Another Modest Proposal

[Liability]

Something happened yesterday here that made me ponder politics in a new light.

I found myself agreeing with an avowed lib on the topic of taxation.

[ Forget the details, one of us might have to change our minds. ]

But that's not the point. The thing of it is this:

We are all familiar with the slightly over-used expression that the "We should not allow the Perfect to become the enemy of the Good." In other words, for every problem there are a range of possible solutions. And if we are looking to fix a problem, we are not going to get there if we insist on "perfection" as the sole permissible option, since few of us will ever agree on what even constitutes "perfection."

Back to taxes, then.

If an avowed and ardent liberal and I can agree that a form of "flat tax" that incorporates SOME elements of a progressive structure is a potentially desirable outcome, then why should we permit the demands of the extremes on either end of the political spectrum to derail that effort?

It's akin to a discussion (on that other board) I once participated in involving the issue of "abortion." Some of my conservative colleagues and I agreed with each other (and with a few liberals, too) that it would be an enormous first step if we could get some limits on abortion even if only to the extent that it would no longer be available merely as a matter of "convenience." More strident opponents of abortion would take us to task -- since our proposal would NOT end abortion. And they were right up to a point. It wouldn't. But I felt (and some of my conservative friends also felt) that a move to CUT the massive number of abortions would at least be a rational first step.

It makes me wonder what other political issues MIGHT actually be subject to a give and take approach? If I am seeking movement at least in the right direction, why should I oppose a plan that accomplishes such movement merely because it doesn't get us all the way to the promised land right away?

Not all compromise is necessarily a dirty word.

Thus endeth the ramble.

 

[uscitizen]

Like the compromise on paygo? the logical first step in getting a handle on spending.

 

[Liability]

Like the compromise on paygo? the logical first step in getting a handle on spending.

There may be more than one "compromise" being considered on pay as you go.

Would you mind clarifying which compromise you have in mind? Specifically, how does the compromise you have in mind work to address the desired outcome and the various objections?

 

[uscitizen]

Like the compromise on paygo? the logical first step in getting a handle on spending.

There may be more than one "compromise" being considered on pay as you go.

Would you mind clarifying which compromise you have in mind? Specifically, how does the compromise you have in mind work to address the desired outcome and the various objections?

the comprimise is to enact it by voting for it.

The dems sponsoring it seems to be the biggest objection the cons have against voting for it.

 

[Oddball]

Some issues --this being one of them-- don't lend themselves to this kind of compromise.

As I've pointed out numerous times, the current incredibly incomprehensible tax code stared out its journey as just such a "flat tax". What we've discovered is that if you give politicians the opening to tinker with taxation as a way to reward "good" behavior and punish the "bad", and/or pay off friends and sanction enemies, they'll abuse it every time.

Like there was no middle ground in outlawing slavery, the "experiment" with direct taxes on incomes, the 16th Amendment and the IRS need to be scrapped altogether.

Yes, we're throwing out the baby with the bath water....It's Rosemary's baby.

 

[edthecynic]

My compromise to letting Bush's tax cuts expire as Obama wants and making them permanent as the GOP wants, is to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs by REPLACING each of Bush's tax cuts when they expire or sooner, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.

This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis stimulating demand without costing the employer a single penny, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving them the expense of compliance.

The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group you would want to benefit most from tax cuts!!!

 

[Liability]

Like the compromise on paygo? the logical first step in getting a handle on spending.

There may be more than one "compromise" being considered on pay as you go.

Would you mind clarifying which compromise you have in mind? Specifically, how does the compromise you have in mind work to address the desired outcome and the various objections?

the comprimise is to enact it by voting for it.

The dems sponsoring it seems to be the biggest objection the cons have against voting for it.

I was almost there. I ALMOST thought you were going to post seriously instead of just partisanly.

But the truth is, you are just spouting liberal democrat talking pointlesses.

PAYGO as currently proposed by the Obama Administration is part and parcel of a big bill that incorporates various exceptions and exemptions. In other words, it doesn't do -- it is not even designed to do -- what its name falsely promises.

If you want to discuss compromise, don't come back with an all or nothing take it or leave it partisan attack post. It only shows that you aren't serious.

Compromise, properly and honestly understood, means a lot of different things. ONE of those things would involve true debate on which things should be on a list of exemptions and which things should NOT be on that list. And the rational of which things are included or excluded cannot themselves be merely cheap political theater.

Pence Decries Democrat Debt Limit Increase and PAYGO

“American people long for this administration and this Congress to lead us away from the brink of fiscal disaster

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, delivered the following remarks today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in opposition to H. J. Res. 45, Democrat legislation that will increase the national debt limit by a record $1.9 trillion:

“Time for a little bit of truth telling about their side and about our side. The truth telling about our side is that back when we were in charge we didn’t do so well on controlling runaway federal spending. My colleagues, who know me well, know that I, many times, found myself at cross purposes in fighting the president of my own party and some leadership of my own party in some of those big spending fights. But under the last administration we doubled the national debt. I want to stipulate to that. But frankly, that’s no excuse for what’s happening today, Madam Speaker.

“Over the last three years, the Democrat majority has literally broken the ceiling on fiscal responsibility, and as I just admitted, that ceiling was pretty high. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, 2007, the national debt had increased by $3.96 trillion, a 42 percent increase in three years. To keep up with this spending binge, Congress has increased the debt limit five times over the last 19 months. Three times since the current administration took office one year ago. And the statutory debt increase that comes before us today, $1.9 trillion, is the largest one-time debt increase in U.S. history.

“This is the fifth increase, as I mentioned, in the last 19 months. This one-time increase in the debt limit of $1.9 trillion is actually larger than the entire GDP of almost every country in the world. It’s larger than the GDP of Canada, Russia, Spain, or Brazil. And it’s larger than the GDP of Australia and Poland combined. The American people are looking at this extraordinary gusher of spending and debt and they are asking the question: ‘When will it stop?’ And the answer is, as we look at the budget that the administration submitted earlier this week, no time soon.

“I hasten to add, the administration, just this week, announced plans for a budget $3.8 trillion in scope, with a $1.6 trillion deficit and $2 trillion in higher taxes. And let me say with respect, the American people looking in ought not to be deceived by the promises of fiscal discipline known as ‘PAYGO.’ And the truth is, the bill before us today is 58 pages long and 32 of those pages are all the programs that are exempted from the PAYGO requirements. Forty percent of federal spending is exempted from the fiscal discipline fix that we’re being told is encompassed in PAYGO. The truth is, PAYGO really means here in Washington: you pay and they go on spending.

“The fact is that what we see here is a failure of leadership. President Obama, as a United States Senator, said in March of 2006, when he came out against raising the debt limit in a vote, ‘The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s recklessness. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.’ So said then-Senator Barack Obama, March 2006. Let me suggest he was right, then, and his words are equally true today.

“The American people long for us to put our fiscal house in order. They long for us to embrace true fiscal discipline and reform. They long for this administration and this Congress to lead us away from the brink of fiscal disaster.
This PAYGO, this debt ceiling vote, is no solution, and I urge its opposition.”

-- Congressman Pence. See: Conservative Nation (a link to an audio version of Pence's speech is available there.)

 

[Charles Stucker]

We, as a nation face two problems from congress. While I am tempted to say they are the Republican and Democratic party, that would be frivolous; the problems are lack of accountability in Taxing and in Spending. Spending is a way for politicians to reward their constituents; not always through direct pork, but rather through directing programs with a semblance of legitimacy through their supporters hands. Runaway spending creates a problem; how do you pay for it all? Politicians see taxes as the way out of any financial trouble and cannot perceive how damaging they are to the nation's economic health. However they do understand that people have a limit to how hard they will work to pay ever increasing taxes so they create a deficit and debt on the conceit that they will pay it back when things are better. I use the term conceit as anyone who has examined the US federal government's record over the last 80 years realizes they do not pay off the debt but rather are in the habit of simply accruing ever more.

Perhaps though I am wrong, we as a nation face only one problem in congress; politicians.

 

[Darkwind]

Something happened yesterday here that made me ponder politics in a new light.

I found myself agreeing with an avowed lib on the topic of taxation.

[ Forget the details, one of us might have to change our minds. ]

But that's not the point. The thing of it is this:

We are all familiar with the slightly over-used expression that the "We should not allow the Perfect to become the enemy of the Good." In other words, for every problem there are a range of possible solutions. And if we are looking to fix a problem, we are not going to get there if we insist on "perfection" as the sole permissible option, since few of us will ever agree on what even constitutes "perfection."

Back to taxes, then.

If an avowed and ardent liberal and I can agree that a form of "flat tax" that incorporates SOME elements of a progressive structure is a potentially desirable outcome, then why should we permit the demands of the extremes on either end of the political spectrum to derail that effort?

It's akin to a discussion (on that other board) I once participated in involving the issue of "abortion." Some of my conservative colleagues and I agreed with each other (and with a few liberals, too) that it would be an enormous first step if we could get some limits on abortion even if only to the extent that it would no longer be available merely as a matter of "convenience." More strident opponents of abortion would take us to task -- since our proposal would NOT end abortion. And they were right up to a point. It wouldn't. But I felt (and some of my conservative friends also felt) that a move to CUT the massive number of abortions would at least be a rational first step.

It makes me wonder what other political issues MIGHT actually be subject to a give and take approach? If I am seeking movement at least in the right direction, why should I oppose a plan that accomplishes such movement merely because it doesn't get us all the way to the promised land right away?

Not all compromise is necessarily a dirty word.

Thus endeth the ramble.

Well, I agree. But it is nice to go all the way once in a while.