for about three months a couple of years ago, I would invite anyone who is deeply depressed about ruining the habitats of animals and destroying the environment to visit the areas up there. There are more elk, caribou, etc. now than ever! Don’t take my word for it, contact the Alaska Wildlife Commission and see what they say. Traveling up near there, trees obliterate the pipeline in most areas and cover the pumping stations.
The same could be true for ANWR drilling, too. BUT: Because our esteemed James Earl Carter created the Energy Department circa 1974, we don’t need any more oil from our own lands, his Energy Department has seen to it that the billions upon billions and thousands of employees have figured out a way for us to be energy independent; that’s what their directive was.
Of course, I jest. Why have we spent billions, hired thousands of people to develop a program for energy independence and have – thus far – come up with nada?
Electric cars? Hybrids? You gotta be kidding me! Men on the moon, yes. Developing energy resources…well, it just ain’t happened.
Let’s see: from 1974 to 2011…that’s about 37 or so years. Isn’t that enough time to figure out the problem, U. S. Department of Energy? OH, I see! If we give you just 37 MORE years, you may have the answer?
Finally, to those who storm the bastions when they read of someone daring to propose that we continue drilling for our oil on our own lands (and waters) and with our own personnel, tell me what you would do to solve the problem. Eh, did you say solar panels? Windmills? Steam turbines? Battery power?, ad nauseum?
I agree with those who have mentioned the above. Now if you lefties will tell me just how to properly attach solar panels and windmills on my automobile, I’ll be one happy camper! (Don’t suggest Elmer’s Glue or welding…I’ve tried those already.)
Linda
March 6th, 2011
5:44 pm
Jason@5:21, I am posting 2 sites for you to scan over, one per comment per Kyle’s rules. Seems the US has more oil than Saudi, per the Dept. of Energy. Here’s one:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index.html
Linda
March 6th, 2011
5:45 pm
Jason, Here’s the other one:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html
Michael H. Smith
March 6th, 2011
6:01 pm
Just curious Linda, what happens if we raise the debt ceiling as so many want but when the bonds are issued for sale all the countries like China decide to stop buying our debt? What would that mean, what would be the results of such and event?
Linda
March 6th, 2011
6:35 pm
Michael@6:01, I understand China has been selling off our debt. When Chu flew to the US on a commercial jet, I got the message. Don’t think O did.
China owns more of our debt than Americans. That says a lot. China has expressed concern that we are devaluing the dollar. Duh! Europe is calling on the dollar as the world currency to be replaced. So what does DC do? Crank up the printing presses & print money out of thin air—again, what Bernanke swore under oath he wouldn’t do, right before he did it.
The Reps. are trying to audit his little corner & Ron Paul is doing cartwheels.
They place one of each denominations in a bucket & the receptionist (Inez) over at the mint gets to draw. That’s how they decide what size bill to print. Hope this time it’s one dollar bills & they have to cut down all the trees, including the cherries, in DC for the paper. That will teach them a thing or two.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
March 6th, 2011
6:37 pm
It’s very early, but the contenders most-often mentioned have obvious liabilities.
Mitt Romney was beaten last time out by John McCain, a deeply flawed candidate, and as governor, implemented an Obamacare precursor — the disastrous Massachusetts health plan.
MHS- This election we have to be sure that we have the best candidate, not some maverick that the NY Times finds acceptable.
It ain’t Romney.
Linda
March 6th, 2011
7:00 pm
Whine@6:37, I ain’t votin’ for NO body without a campaign slogan that reads: Drill, Baby, Drill!
Actually, Baby could be replaced with Maam, Mista, Poppa, Auntie or even Whine. It’s the double drill that’s crucial.
And I ain’t votin’ for NO body recommended by the NYT.
Jason (Duluth)
March 6th, 2011
7:25 pm
@Linda (5.44p & 5.45p):
Yes, I’m very familiar with these DOE reports (one is now 4 years old!). My question? As they said in Alabama when Big Jim Folsom was running again for Governor years after having served as such, the people said, “Yeah, Big Jim…you did a lot for us (Alabama) but our question is, What have you done for us lately?. I stand by my comments about the useless DOE and it’s wasted billions on charts, graphs, blah, blah, etc., but still no ENERGY PROGRAM. Oh, well maybe I was on a moon mission when they began searching for crude oil with CO2 gas. Wow, what a discovery!
Linda
March 6th, 2011
8:11 pm
Jason@7:25, I have posted these websites several times. You are the only person that was familiar with them. Most Americans are unaware that we are the only developed nation in the world that had a 25 year moratorium on using our own natural resources, that expired in ‘08, & is still under a political moratorium thru the O adm. that has also added another moratorium in the Gulf.
There has always been a US energy policy. We must save the planet. We must buy our oil from other planets: 1. Canada, 2. Mexico, 3. Saudi, etc. We must fund both sides of the war in Afghan. We must spend 20% of our defense budget protecting the Persian Gulf. We must give foreign aid to dictators in exchange for oil. We must lay off folks in the Gulf & add them to the 2 yrs. of unemployment entitlements to be fair. We must cancel leases in Wyoming, Utah & Montana & prevent leases by Virginia to be fair. We must finance Brazil to drill oil for China to be nice. We must watch Russia drill 50 miles off our shores with Cuba. We must use the EPA to stop global warming because the Senate is irrelevant. We must buy $700 B of oil from our friends/enemies for social justice & because we don’t need the money. We must pay $4 per gallon at the pump so that “green jobs” can be created.
What do you not understand?
