Bruce Bartlett in Forbes.com today:
The reason that the tax revolt of the 1970s — which today’s tax protesters hope to emulate — was successful is that it was based on detailed policy initiatives and a solid body of research and analysis that supported them. At the state level, there were things like Proposition 13 in California and Proposition 2 1/2 in Massachusetts, which were very specific proposals for cutting and capping taxes. At the national level, Republicans united around the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which was designed to sharply reduce statutory income tax rates.
These efforts were designed to deal with real problems. The huge run-up in property values in the 1970s resulting from inflation led to automatic increases in property taxes. Many homeowners were literally being taxed out of their homes because their incomes had not kept pace with the rise in home prices. Inflation also pushed workers up into higher tax brackets.
When it comes to the budget, however, those who have been concerned about deficits and spending have almost never come up with any specific proposals for dealing with the problem.
31 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // May 8, 2009 at 5:11 am
Bartlett as ever talks entire sense. An effort must made to rein in spending once this crisis has passed but the size of the problem and what created it needs to be kept in perspective. We also need to recognize that tax revenues have to rise particularly if measures like universal heathcare which the country clearly wants are to be properly funded. He’s also correct about the tax revolt in the seventies and early eighties, the top marginal federal rates were absurd although there were then as now loopholes. I’m not sure the story on property taxes is quite so clear. Proposition 13 in California has been a long term disaster for the financial health of the state because it’s totally distorted the balance of revenue sources. The state has become overdependent on income taxes as a source of revenue and this makes the state budget hostage to economic cycles. Every time there’s a boom they take on too many committments and every time there’s a bust the state flirts with bankruptcy. This is true whoever is governor, in fact Arnold’s deficits and borrowings dwarf those of Grey Davis. Otherwise though a very good perspective an where we are.
2 Bulldoglover100 // May 8, 2009 at 5:31 am
He’s right on the money as usual. Hope someone out there in the wilderness is listening.
3 Cforchange // May 8, 2009 at 5:56 am
DC has been expert at turning the population on each other under the guise of the 2 party system. The 2 party system is essential but hasn’t worked for years. Efforts to react appear partisan like the Tea Party. The idea is stellar but Unity of the People is necessary to advance national change.
Obama’s presidency may do us all good because he may put us all on the same page – regardless of race or background, we may all together conclude that DC is broken.
A “broken DC” should not be confused with the DC regional economy – we all know that is the only thing going in most of the US. This is symptomatic of everything wrong and should not be tolerated. Hot tip – time to get out of the metro and decentralize before the bay turns into a total stinky sewer.
4 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 8:53 am
Re: Ottovbvs; 5:11 AM –
“…rein in spending once this crisis has passed…”
Yeah. And you’ll lay down the crack pipe forever the moment your stressful divorce is over.
(*GRIN*)
Seriously… when the crisis is over… what exactly will have changed in terms of the entitlement mentality of large numbers of the American People?
You expect what… the economy to “bounce back” in 2010… 2011 at the latest? OK. Let’s work with that scenario.
So let me get this straight…
In a year or two down the road the American People are suddenly going to realize (along with Democratic politicians) that current and future liabilities are way out of whack with government revenues. And… they’re going to demand higher taxes and lower expenditures as well as downsizing both existing governmental programs and perhaps even shrinking “promised” payouts to present social security/medicare/medicaid recipients?
Obama… who won office partly through promising to CUT taxes for 95% of Americans… by next year or the year after at the latest he’s going to be campaigning for RE-ELECTION on a platform of RAISING taxes on 95% of the American People?
All the NEW policy initiatives and spending and INTEREST PAYMENTS are going to be covered by….???
To cut to the chase, WHAT exactly do you expect to be cut aside from the defense budget? (And even there, as the 2010 elections come closer and then the 2012 elections… how far do you believe democrats in power are going to go cutting defense – cutting defense jobs in their own states and districts?)
BILL
5 sinz54 // May 8, 2009 at 9:03 am
I have a very specific proposal:
Raise the retirement age from 65 to 70.
Americans are living longer.
Today, you have folks retiring at age 65, and then living well into their eighties. (My own dad is 82, and still going strong.) If someone lives till they’re 90, that means they’re going to be collecting SS and Medicare for 25 years, which is just unsustainable.
6 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 9:09 am
OK, Bob… let me take a look at your full column…
“Those that organized tea parties on April 15 to protest the budget deficit are like Capt. Renault. They are shocked, shocked to discover a problem that they turned a blind eye to for eight years because they’re almost all Republicans and their party was in power.”
Apparently you learning nothing from the reaction to your last post by folks who actually attended the tax parties.
Ignorance may be bliss… but it’s also REALLY annoying.
Bruce. You’re simply wrong. Anyone going back to your last “contribution” here who reads (re-reads) the thread will be aware that with this latest column you’ve simply decided to distort history in a dishonorable attempt to deceive and manipulate readers. Shame on you.
“Our budgetary problem has been building for years and was made vastly worse by George W. Bush…”
Yeah, yeah… agreed. But let me ask you a question. Between the Bush administration 2007-2008 and the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS 2007-2008 which stood for “relative” cuts and which stood for “relative” increased spending?
In other words, did the Democratic Congress of 2007-2007 spend (or try to spend) MORE than the Bush administration asked for or LESS than the Bush administration asked for?
Also… in terms of “relative”… in terms of Bush vs. Obama… how much debt was added to the national debt in the “Republican years” of 2001-2006 vs. the “Bi-Partisan years” of 2007-2008 vs. the “Democrat months” of January 2009 thru today?
Hey… it’s fine to bash Bush… fine to bash the RINO congresses of 2001-2006… but if you’re really sincere in wanting to paint a picture in context… here’s your shot.
(*SHRUG*)
* To be continued…
BILL
7 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 9:31 am
* Continuing…
“There were, of course, no tea party demonstrations during the Bush years.”
No there weren’t. There were people turning their backs on the GOP and Bush in disgust. Andrew Sullivan… we talk about him on another thread. Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Bob Barr… certainly not big fans of either the RINO congresses nor Bush.
The WSJ. Not exactly shy in pointing out RINO and Bush follies.
Or how about a historical context? Perot ‘92 was a reaction to George H.W. Bush… POTUS 1989-92 (plus part of January ‘93.)
Bob. People need leaders. In the case of the Tea Parties, sure, Fox News and their on-air personalities played a part – as did the internet – but we’re talking providing organization focus… not the anger; the anger was there; the anger had been steadily building since 2003.
“Staying in power, even if it meant buying votes with the public purse, was OK with Republicans as long as it worked.”
Perhaps you missed the 2006 Election…
Bob. I voted for John Frigg’n Hall in order to FIRE Sue Kelly in ‘06. Lots of other Republican conservatives must have done the same – or simply not voted – since Hall won and Kelly lost. Similar scenarios played out across the country and the Democrats took over both Houses of Congress because of it!
“According to the Financial Report of the United States Government, the federal government’s total indebtedness rose by $36 trillion under Bush…”
Again, Bob, what portion of that debt (how many trillions) were added between 2007 and the start of the Obama presidency in January of this year?
“The biggest driver of future deficits is not today’s stimulus spending, but entitlement programs like Medicare…”
Yes, yes… I’m guessing we’re all aware of this. Now let me ask you, as “Bush” was “growing” entitlements were the Democrats – both when they were in the minority but especially when they were in the majority – calling for SCALING BACK entitlement growth… OR… were they complaining that Bush wasn’t spending enough… growing entitlements enough…???
(Hmm… I seem to remember something about SCHIP…)
Again… to make clear… I’m certainly not “defending” Bush or the RINO congresses of 2001-2006, but unlike Mr. Bartlett, I’m not IGNORING the part the Democrats played nor and I doing my best to muddy the waters.
* To be continued…
BILL
8 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 9:34 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 28 minutes ago –
“I have a very specific proposal: Raise the retirement age from 65 to 70.”
With unemployment where it’s at now and with that unemployment figure projected to grow…???
BILL
9 sinz54 // May 8, 2009 at 9:43 am
Bruce Bartlett sez: “When it comes to the budget, however, those who have been concerned about deficits and spending have almost never come up with any specific proposals for dealing with the problem.”
Actually, they have. Such as privatizing Social Security, ending corporate welfare, and merging and streamlining the *hundreds* of separate aid programs for communities, minorities, and the disabled. Many of those ideas were proposed by the Heritage Foundation.
The problem is this approach, while principled, is frankly not a big winner at election time. You can guess who would stand up and oppose each of these ideas.
Even Reagan, in 1980, had to promise that he would leave the social safety net intact. And once in office, he left it intact.
