Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]

View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem

1. Sandi Saunders | November 14, 2012 at 11:25 am

   An interesting read:

   “Despite Republican propaganda to the contrary, the long-term fiscal problem of the United States is principally that revenues are too low. If fixing this problem required a legislated tax increase, the nation would be in serious trouble, because Republicans will forever block it as long as they have the ability. Fortunately, they handed Barack Obama the power to permanently fix our fiscal problem if he has the courage and skill to use it.”

   http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/our-long-term-fiscal-future-is-better-than-it-looks/

   Our problems are not insurmountable. They never have been. Our biggest problem is political (i.e. manufactured for political purposes).
2. Sandi Saunders | November 14, 2012 at 11:30 am

   This is always an interesting thing to look back at and see:

   http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

   It matters who you listen too and it matters who you talk too as well.
3. Brian Lindholm | November 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm

   To #1 (Sandi): It was an interesting read, but it only addresses part of the problem. To quote:

   “Revenues are just 15.8 percent of gross domestic product, compared with a postwar average of 18.5 percent, which even Mr. Norquist accepts as a long-term goal. The sooner we get there, the sooner we can get the national finances on track toward sustainability”

   That would be just spiffy if spending were only 18.5% of GDP. Alas, it’s not. It’s currently 24% and will continue to rise as more and more baby boomers retire. The recently-reported spending in October (the first of the 2013 fiscal years) shows that things are getting worse, not better:

   http://news.yahoo.com/budget-deficit-rises-120-billion-october-190237736–business.html
   http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-government-runs-120-billion-190603163.html

   Deficits up 22% from last October. Ouch. I don’t share Bruce Bartlett’s optimism. We’ll probably make some small progress on the revenue side in the next few month, but I expect little or nothing on the spending side, given the continuing lack of meaningful proposals from Democrats regarding spending.
4. Sandi Saunders | November 14, 2012 at 1:03 pm

   I know that Bruce Bartlett is not advocating that as the only solution, you know it too.
5. Brian Lindholm | November 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm

   To #4 (Sandi): I know that Bartlett has advocated spending cuts in other commentaries, but that doesn’t matter. Bruce Bartlett doesn’t make policy. What matters is the spending cuts that Obama and congressional Democrats propose. Their silence on this subject remains deafening.
6. Sandi Saunders | November 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm

   I do not believe they have been silent at all.
7. Brian Lindholm | November 14, 2012 at 2:39 pm

   To #6 (Sandi): Could you point me to a list of their proposals for cutting spending? I have yet to see one.
8. Sandi Saunders | November 14, 2012 at 3:30 pm

   Any “list” provided by Obama would be DOA with the obstructionists in the House and Senate. Obama is asking them to come up with “A deal that helps the economy, creates jobs, creates certainty” and he has made it clear that it is the job of Congress to come up with it, and it is.

   He has taken nothing off the table and is willing to deal on overhauling the tax code, and reforming entitlements. He says: “There’s a package to be shaped and I’m confident that the … goodwill of both parties can make that happen.”

   I hope he is right but folks looking for a list to pick apart is not a good sign and this Congress has one awful track record.

   I believe we will gain more tax revenue and have to accept spending cuts. There is no other way and they all know it. Or do they?
9. Brian Lindholm | November 14, 2012 at 4:12 pm

   To #8 (Sandi): I have no idea what they know. Based on public statements, there’s a fair amount of irrational denial happening on both sides of the aisle. I assume you’re familiar with Republican irrationality, so I’ll remind you of the Democrats’ most significant cognitive failure:

   http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

   Is this true ignorance and stupidity, or is it a dishonest political tactic? Hard to say. Neither is acceptable in my opinion.

   I don’t know why you find it acceptable for Obama to hide his lists. Did you defend for his secret meetings with energy leaders? If Democrats have good ideas for spending cuts, they should be revealed so that the public can pressure the Republicans to relent.

