The only issue in the primary — aside from picking the candidate — is whether the current level of invective will preclude the losers from wholeheartedly endorsing the winner, and whether they have so damaged themselves that Barack Obama can simply rerun their ads against the eventual nominee. History mostly (but not always) suggests that wounds heal and unity follows as a candidate finally emerges, but while these suicidal Republican attacks continue, Obama largely has gotten a pass on the recess appointments, the debt hitting $16 trillion, the Keystone pipeline, the defense cuts, and de facto promises to various groups that federal immigration law will not be enforced.
Rather than going over the details of Gingrich’s marriages or Romney’s tax returns, at some point we need to hear which candidate can articulate what exactly is wrong with Obamaism and what he would do instead — and I don’t mean serial banalities like that Obama is an Alinskyite or a European socialist or a big-government liberal. I mean something a little more concise: how in the world can the budget be balanced, much less the debt reduced; what exactly we should expect from the looming enactment of Obamacare; roughly how many barrels of energy were lost from Obama’s serial denial of federal leases; why $500 million spent on Solyndra is preferable to, say, a comparably priced new frigate; or why and how “reset” with and outreach to Iran and Syria were utter failures. Just a minute or two on issues like that, and a pass on the former Mrs. Gingriches and Bain capital.
As in 2008, nobody is willing to run against Barack Obama.
His Magical Negro Suit gives him invulnerability and super powers.
This is post-modern racism! Self-referential racism. Racismism. It is so terribly tiresome that I greatly fear many Americans will soon come to long for and prefer the actual racism of the past.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd it's Mr. Obama's fault that the republicans can't field a decent candidate? He's one powerful guy.
As for preferring "actual racism," your statement is pathetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suspect your comment is the sort of narcissistic, self-confessional that Mr. Hanson deplored in his column. Blame the other guy for your shortcomings. Project your racism onto the other guy.
"Magical Negro Suit?" The myth of black invulnerability and super powers harken back to the "Mandingo" myth and other falsehoods that old-fashioned racists would employ to frighten the white lower classes of their supposedly inferior black neighbor. Inferior yet invulnerable? Think about that while you're polishing your "Iron Cross."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnlike Barack Obama, I am descended from Africans enslaved in North America.
Of my 16 great-grandparents, 6 were born slaves in North Carolina. One was born heir to a great plantation, and another was a plucky Scots-Irish immigrant who shacked up with a former slave and raised a family in Raleigh, NC.
Four were Jews who managed to outwit the Russians and get themselves to America,
The others were Saxons, Dutch and Flemish, and one poor Provencale.
So you can stuff your racist rant, buddy. I'm glad my African forefathers were lucky enough to have been shipped to North America. I'm glad all the others figured out how to get here on their own. If I were a physician, I'd be a fifth-generation physician like my cousin is, And none of our forebears enjoyed any affirmative action, so-called. They just up and did it.
Barack Obama is not one of us, he''s one of Them. Like you are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo words...voodoo economics. Yeah, I think we'll be fine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"how in the world can the budget be balanced, much less the debt reduced"
Neither Newt nor Mitt can effectively bring this up, as both of their stated economic plans would make the deficit decidedly worse - they are both calling for major reductions in tax revenues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, they're calling for a reduction in rates, not a reduction in receipts.
In 2000 (and in today's dollars), tax receipts to the treasury were $2,025.2B. Then, Congress passed the bi-partisan - and so strangely named - "Bush Tax Cuts". By 2005, when the economy had fully recovered from the 2001 Recession, tax receipts for the year were (wait for it), $2,153.6B, and the next year, they grew to $2,406.9. They grew every year until we suffered another recession in 2008/2009.
External Link
We don't have a revenue problem: Revenue in today's dollars are higher (during Bush's tenure) than they were during the Clinton presidency. Instead, we have a spending problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA reduction in rates (absent a corresponding reduction in deductions and loopholes) ALWAYS leads to a reduction in revenues.
Please review the work of NR's own Ramesh Ponnuru on this subject:
External Link
Taxes and Revenues
By Ramesh Ponnuru
October 17, 2007 6:03 P.M.
Yesterday I noted that Bush’s tax cuts had caused revenue to be lower than it would otherwise have been. A number of people have emailed me saying that I’m wrong: Revenues have been growing fast, and are higher than they were before the tax cuts took effect.