10 sinz54 // May 8, 2009 at 9:45 am
barker13: Any major changes to entitlements, whether what I proposed or some other, will have to wait till the U.S. economy has recovered.
Right now, to tamper with the social safety net in any way while so many millions of Americans are out of work would be a political disaster. Obama knows this.
11 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 9:57 am
* Continuing to address Bob’s column…
“The reason that the tax revolt of the 1970s–which today’s tax protesters hope to emulate–was successful is that it was based on detailed policy initiatives and a solid body of research and analysis that supported them.”
Hmm… what kind of advanced beings were populating the United States back in the ’70’s?
Bob… people like us who respond to people like you on blogs like this are probably in the top 5% or better of “engaged” citizens and voters – and half the time half of us believe the other half are a bunch of uneducated dummies!
(*SNORT*)
My point… sorry, Bob, but I just don’t buy that any higher percentage of the American People were paying attention to – let alone understanding – these… er… detailed policy proposals in the 1970’s vs. the sort of folks who attended Tea Parties last month.
Bob. Bad economic times bring out activism.
“At the national level, Republicans united around the Kemp-Roth tax bill…”
As well they should have! I did – and I was a senior in high school when Ronald Reagan became President.
Funny, though… I just re-read one of your old columns…
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett071502.asp
Doesn’t mention anything about Volcker or interest rates or a strong dollar policy… (That’s what slayed inflation, Bob.)
Still… to reiterate… we’re in agreement that Kemp-Roth was good and effective policy.
“…PAYGO…”
Effectively ignored. Even at it’s “most” effective there were so many loopholes as to make it a joke. Another point we’re in agreement on, right?
Anyway… it seems we’re both Concord Coalition fans.
(*SMILE*)
BILL
12 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 10:05 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 19 minutes ago –
(*THUMBS UP*)
Re: Sinz54; wrote 17 minutes ago
(*FRIENDLY BACK SLAP*)
BTW… I’m with you on raising the retirement age (actually the age you can begin collecting benefits).
BILL
13 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 10:07 am
***CORRECTION***
***BRUCE***
Sorry, Bruce… I keep on calling you “Bob.” My bad!
I have a good friend who is a “Bob” and we go back and forth on this kind of stuff all the time. I guess typing “Bob” is just semi-automatic.
No offense.
BILL
14 sinz54 // May 8, 2009 at 11:16 am
barker13 asks: “Hmm… what kind of advanced beings were populating the United States back in the ’70’s?”
Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann (authors of Proposition 13)
Milton Friedman (“Free to Choose”)
Ben Wattenberg (“The Real America”; “In Search of the Real America: A Challenge to the Chorus of Failure and Guilt”)
Brian Garfield (author of “Death Wish,” which became a megahit 1974 movie starring Charles Bronson)
Lane Kirkland (AFL-CIO. Produced at their own expense a documentary, “The Price of Peace and Freedom,” arguing against Carterism. Later worked with President Reagan to support the Solidarity Movement in Poland)
Jack Kemp and William Roth (authors of the across-the-board tax cut ideas that were ultimately adopted by Reagan)
And Reagan himself, who was Governor of CA till 1975, and who ran against Gerald Ford in the 1976 primaries and missed winning by a whisker.
These folks weren’t all movement conservatives; some were Dems. But together, they paved the way for the defeat of McGovern/Carter liberalism, and the rise of Reagan.
15 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 11:28 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 6 minutes ago –
SInz. I was clearly referring to the general populace.
As to your point that back then there were great voices of conservatism… of course… no one denies that.
What’s your point… your point in opposition to any point I’ve made?
BILL
16 kroner // May 8, 2009 at 1:16 pm
barker13: “‘I have a very specific proposal: Raise the retirement age from 65 to 70.’
With unemployment where it’s at now and with that unemployment figure projected to grow…???”
I’m sorry but that is not at all how labor markets work, at least in any long term sense.
17 sinz54 // May 8, 2009 at 1:45 pm
barker13: My point is that this time around, the GOP activists aren’t doing their homework.
In 1979-80, armed with genuine, exciting, specific proposals for how to improve America, the GOP activists presented an optimistic, inclusive front: “Come join us and help us improve America thusly….”
In 2009, all they’ve got on their side is unfocused anger. They’re angry that Obama is in the White House. They’re angry at the amount of Government spending. But that’s as far as their thinking takes them. As a result, they have nothing to offer to get NON-Republicans to join their movement. And as a result, sure enough, the “Tea Party” protesters were about 95% Republicans, the rest being Libertarians, Randians, Constitution Party, and fans of Ron Paul. You can’t win elections if those are the only types of people you attract.
Anger can energize the base (as if the GOP base needed any more energizing).
But as Limbaugh said in 2004, “Anger doesn’t win elections.”
And the GOP didn’t win its 1980 victory by anger.
18 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Re: Kroner; 1:16 PM –
Could you clarify please?
I’m not sure who or what you’re addressing.
(Are you questioning Sinz’s original proposal or my original reply to it? If the latter, then are you disagreeing with both Sinz and I that the social security retirement age should be raised but that this should wait till unemployment goes back down to “normal” levels?)
Thanks!
BILL
19 barker13 // May 8, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Re: Sinz54; 1:45 PM –
“My point is that this time around, the GOP activists aren’t doing their homework.”
WHICH activists? The RINOs? The establishment grass roots (Republican Committees)? The “far Right?” The Frumites…???
“In 1979-80, armed with…”
Armed with Ronnie. (*WINK*) I remember. I was there.
“In 2009…”
OK. OK. We’ll get there. HOWEVER…
Any reason you skip 1994…???
I mean… doesn’t ‘94 EXIST for you, Sinz…???
How’bout the period between ‘92 and ‘94 when Gingrich was working on behalf of… er… the Conservatism of Reagan and not the RINOism of (Pappy) Bush?
“…all they’ve got on their side is unfocused anger.”
Sinz. Speak for yourself. My anger is quite focused. That’s why I tend to speak for or against specific policies.
My anger is focused on TARP and stimulus packages and pork and what I consider counterproductive monetary policy. My anger is focused on bailouts and assaults by bureaucrats and politicians on the rule of law as it relates to contracts.
Your anger? It seems focused on Christian conservatives. You take your shots at the Democrats… true… I won’t take that away from you… but what really seems to get your dander up is the Christian Right… your enemy. (*SHRUG*)
Anyway… saying “Republicans aren’t doing their homework” isn’t exactly a strategy proposal.
Let’s you and me and other keep on suggesting pro-active strategies. You don’t believe the Tea Parties are the be all and end all, well, neither do I. Still, I hope you’re not actively hostile to them as Bartlett seems to be.
Oh… and btw… speaking of true change… on one of the other thread there’s a guy (gal?) making the excellent point that all this talking can only bring us so far. Push comes to shove, ya gotta pound the pavements. Now attending Tea Parties might not be pounding the pavements… but it’s sure as hell a step closer to it than… er… not attending Tea Parties.
BILL
20 ottovbvs // May 9, 2009 at 4:53 am
barker13
4:54 PM
…….What Barker doesn’t get and Bartlett does is that “tea parties” make the GOP look like a bunch of goofballs. Particularly against a background where there is steadily accumulating evidence that the banking system has been stabilized and the recession in the real economy shows signs of bottoming.
21 sinz54 // May 9, 2009 at 10:01 am
barker13: The activists I was referring to were the “tea party” protesters, and the local activists who correspond on right-wing blogs like RedState.com and Townhall.com and Powerline.
Thanks to YouTube, I got to watch some of those protests. They’re protesting all this massive Government spending. Great. I don’t like it either. But if we had not spent all this money on TARP and so forth, and just left things alone, then what would be happening to the financial industry, the economy generally, and American society then? No answer. If the financial industry had collapsed completely, would these “Tea Party” protesters be prepared to do without their credit cards, ATM bank machine cards, and checking accounts? No answer.
Frankly, they remind me of the Lefty loons who stage these massive antiwar protests and chant “U.S. Out Of Everywhere,” with not a slightest thought given to what the rest of the world will do once it can’t count on Uncle Sam. It’s anger feeding on ignorance and without alternative ideas.
22 barker13 // May 9, 2009 at 10:26 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 12 minutes ago –
Just fyi, I don’t pay attention to blogs like RedState.com or Townhall.com
Not that I’m condemning either site (because as I say, I’m not a frequent or even infrequent reader/poster), but I’m pretty busy with various newspaper and Think Tank sites for my “continuing education” and I consider blogs like this one to be basically entertainment.
Same with YouTube, Sinz. I use it for entertainment and as it’s applicable to “news,” I sometimes watch debates and interviews via YouTube. I don’t really use it as a “new” source per se.