   Also, public vetting of ideas would greatly increase the “openness and transparency” of the government: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment. Or have the Bloomberg guys correctly condemned Obama’s “open government” efforts as a major failure: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html? We were promised better than this.
10. Brian Lindholm | November 14, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Defend Cheney for his secret meetings, rather…
11. Sandi Saunders | November 14, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    I do not think he is “hiding” his list(s). He has folks steamed about his Medicaid cuts proposal so there must be one…He is meeting with groups and taking their input as well.

    This Congress cannot fathom working with him so I expect he is doing all he can behind the scenes so as not to just be a target, that is a sad indictment on the political climate but it is the reality.

    You, nor I will have any say or input on what is cut, how much etc so I am not going to sit here and sweat it. I think we will soon know the bargain and whether it is grand or pitiful but his name on it only waves a red flag at the bulls right now.

    Many were more than willing to elect Romney with scant information and details so again, I am not overly concerned with what I cannot affect. I believe there will be “public vetting”. And kvetching too.
12. Jim Lucas | November 14, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    #1 Once again…(on many deaf ears, thus the continued reality)…increasing tax revenue is best manifested by increasing the tax base.

    Increased taxes only slow the economy (and reduce the tax base).

    Regardless of how one “feels” about tax rates socially or politically, regardless of rates, increased tax base is the economic answer.
13. Sandi Saunders | November 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Mayhap words fall on “deaf ears” because they are not worth hearing. The disparate wage/income levels, lack of demand in a sluggish economy and the stagnant to totally insecure jobs, wage and benefits era has proven there is no base to broaden. Reality is that the rest of us will live with the needed cuts and the rich of us will live with increased taxes. You nor anyone else has to like it, but the old paradigms and dried up trickles leave no room for other choices.
14. Jim Lucas | November 15, 2012 at 9:47 am

    #13 Completely wrong. A growing economy will increase the tax base. Plain & simple.

    A growing tax base & the multiplier effect of increased economic activity.

    It has nothing to do with “trickle down” or any of your worn out political cliches.

    Are you denying that a growing economy increases the tax base? Are you denying an increased tax base increases tax revenue?

    Why do you oppose an increased tax base? Why do you prefer tax increases which will slow the economy and said base? Do you fundamentally oppose economic growth?
15. Brian Lindholm | November 15, 2012 at 10:50 am

    To #12 (Jim) and #13 (Sandi): Broadening the tax base is absolutely necessary as a component of major deficit reduction. For some history on the size of the tax base, see http://taxfoundation.org/article/number-americans-outside-income-tax-system-continues-grow.

    As recently as the year 2000 (the last year of Clinton’s term), only 25% of workers escaped paying federal income taxes. Today 47% do. This isn’t a consequence of workers suddenly becoming massively poorer, as wages for workers have remained largely flat. It’s a consequence of Bush-era tax cuts (which were applied across the board, not just for the rich), additional Obama-era tax cuts, and an ever-increasing number of credits, exemptions, and deductions.

    [And yes, I know that many of the 47% still pay payroll taxes. They paid those same payroll taxes back in Clinton's term, and a great many of them paid income taxes also. And yet life was considered better back then.]
16. Steven K | November 15, 2012 at 11:09 am

    #15 No Jim, YOU’RE completely wrong. America’s economy grew the fastest when the highest-bracket taxpayers were paying up around 70% back in the 1960s and 70s. Just remember: Bill Clinton enacted one of the highest tax increases in modern history, and as a result the economy boomed. Dubya gave the one-percenters the biggest tax cut in modern history, and our economy suffered one of the biggest job losses in history. You do the math.
17. Sandi Saunders | November 15, 2012 at 11:27 am

    I never said a growing economy would not increase the tax base, of course it would! What we have not done for over a decade is have a truly growing economy. All that “growing” was on paper for Bush’s term and it vanished in virtually no time at all. Do you forget the jobs hemorrhaged each month? That is never normal or growing. We are barely crawling along. working our way back and we cannot increase the tax base on this economy by growing just yet. We have to look elsewhere until we do have good growth again, because the debt and the deficits cannot wait for that growth to come either.

    You know this, you have to.