Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Working Together Stops at the Insane Asylum

A wonderful conspiracy between so-called Progressives (I favor the term Redistributionists) and the Main Stream Media is that the Tea Party supporters are irresponsible because they refuse to compromise.

Let me ask you, who's crazy? Is it the freshmen congressmen who refuse to sustain the behavior of recent administrations (Bush included) who have us borrowing 42 cents of of every dollar we spend? FORTY TWO CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR WE SPEND!?!?!?! Or is it the Redistributionists who would sustain that behavior? It is crazy to keep digging when we are in such a deep hole. CRAZY!!!!

The Tea Partyers need apologize for nothing. There is no wisdom nor common sense in compromising with crazy people. Crazy people need to be restrained, and that is what has happen, but only in small measure.

Not one line item has been eliminated from a bloated, ineffective government structure.

There were no cuts. NONE! There were only reductions in forecast growth. HOW CRAZY IS THAT!!!

The first so-called cut does not occur until November of 2012. We have a 1.5 trillion deficit, and the first actual change in forecast spending does not occur for 15 months. THAT IS CRAZY!!!

Very little actually happened. The reaction by the Redistributionists (the real crazy people) and their MSM enablers shows that they are either crazy or simply lying in order to appeal to their base. In the USA we call that behavior politics. It is much worse than that.

I hope the Republicans embrace the Tea Party message because it is a message straight from the middle class, and the middle class is getting killed. Redistributionist policies take from the rich (66% of the budget is now transfer payments of one kind or another) and give to the poor. Too bad for the middle class. $2.2 trillion just isn't enough for the Redistributionists. They need to borrow another $1.5 trillion to promote their agenda. The Republicans need to aggressively promote the welfare of the middle class, and that is best done through capitalism because capitalism creates jobs. Government does not create jobs. Government does not create wealth.

Obama's administration has aggressively pursued an anti-growth agenda through oppressive regulation. We do need regulation. Greed can't be trusted. But we could be producing much more oil and gas, which Obama's administration continues to block. Dodd-Frank has shackled banks, particularly small banks and that has put a stranglehold on their ability to lend. The EPA wants to raise the bar higher at a time when the need for jobs outweighs the need for incremental gains in pollution control. And the NLRB is promoting unions at the expense of job growth and workers rights (do you believe in secret ballots? Do you believe that failing to vote in an election should be construed to allow a minority to control the majority?).

Obama's administration is aggressively pursuing an anti-jobs agenda when unemployment is our biggest societal problem.

So, I ask you: Who's crazy?

All the best,


1 comment:

Baxter said...

I actually surprised to see Hags sucked in by the vacuous, populist message of the Tea Party. They don't understand basic economics and advocate the same approaches that Herbert Hoover (R) took 80 years ago. The Tea Partiers are also inconsistent - like other citizens, they do not want their favored programs cut. 70% oppose cuts to Medicare - the largest contributor to future red ink.

When we are in a struggling economy and interest rates are historically low, it is no time to cut spending. If we could cut $750B out of this years budget, we would cut the deficit in half - except that we would directly reduce GDP 5% and probably a good deal more with the multiplier effect. In fact, we might actually see the deficit rise due to a further depressed economy. Its not time for tax hikes either.

What then about the $.42 borrowed for every dollar spent? I'm actually more concerned about this than Hags or anyone else that would reject using all tools available to rectify the problem (spending cuts AND increased revenue). I would reform the tax code to gradually increase revenues to 22%/GDP over ten years. I would slowly reduce spending to 20%/GDP over ten years. I would use the 2% leftover to pay down the debt. As time goes by the 2% will rise and fall depending on the health of the economy. The 20-22% receipts/spending is relatively low compared to all of the other modern economies in the world. What's not to like about balanced budgets and surpluses?

Much can be achieved working together. Little good will happen when the slowest among us are in a position to hold the rest of us up. Unfortunately, that is what I expect from this Congress for the balance of the term.