Tax and spend. Taxing and spending. Taxing begat spending? Regardless of the grammar, Liberal tax and spend policies and class warfare for political gain always ends with the same result.
Move over, New Jersey, you're getting a run for your tax money as the nation's most dysfunctional state from the once great mecca of commerce and finance known as New York. Politics in the Empire State has become a carnival of spendthrifts, sexual miscreants and the all-purpose ethically challenged.
In the latest sign that the Apocalypse is upon Albany, New York Governor David Paterson announced yesterday that he won't seek election to a full term in November only two weeks after he had announced that he would. Mr. Paterson, a Democrat who became governor in March 2008 after Eliot Spitzer resigned in a prostitution scandal, has spent the past two years lurching from one fiasco to the next.
Mr. Paterson's troubles have been catnip for "Saturday Night Live," but the state's voters are laughing to keep from crying. New York's budget deficit is an estimated $8.2 billion, due in no small part to state spending that has risen by nearly 70%, or $35 billion, over the past decade. The recent financial crisis has exposed the state's overreliance on tax revenue from Wall Street.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Looking at those circumstances, it would be fair to say we should have maintained President Clinton's policies rather than ditching them for George W Bush's economic program. At this point, that is rather obvious, isn't it? We can all agree on that, can't we?
As we have discussed before Clinton had the good fortune of riding the Tech wave not engineering it. Don't get me wrong - he was an OK president, not great though. Most of the problems in his presidency were of his own making, but overall not a bad one. He had a nice ride.
Jim's point is well taken - these tax and spend policies with all kinds of social programs, an increasing bureaucracy do not fare well for the country - see history of Argentina.
We have a winner for all time dumb comment award!
Let me get this straight, you are blaming Bush for Greece and NYC?
The promised too much and taxed too high so that the wealthy gave up and left and the remaining entitled are protesting Greece and NYC (and soon to be CA?)? On Bush?
Apparently, the Good Doc thinks debt just pops up and appears overnight. Short sighted vision - always a disadvantage - can be positively deadly when establishing tax and spending policies. GWB put our country in a very precarious financial position, thanks to his ineptitude and that of his Republican colleagues in Congress.
Just imagine what Obama would be facing if Dubya had paid down debt, like Clinton, rather than doubling it in eight years. We wouldn't be facing "tax increases" next year if Bush had simply left Clinton's very successful tax structure in place.
Wouldn't things be better today if Dubya handed Obama a $200B surplus as he received, rather than a $1.3T deficit? Wouldn't $5T of debt be easier to manage and service than $10T? Would we be looking at massive deficits exceeding 10% of GDP? Of course not. That is the GOP way - cause the problem and then blame your successor has he cleans up the mess you made.
Jim G's very dumb comments above show a material lack of understanding of the subject. It is easy to complain, but Republicans haven't a leg to stand on when the topic is fiscal discipline.
Mark -
Facts is facts. The 1993 Budget Bill raised taxes and maintained pay/go. That was politically courageous and contributed the the Democrats loss of Congress in 1994. George W Bush cuts taxes through reconciliation and ditched pay/go - the political equivalent of handing out candy. We are living with the results of that policy today.
That reality makes Republicans squirm, but there is nothing they can do. Facts are stubborn things.
Baxter
We have argued this way to long - "previously discussed". I believe what I am saying (facts) - you believe what you are saying (facts). The Clinton years are a waste of my/your time, we just see it differently. I also believe Clinton had some success (Welfare Reform - a colossal mistake by Johnson's Great Society) because he was finally pulled away from his base who were making it impossible for him to govern. But overall he was an OK president - nothing great. Relatively harmless unless you are female. One thing - he will have is a legacy!
Terry,
Just get the bill passed instead of whinning about conservatives. You guys have all the power, what's wrong? Had they done this on an incremental basis I would have been on board - but this is just a Liberal grab bag. Still that's fine - you got the power use it. And by the way the scare tactics you guys are using - if we don't "do something" are the same. Plus you have the best teleprompter speaker known to mankind - should be a piece of cake! I think he needs to turn up the reverb, make it more God like.
Please, I do know a great deal about the Canadian system after traveling much of Canada, owning a place in BC now and talking to lots of people there. It's a great place if you have cold or the flu but is not even close to our Health Care. That's kind of like talking about the South in derogatery terms and never have lived there - I have and do not speak ignorantly like some.
You are correct - tort reform would have been a start.
You are correct - there will be mass upheaval in November.
Have a good weekend.
Mark -
I get it - you want to dismiss Clinton's success and Bushes failure. I pointed out actual policy differences, the results of which are undeniable.
Wouldn't our country be better off today if Dubya didn't start off by cutting taxes and ditching pay/go? The answer is obvious to all but the most cynical of partisans.
Lets take it a step further. Would the '90's have been better if the president ditched pay/go and cut taxes rather than the opposite? If we took that approach, would Bush have been able to receive a $200B surplus or would things have looked a whole lot different? Again - an obvious answer.
Economic policy decisions and approaches have HUGE implications. You do yourself no favors if you simply dismiss the inconvenient results. The '90's and '00's speak volumes if only you will listen.
Already discussed - you're right!
Post a Comment