“It’s the economy stupid.” Remember that? I do, and then I also remember George H.W. Bush’s statement “Read my lips, no new taxes.”
The current mess that the economy is in makes George Bush a handy whipping boy. While at the same time conveniently forgetting that it was the Congress that forced those in the market to grant loans and general credit to people that just plain were not qualified. Now that same Congress is playing what basically is the same hand in a card game called “The House of Cards.” What follows are two similar, but different approaches for caging the tiger. While at the same time pointing out the fallacies of the Democrat proposal (s) that simply continue to hang onto the tigers tail.
First, from Mike Rosen from the Rocky Mountain News;
Here’s the opening paragraph from a New York Times story by reporter Robert Pear (please note that this is a news story in the oh-so-liberal New York Times): “The stimulus bill working its way through Congress is not just a package of spending increases and tax cuts to jolt the nation out of recession. For Democrats, it is also a tool for rewriting the social contract with the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed, in ways they have long yearned to do.”
Reinforcing that assessment is this quote from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”
It would be bad enough if HR 1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – a gargantuan $900 billion so-called economic stimulus bill – were merely an overblown accumulation of largely misdirected, politically motivated or wasteful government spending. Examples in the bill abound, like $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $4 million for ACORN or $75 million to discourage cigarette smoking. But those items are nickels and dimes. Calling it “pork laden” is too kind.
Then, from CNN we have a Libertarian perspective;
Editor’s note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) — When libertarians question the merit of President Obama’s stimulus package, a frequent rejoinder is, “Well, we have to do something.” This is hardly a persuasive response. If the cure is worse than the disease, it is better to live with the disease.
In any case, libertarians do not argue for doing nothing; rather, they advocate eliminating or adjusting policies that are bad for the economy independent of the recession. Here is a stimulus package that libertarians can endorse:
Repeal the Corporate Income Tax: Repeal would spur investment, improve the transparency of corporate accounting, slash compliance costs, and avoid the distortions caused by the special-interest provisions in the tax code. Repeal can work fast, by raising companies’ share prices, increasing cash flow, and allowing corporations to lessen their need for bank lending.
hus repeal provides short-run stimulus and enhances long-run efficiency. Recent estimates suggest that tax cuts are at least as effective as spending increases in raising GDP. The adverse impact on the deficit is likely to be less than the $300-$350 billion in revenue the corporate tax takes in per year, since repeal spurs growth and therefore the revenue from other taxes.
Increase Carbon Taxes While Lowering Marginal Tax Rates: Reasonable people disagree about how much the U.S. should reduce its use of fossil fuels, but crowded highways, air pollution, and global warming all suggest that some reduction is desirable.
The effective way to accomplish this is higher gasoline or other carbon taxes, not the messy, complicated green spending in the Obama plan that will morph into pork in many cases. If higher carbon taxes are combined with lower marginal tax rates, the private sector faces better incentives on both counts. This approach avoids the higher deficits implied by Obama’s green initiatives.
Moderate the Growth of Entitlements: The elephant in the room amidst the stimulus debate is the impending imbalance in Social Security and Medicare as the baby boom generation moves into retirement. Without reductions in benefits, taxes will have to increase substantially, generating a major drag on the U.S. economy.
Both people have very defined ideas. Which beats the Democrat idea of tossing good money after bad IMO. What do you think..?
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 