Again… I was at a major Tea Party. I know what I’m talking about. (At least about the one I attended.) As to other Tea Parties…
From what I saw on TV the one I attended was typical.
“But if we had not spent all this money on TARP…”
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Oh, pleeeaaase! Give it up…!!! If it hadn’t been for TARP the chickens would have come home to roost – the right chickens, the right roosts – and the world as we know it wouldn’t have ended.
Obviously the fact that BUSH on the one hand and OBAMA on the other hand both supported TARP and various “stimulus” spending and various “bailouts” indicates to you that they… er… must know what they’re doing.
Not to me, Sinz! To me it indicated that Bush was a hypocritical ignoramus and Obama say backing Bush policies on steroids as a way to increase governmental powers.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
23 ottovbvs // May 9, 2009 at 11:21 am
barker13
wrote 45 minutes ago
“Oh, pleeeaaase! Give it up…!!! If it hadn’t been for TARP the chickens would have come home to roost – the right chickens, the right roosts – and the world as we know it wouldn’t have ended.”
……Barker confirms what has long been apparent. He’s either a nihilist or hasn’t the slightest idea of what he’s talking about.
He also accidentally reveals the real nature of these tea parties which Bartlett and most of us recognize all too clearly.
24 kroner // May 9, 2009 at 11:05 pm
@barker13:
what I meant is that increasing the labor supply across the board (for instance by increasing the retirement age) doesn’t affect unemployment once the economy has a chance to reach equilibrium. It’s like claiming that by kicking New Jersey out of the United States we can solve unemployment, because now none of those people will be competing with us for US jobs. If people who weren’t in the market are added to the market, the amount of additional production they add to the economy is exactly the same as the amount of additional consumption they’re allowed (due to their income) by definition. The notion that there’s some sort of cap on the useful production of an economy is incoherent.
25 barker13 // May 10, 2009 at 9:42 am
Re: Kroner; 11:05 PM –
“…what I meant is that increasing the labor supply across the board (for instance by increasing the retirement age) doesn’t affect unemployment once the economy has a chance to reach equilibrium.”
OK. But I was addressing the “timeline” issue which Sinz left undefined in his original post.
You’re agreeing that NOW isn’t the time to raise the retirement age as far as social security payout eligibility is concerned I take it?
“If people who weren’t in the market are added to the market, the amount of additional production they add to the economy is exactly the same as the amount of additional consumption they’re allowed (due to their income) by definition.”
Oooohhh Kaaayyy…
(*WINK*)
Seriously. Economic theory has its place, but if I’m reading you correctly in terms of your critique of Sinz’s point and my point, you agree that now wouldn’t be the time to raise the retirement age – right? Do you also agree with us that the retirement age should be raised… needs to be raised… even if we have to wait till employment reaches… er… equilibrium?
(Hmm… throwing NJ out of the Union… something to ponder…) (*WINK*) (*GRIN*)
“The notion that there’s some sort of cap on the useful production of an economy is incoherent.”
Actually it’s not. (*SHRUG*)
But again… I suggest we try to stick to actual policy agreements/disagreements, not wander too far off into theory. If we do next thing we’ll find ourselves doing is posting dueling economic formulas! (*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
26 sinz54 // May 10, 2009 at 11:29 am
barker13 sez: “If it hadn’t been for TARP the chickens would have come home to roost – the right chickens, the right roosts – and the world as we know it wouldn’t have ended.”
What would the U.S. economy look like without commercial paper?
What would the U.S. economy look like with a drastic contraction in liquidity of the credit markets?
What would be the effect on national morale and consumer spending, if Americans suddenly found out that their money market funds and bank money market deposit accounts had collapsed?
What would have been the effect on international trade, if the global financial system had frozen up, after trillions of dollars of Credit Default Swaps proved to be worthless?
We were facing all of that in 2008.
I give Bush credit for at least beginning the process of deflecting America from this catastrophe. Things would have been far worse, if he had listened to guys like you and just let the “chickens come home to roost.” An awful lot of chickens.
27 sinz54 // May 11, 2009 at 6:17 am
barker13: With the new “Star Trek” movie a hit, let’s recall that back in the 1960s with the original series, Gene Roddenberry had speculated that human life expectancy might be at least 130 years by the Star Trek era. (Due to medical advances, the end of poverty, etc.)
If so, that means that we’ll have folks retiring at 65 and then drawing retirement benefits for another 65 years. IOW, you’ll get retirement benefits for half your life span. That’s totally unsustainable.