AmVet
March 6th, 2011
8:56 pm
You know the question and you will not answer sensibly because the answer is the federal government has no right or power granted to it by the Constitution to act on healthcare.
What is Sam Hill’s name are YOU talking about??
I gather you were having a discussion with someone else on that matter?
Do you think I read your previous posts?? Why would you think that? Are you so full of yourself, that you think that other people here hang on your every word and with bated breath await your every opinion?
What *are* you thinking?
Until you made that irrational “observation” about my non-personal personal attacks – out of the blue – I had no intention whatsoever of engaging you. Now or in the future.
You certainly did not address the Gwinnett developers I referenced, nor the disgraced, jailed airline executives I provided that information on.
You seem obsessed with this matter by making up stories about “the left” personally attacking other bloggers here, and then acting like they are ignoring you.
OK, whatever floats your dinghy, Mike. But you can be a very strange and silly man. (Is that personal enough for you now?)
2 cents
March 6th, 2011
10:24 pm
@Linda,
you are correct that we are funding both sides of the war in Afgan. It has turned into nothing more than a drug war now. We are basically going after the poppie growers and smugglers that are left. If we dont get out of this crusade soon, it will cost us our freedom.
an easy step in energy policy would be bring in the auto makers and have them produce more diesel powered cars until the hybrid/battery tech improves.
i know these items are way off topic but i think responsible newspaper should start writing on these topics
saywhat?
March 6th, 2011
10:55 pm
Don’t ask for sacrifice from those who can best accommodate it! Don’t punish success! Don’t tax the rich! Haven’t the wealthy suffered enough?
Justsayno !!!!!!
March 6th, 2011
11:13 pm
We don’t have a tax problem. We have a spending problem. We have got to get the spending under contol or it won ‘t matter how much we tax ourselves.
Michael H. Smith
March 7th, 2011
2:07 am
AmVet
March 6th, 2011
8:56 pm
You can play dumb or silly as you wish. You know the question I asked and if you forgot, all you have to do is read it.
~
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.
Don’t bother giving me another lame reply in the form of another doltish personal attack.
Michael H. Smith
March 7th, 2011
2:35 am
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin…
March 6th, 2011
6:37 pm
We do agree on not choosing deeply flawed candidates. However, I can tell you that so far the usual people who are being floated might be ideal to win the GOP primary but none of them can win the general election. Look for a fresh face with executive and real world business experience, the usual people who continue to surface time after time have too much baggage, their negatives are too high or they are too fringe to win popular support from Independent voters. Only one name that I can think of who might choose to run or is tentatively willing to at the moment to make a run for the Presidency comes to mind, the others are not willing and have said as much, so I’d let them be.
My point about Romney was that his attempt at healthcare was constitutionally correct where Obamacare is not, because that plan was done at the state level and not the federal. The Constitution gave all rights to the states to do anything that was not specially listed (enumerated) as a power or right of the Federal Government. We definitely want our candidate to understand and respect Federalism, which the potential candidate I have in mind does, though, he is not Romney or any one of the usual people.
Michael H. Smith
March 7th, 2011
2:47 am
Linda
March 6th, 2011
6:35 pm
All it will take is one failed treasury auction and everything will come down like the proverbial house of cards that it is, should it ever happen. If people think shutting down government is the horror of all unthinkable horrors, perhaps it is just as well they remain clueless to reality. Either we can make the choices to get our fiscal house in order or nations like China will make them for us, with the potential of the worst financial collapse the world has ever witnessed.
2 Cents
March 7th, 2011
9:03 am
The big wigs in the Republican party are deathly scared of a Ron Pual presidency; think what would happen if Ron Paul and Allen West won the P and VP spots. We all know the both parties line their own pockets when they get to DC. Except for those few persons that really know how important our Constitution is.
JB
March 7th, 2011
9:15 am
With close to half the population depending on the Feds for their living, Tax reform, and fair taxation will never happen. If fact, Dems want the productive group to pay more. It’s a plantation mentality. It really is. Why should someone making 500,000.00 only have to pay 150,000 in federal taxes. That is really their thinking. The Dems would really like about 250,000, about half. Their thinking is why should so many do without and so may have so much. Ask any LEGAL immigrate who has come here the last 10 years and started a business how they feel….and why they came here….Not to waddle out to the mailbox once a month for a Government check….They came her for freedom and to make $$$$$$…..and to keep it.
Linda
March 7th, 2011
10:23 am
2 cents@10:24PM, You mention our freedom & then mention bringing in the auto makers & having them produce a certain product. We can’t have freedom & have the govt. dictating to private companies what products to produce. The govt. is already dictating to the auto makers how to design their products, which is beyond the scope of the constitution.
Linda
March 7th, 2011
10:31 am
Michael@2:47, I think we have 2 choices: let the govt. shut down until the true conservatives in DC can convince the Democrats/progressives/socialists to cut spending AND the size of the fed. govt. OR let the fed. govt. shut down itself by default on debt we cannot afford to pay. Continuing to spend is not an option. Of the two above, the latter is by far, the worst.
Linda
March 7th, 2011
11:26 am
Regardless of whether taxpayers make $50,000 or $500,000 per year, how many months should they work for the govt. to pay their taxes, based on these tax brackets & the months required to pay them:
30% 3.6 mts.
40% 4.8 mts.
50% 6 mts.
60% 7.2 mts.
70% 8.4 mts.
80% 9.6 mts.
90% 10.8 mts.
100% 12 mts.
At a 30% tax bracket, tax payers are sorta free. At a 100% tax bracket, they are slaves. When do tax payers become servants?
Should all taxpayers work the same number of mts. to pay their taxes?