According to The Hill, “Democrats on the supercommittee have proposed that the savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be used to pay for a new stimulus package”:
The latest offer from Democrats on the deficit panel, made Monday night to their Republican counterparts, would use some of the war savings to help pay for spending on infrastructure.
In this context, I think this cartoon (via Dan Mitchell) is very fitting:
Of course, this cartoon can also be used as a warning to any Republicans on the supercommittee who may be tempted to raise taxes to achieve their deficit-reduction target. While sometimes it seems like a good idea to compromise, I was reminded recently of the real risk that this approach entails: that the tax increases will be implemented and the spending cuts won’t. In a recent article in Commentary, Steven Hayward reports on how President Reagan experienced the true cost of agreeing to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts. In Reagan’s case, it happened when he made a deal with Congress before the 1982 elections ($1 in revenue for $3 in spending cuts).
That deal, which came to be known as TEFRA (the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act), featured what was then, to date, the largest tax hike in American history. TEFRA came a little more than a year after the enactment of the Kemp-Roth bill, which slashed marginal tax rates at every level by 23 percent over three years and was the heart of what came to be known as “Reaganomics.”
. . . All the “tax increases” to which Reagan agreed as part of TEFRA were temporary excise hikes on cigarettes and telephone calls. The bill also featured technical changes in the tax code (such as the elimination of depreciation schedules and the reduction of tax credits and deductions).
The result:
. . . the “balanced approach” he had advocated in the 1982 budget deal had never come to pass. TEFRA was designed to bring about $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue, which meant that, on paper, it advanced Reagan’s goal of shrinking the federal government. In practice, the results of TEFRA were almost exactly the opposite. While the tax increases were real, Congress never delivered on the spending cuts. By one calculation, the 1982 budget deal actually resulted in $1.14 of new spending for each extra tax dollar.
I'll say it again -- $2.2T is enough to do anything you could reasonably want, and if it isn't, you want too much.
The government collects enough taxes. It's a spending problem, period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's enough for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. And *nothing* else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf those four things:
1. Only one is mentioned in the Constitution
2. The one in #1 is the cheapest of the four.
So, we could eliminate the three that aren't a Constitutionally specified power of the Federal Government and have plenty left over for it's other specified duties.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I agree in principle, I'm not even specifying how the money should be spent. I'm just saying that with $2.2T, you can satisfy any reasonable wish list. If you can't, the wish list is unreasonable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKeep in mind, I would be perfectly willing to set that number lower, but $2.2T is the amount the federal government actually brings in.
The point, of course, is that there's enough money. It's spending which is the entire problem.
If you're that unimaginative, sure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAccording to an article linked on Drudge, if congress does this it will put the US's credit rating at risk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what? Where else are people going to put their money? the Euro? China's going to stop buying our debt soon, there's only so much they'll want. And we're going to worry that it will hinder a recovery? What recovery? That's been a load of bull. And we already have inflation, they've just decided not to calculate it. What's Bernake going to do, throw more money at it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere else can they put their money? Pretty soon, burying it in the back yard will be a better investment than US treasuries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to mention that liberals now use his part of the compromise against him, arguing that "Reagan rasied taxes."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to mention that liberals now use his part of the compromise against him, arguing that "Reagan rasied taxes."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a conservative and I try to be a Republican BUT man is it hard sometimes. Hey all you R's;
Step 1) Demand a return to pre-stimulus non defense discrectionary spending
Step 2) Demand repeal of Obamacare
Step 3) Raise revenue through tax reform and economic growth
Step 4) Repeat 1) through 3) in the media over and over and over and over........................
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWelcome to the party. Get used to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's that "balanced" thing again. A nice-sounding word it is, but what in the world does "balanced" mean in this context? How would it be a better way of achieving the goal, which is to cut the deficit?
And yeah, what bobbymike said. Don't forget that revenue will increase through economic growth stimulated by tax reform. That is the good kind of revenue increase. Keep pushing the hell out of it and if the opposition says no, reply "What? You are not in favor of increased revenue?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>that the tax increases will be implemented and the spending cuts won’t.
That is exactly what will happen. Good to see that some at NR are starting to catch on. To be a democrat is to spend; to not spend is not to be. And where is all this heading? Why our old friend Clouard-Piven.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSilly, you. The supercommittee is supposed to come up with a compromise that includes a super-DUPER-committee that will reduce the deficit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
My god... does anyone else think these massive bills all have names that sound like they are straight out of Atlas Shrugged?
Thats a rather good test. The more the name they use for legislations "sounds like" something from Atlas Shrugged, the more it probably is like something designed by those thieving central planners in the story.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCongressional Republicans are poised to bail out Democrats by agreeing to massive tax hikes. In the middle of a recession.Meanwhile, the GOP is poised to nominate the creator of RomneyCare. It is not for nothing that the GOP is called the Stupid Party.
A third party, please. Now. Right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe betrayal that the dems committed against Reagan on TEFRA still makes my blood boil. I will never forgive them. I still see their horse-laughs at Reagan and his supporters, what a bunch of ignorant hicks we were!
"The real risk that the tax increases will be implemented and the spending cuts won’t"
YA THINK???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just read an article at CNS, GOP is signaling another big cave and is considering voting on a BBA with no teeth, no cap, no supermajority vote required for tax increases. Boehner / Cantor are going wobbly, we need to light up the phones
"(CNSNews.com) – House Republicans appear likely to send a “clean” balanced budget amendment (BBA) -- no cap on federal spending and no supermajority vote to raise taxes -- to the floor sometime next week, statements from its chief sponsor indicate."
External Link
I hope the Corner gets out in front of this tomorrow and writes a post plus reach out to DC staffers, voters will be upset at another major cave, readers need to call Congress
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerfect cartoon.
Anyone want to bet but what Mitch McConnell agrees to tax increases and Beltway John Boehner goes along with it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse