Taxes and cuts both necessary
By Allen Starbuck
In answer to Jessee Ring (“Here we go again and again,” commentary, Dec. 13), yes, here is one liberal who would like to see military expenditures cut.
That’s one of the few good things that came out of the wrangle about debt limits.
Starbuck is a nurse, working in a nursing home. He lives n Elliston.
December 21, 2012 - 6:13 AM
“here is one liberal who would like to see military expenditures cut.” And here is one conservative who’d like to see liberals offer a REAL plan to help restore economic activity. There–we’re even.
Mr. Van Velzer, the problem with getting even is that pretty soon we will all be blind.
I believe we HAVE offered a “REAL plan to help restore economic activity”. When there is no private spending the government must stimulate the economy with spending. When there is not enough revenue, the government must raise taxes on those who can afford it (because they were the ones profiting). And finally, when there is not enough money to pay for everything we have to cut spending and learn to live with less in some areas of government. WE have addressed ALL of that in a balanced, fair, and sensible way IMO. We did not get here in a short period of time and we will not get out of here in a short period of time. Economic collapse is a serious thing. It was not “just” a recession.
“If the most vulnerable have the safety net taken away from them, will that really benefit the rich?”
Very few would disagree with that statement. The problem is most of us see people around us who do not need the safety net that are using it anyway. Weed abusers out and the system would work.
You can’t “weed” ‘em out anymore, because someone is smokin’ the weed.
Sandi, the back-and-forth has been almost entirely on the income side–that is, how to raise it. The Democrats I have seen covered by whatever news outlet all insist that there should be no cuts to entitlements. Our president has said repeatedly that the income question comes first, with a “promise” of more discussions down the road regarding cutting spending. Moreover, he wants Congress to transfer to him their constitutional authority to authorize future increases in the debt ceiling. Either the Democrats are not interested in preventing the crisis, or they are leveraging their position to increase executive power (can anyone say, “imperial presidency?”).
Margaret Thatcher had it right when she said that the problem with socialism is that eventually, one runs out of someone else’s money.
It’s not the current president (or past presidents) who gave us the bloated federal budget. It’s our good friends in Congress who never saw a bad piece of pork. How many years have been seen the “Golden Fleece Award” for questionable and useless federal spending? Has the practice stopped of handing out goodies to the folks in the home district so a Congresscritter is remembered favorably the next time he is running to hold on to his seat (and his nice lifestyle with all the perks)? How many “bridges to nowhere” have been in past budgets and will be in future budgets? Will non-vital spending be cut as part of the agreement (if reached) to keep us from going over the cliff? Doubtful, since the opportunity was there last year and everyone passed on doing the hard work, instead delaying things for a year.
Bill, the reason we have had so much “back-and-forth” over more revenue is that the Congress refuses to see what the nation has clearly told them. They are more than willing to put all of the burden on our backs and none on those of the people who have made out like bandits the last ten years.
We have already made cuts, we are already trimming budgets and chaining the Social Security payments to the Scrooge of CPI means that future payments are greatly reduced. There cannot be any more delay in saving the middle and working class or this nation will hit another recession that many of us will not survive financially.
We do not need ALL of the items done at once or in one mega bill. We SHOULD take this one item at a time and do them right. Revenue needs to come first as we deal with the tax rate sunset. That is literally running out of time. The specific cuts and reforms can be done after the new members are sworn in. There is no wrong in being cautious as we proceed.
Sure the Democrats have made hyperbolic comments, so have the TP/R’s. After the debacle of the last debt ceiling debacle no one can blame the President for thinking that it should not be just another political football and the 14th Amendment, “SECTION 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. covers it. It also says only that “SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” They have the power to “enforce” the payment of our debt, they do not have the power to deny it.
You claim it is the Democrats that “are not interested in preventing the crisis”, I believe it is the Right wing Republicans and they are willing to sacrifice us all to benefit 2% of the population. And I think it is the Constitution that makes the debt ceiling a non issue, not some effort to “increase executive power” or “say, “imperial presidency?”.
Margaret Thatcher was a rigid neocon, but we are not Socialists.
“I believe we HAVE offered a “REAL plan to help restore economic activity”.”
So, the solution is for the government to increase spending of money that it has confiscated from us to trick us into spending our money. But to do that, the government has to go into debt, to the tune of a trillion additional dollars a year, to get us to spend our money and then use the debt they have incurred to tax us at a higher rate?!?!
That sounds like the most vicious of vicous cycles that will have us begging third world contries to help us out so we can rise to their standard of living.
#8 “…money that it has confiscated from us…”
Is that how you see taxes, Jerry? I trust, then, you prefer not to drive on public roads, walk on public sidewalks, drink water from public waterways, flush your toilet into a public sewer, have your trash picked up by publicly-funded garbage collectors, or report crimes to publicly-funded police departments?
These taxes actually PAY for things, Jerry, so if you want a fully-functioning society, you should pay your share.
I fully appreciate the philosophy behind taxation.
My problem is that I’m already paying upwards of 40 percent of every dollar I make to some form of tax. Income tax, sales tax, utility tax, meals tax, gas tax, it never stops. I’ve heard the argument about roads and utilities over and over. It comes down to the fact that if those are the priorities, something else has to go. Personally, I’d like to keep the military in place.
I have to live within my means, so does our government.