That shows that the tax cuts were compatible with rising revenues, not that they caused them. The tax cuts may have boosted our economic growth, but we would have had some growth without them. So the question is whether tax cuts boosted growth so much that they ended up raising money.
I can’t think of any serious economist who thinks that happened. The 2003 Economic Report of the President said that “[a]lthough the economy grows in response to tax reductions… it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.” Bush’s own Treasury Department has disavowed the view that Bush’s tax cuts have raised revenue.Rob Portman and Ed Lazear, while serving in the Bush administration (as head of the OMB and the Council of Economic Advisers, respectively), said that the tax cuts had reduced federal revenue.
I’ll give the last word to Alan Viard, an economist who worked at the White House before joining AEI. Last year, the Washington Post quoted him: “Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.”
---
To put it simply, you are perfectly wrong in your two earlier statements; first, tax revenues ARE directly reduced when rates are reduced. Second, we DO have a revenue problem - tax receipts plummeted during the recession, and they have yet to properly recover to per-recession levels. This exacerbates the deficit problem tremendously. We will only be able to get rid of the deficit by both cutting spending AND raising taxes; any approach that tries to do so by only using one of the methods is doomed to fail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that.”
Over what period? If the economy were contracting, I would think this would be true. I would also expect a compounding of even small differences in returns over time with the additional capital in the economy.
One point though, even if you assume for the sake of argument that growth with cuts would not significantly outpace growth without cuts: Tax rates should be as low as possible as a matter of individual economic freedom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn a deficit environment (which we have been in for a long time), tax rates which are lower than what is necessary to balance the budget are LOWER than individual economic freedom allows for. In fact, when our taxes are too low, we are inevitably and irrevocably damaging the future for our children and grandchildren; limiting their economic freedom tremendously, b/c we didn't want to pay a few percentage points more in taxes now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem then becomes who is responsible and who should pay the price. So long as we follow your model and increase tax rates to pay for any deficit spending, the people who believe their jobs are dependent upon doling out tax money to constituents will continue to do so in ever larger amounts. I realize you mentioned spending cuts and we agree on that.
However, you are making the point that the American people are responsible for cleaning up the economic mess made by lawmakers. To an extent, I agree. But I don't believe the reduction of economic freedom should be borne by the citizens of the country. Essentially, I don't believe in reducing the amount of capital in the economy (and reducing the amount of money the average citizen keeps as income) in order to essentially bail out those who buy votes on our dime.
I don't know about you, but I don't think my taxes are "too low".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But I don't believe the reduction of economic freedom should be borne by the citizens of the country"
Why not? We (the citizens) are the ones who have enjoyed the benefits of the spending which led to the overall loss of economic freedom. Now, we have not all EQUALLY enjoyed these benefits, but we have all profited from them nonetheless. It is without a doubt that if our gov't had to balance the books every year, and tax rates were variable based on what was required to do this, we would have ALL had much less disposable income over the last few decades. Running a tab doesn't change the underlying fact that at the end of the day, the citizens pay the price.
"I don't know about you, but I don't think my taxes are "too low"."
Everybody's taxes are too low. They are the lowest that they've ever been in any of our lifetimes. I would seek not just a tax increase on the wealthy, but eventually increases on every segment of society, until our books are balanced.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have a revenue problem in the fact that we have a 15% unemployment rate! Lower taxes DO increase activity because you're not being PENALIZED for it. Therefore, the activity increases revenue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"$500 billion spent on Solyndra"
Really?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseC'mon don't expect facts to get in the way of Hanson's argument. Of course he means 500 million. That's no 15 billion in cash unaccounted for in Iraq under Bush, but's it's not chump change.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't nitpick with "Dr." Hanson....half of what he writes is made up in his own mind. And his cheering section never seems to care.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Hanson types a "b" instead of an "m" and so we focus on that "Gotcha" instead of the very valid points he raises.
Typical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy head exploded when I read we'd spent $500 billion on Solyndra.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you mean 500 million.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs usual, spot-on advice by Dr. Hanson. My only quibble would be the comment about Gingrich's ex-wives. That obviously speaks to Newt's character. The party of family values would be exceedingly hypocritical to nominate Newt, even if he has found redemption. Has Romney even attacked him on this issue?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse