Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Taxes, spending and an uninspired electorate.
"In fact, Xers may well be the first generation whose lifetime earnings will be less than their parents'. Already they have the weakest middle class of any generation born in this century."
Source
I chuckled heartily when I read this article about U.S. Comptroller General David Walker's crusade to save the country from insolvency. Here's the crux of the dilemma: How are politicos going to convince us that we should pay higher taxes when they can't hold the line on spending?
Hillary's solution is to target those who earn the most and she uses fabulously wealthy limousine liberals like Warren Buffett as examples of those volunteering to pay more. But what would Hillary do with the "revenue" (see note below to understand quotations) she takes from all those other very wealthy non-volunteers? We know that she (or any of her cohorts for that matter) won't cut spending on non-essential programs. In fairness to Hillary, asking any politician to stop spending is like asking an addict to substitute jelly beans for smack. It just ain't going to happen.
While Walker mentions tighter controls on spending and cuts to entitlement programs he mostly pleads for higher taxes (cleverly labeled as revenue). And this is one of the biggest word thefts of all times- a government doesn't generate revenue. A business generates revenue when it produces something (a good or service), but the government DOESN'T produce anything.
Echoes of DEM talking points...
Walker even takes a shot at the GWOT since those "threats" pale in comparison to the horrors of insolvency. From where I sit, what I see is a bevy of government officials from both parties fat and happy, anxious to withdrawal from foreign affairs so they can preserve their constituents' desire for a prosperous, no-care-in-the-world retirement.
And the cynical side of me knows that Reid and Pelosi could care less about ending the war (Reid sees it as an opportunity to gain seats in the Senate). What they (and GOP lawmakers) care about is re-deploying dollars currently spent on the "bumper sticker" war to pet projects like peanut containers. These domestic boondoggles keep them in office, expand the size of government, and do nothing to address the "immorality" of future debts.
I believe the historically low congressional approval ratings (and the president's own approval ratings) are a reflection of an absolute loss of confidence and faith in this government.
Postscript
Maybe the most brilliant campaign sound-bite to date has been Obama's statement that a vote for Hillary is "more of the same old thing." Who has the gravitas to break the country from this CLINTON/BUSH stupor? The nation can't go back to pre-911 world (there's not enough HGTV programming in the world to mask the realities of what the radical Islamic fundamentalists are doing) but we're obviously too tired to stay the course. Who can ratchet down the rhetoric, end the partisanship and put pressing issues like social security reform, immigration, health care, terrorism, energy, and government spending on the table? Hillary will get NO break from the vast right wing conspiracy [wink, wink] who have been maginalized by her supporters at the NY TIMES.
She will face unprecedented scrutiny that a doting MSM will find difficult to compensate for and it will guarantee 4 (or 8) years of the same kind of rancor.
Source
I chuckled heartily when I read this article about U.S. Comptroller General David Walker's crusade to save the country from insolvency. Here's the crux of the dilemma: How are politicos going to convince us that we should pay higher taxes when they can't hold the line on spending?
Hillary's solution is to target those who earn the most and she uses fabulously wealthy limousine liberals like Warren Buffett as examples of those volunteering to pay more. But what would Hillary do with the "revenue" (see note below to understand quotations) she takes from all those other very wealthy non-volunteers? We know that she (or any of her cohorts for that matter) won't cut spending on non-essential programs. In fairness to Hillary, asking any politician to stop spending is like asking an addict to substitute jelly beans for smack. It just ain't going to happen.
While Walker mentions tighter controls on spending and cuts to entitlement programs he mostly pleads for higher taxes (cleverly labeled as revenue). And this is one of the biggest word thefts of all times- a government doesn't generate revenue. A business generates revenue when it produces something (a good or service), but the government DOESN'T produce anything.
Echoes of DEM talking points...
Walker even takes a shot at the GWOT since those "threats" pale in comparison to the horrors of insolvency. From where I sit, what I see is a bevy of government officials from both parties fat and happy, anxious to withdrawal from foreign affairs so they can preserve their constituents' desire for a prosperous, no-care-in-the-world retirement.
And the cynical side of me knows that Reid and Pelosi could care less about ending the war (Reid sees it as an opportunity to gain seats in the Senate). What they (and GOP lawmakers) care about is re-deploying dollars currently spent on the "bumper sticker" war to pet projects like peanut containers. These domestic boondoggles keep them in office, expand the size of government, and do nothing to address the "immorality" of future debts.
I believe the historically low congressional approval ratings (and the president's own approval ratings) are a reflection of an absolute loss of confidence and faith in this government.
Postscript
Maybe the most brilliant campaign sound-bite to date has been Obama's statement that a vote for Hillary is "more of the same old thing." Who has the gravitas to break the country from this CLINTON/BUSH stupor? The nation can't go back to pre-911 world (there's not enough HGTV programming in the world to mask the realities of what the radical Islamic fundamentalists are doing) but we're obviously too tired to stay the course. Who can ratchet down the rhetoric, end the partisanship and put pressing issues like social security reform, immigration, health care, terrorism, energy, and government spending on the table? Hillary will get NO break from the vast right wing conspiracy [wink, wink] who have been maginalized by her supporters at the NY TIMES.
She will face unprecedented scrutiny that a doting MSM will find difficult to compensate for and it will guarantee 4 (or 8) years of the same kind of rancor.
Labels: generational conflict
