RSS Feed MenuBruce 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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