The retirement age MUST rise.
28 barker13 // May 11, 2009 at 8:01 am
Re: Sinz54; 11:29 AM –
“What would the U.S. economy look like without commercial paper?”
Who said anything about no commercial paper…??? Sinz, you’re entitled to your “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” Chicken Little-like beliefs, but enough with the “all or nothing” strawman arguments.
“What would the U.S. economy look like with a drastic contraction in liquidity of the credit markets?”
Long term…? We’d look much healthier because we’d be much healthier.
Jeez… I’d laugh if the disconnect from reality inherent in your question didn’t make me want to cry.
Notice… nothing about credit WORTHINESS in your question.
Notice… nothing about what the credit would be USED for in your question.
(*SIGH*)
Sinz. You don’t “fix” a problem by redoubling your efforts to recreate the same exact circumstances that LED to the problem in the first place.
(BTW… I have all the credit I could ever need under normal circumstances. I had no problem getting a personal auto loan this past February. Neither my wife nor I has carried a credit card balance over since the early ’90’s when we were young and stupid – and no one “bailed us out” of our bills then… we simply chopped up our cards, locked in low interest rates, and paid down our credit card debt from $12,000 or so to zero over the course of a couple years.)
As for commercial lending…
Has it EVER occurred to anyone besides me that there’s such a thing as over development…??? (Just a thought!)
“What would be the effect on national morale…”
“NATIONAL MORALE…?!?!” What the frig effect on MY morale do you think these bailouts and deficits and unsustainable debt coupled with unsustainable future liabilities has on my frigg’n morale…?!?!
With respect… have you lost your frigg’n mind, Sinz…?!?! You apparently have no clue as to how screwed we are as a nation.
“…and consumer spending…”
Consumer SPENDING was a huge part of the PROBLEM, Sinz…!!! Spending based upon BORROWING…!!! Unsustainable borrowing…!!! Oh, and spending on what… on crap… on junk… the spending was a double whammy of “stimulating” FOREIGN economies more than ours… (China in large part)… while at the same time rotting the values our our society (values like responsibility, thrift, planning for the long term) from within.
Oh, yeah… great frigg’n idea, Sinz… let’s go right back to that way of life.
“I give Bush credit for at least beginning the process of deflecting…”
Folks. Again. I give you Sinz. His idea of “Republicanism” is to support deficit spending, massive deficits, bailouts, and moving the nation further Left.
Is it any wonder I would like to see him join the Democratic Party and get active within it. Sad to say, he’d move THEM to the Right!
BILL
29 barker13 // May 11, 2009 at 8:05 am
Re: Sinz54; 6:17 AM –
Sinz. (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*) Why are you telling me…??? I agree with you!
(*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)
Hey… where the heck is Bartlett…???
Last time he “contributed” he went toe to toe with a few of the posters, going so far as to get just as obnoxious and childish as several of our regulars… what with the name calling and everything.
Now…??? Nada.
(*SHRUG*)
Bruce… come out, come out, wherever you are!!!
Any reasonable responses (and answers) to my posts…???
BILL
30 sinz54 // May 11, 2009 at 10:49 am
barker13: This is the problem with today’s so-called “conservatives.”
They talk a good game about “not retreating from conservative principles.”
But when I make specific proposals on economic conservatism–raise the retirement age, get rid of the Cabinet-level Department of Education, end agricultural subsidies, end the tariff on imported sugar–they flee like scared rabbits, afraid that a message of specific cuts will be rejected by the voters.
They are accustomed to making vague pronouncements like “CUT SPENDING” and having the public dutifully vote for that.
Except for the Tea Party protesters, that’s not going to work anymore. You’ve got a *popular* liberal President who is proud of his liberalism, and he’s going to call us out on it and demand specifics.
31 barker13 // May 11, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Re: Sinz54; 10:49 AM –
Sinz. Again. Just to be clear. You’re certainly not talking about me, right?
I’m certainly in favor of raising the social security collection age – just not right in the middle of a period of high unemployment. In fact, I was the one who clarified your original call… or rather by questioning it set you up to clarify it yourself.
(*WINK*)
As to making specific proposals…
(*SMILE*)
I do it all the time. I’ve done it on the tax code and a host of other issues.
As to the Tea Parties…
(*SMILE*)
As I’ve made clear, I support them. They’re a good start. They’re a work in progress – or so I hope.
BILL
You must log in to post a comment.