[Industrialblog,
April 2, 2004]
Zach Wamp?
In NRO today, there's an article on Rep. Zach Wamp's sell-out as a Congressman.
The cause of this: The GOP majority has SOLD OUT to DC culture and essentially become fat, dumb, drunk and happy. Zach Wamp, who I initially thought was a made-up congressman for National Review to make a larger point, is just a symptom.
Anyway, where does that leave our political debate? If the GOP is now the Dems, where are the Dems? If the GOP won't rein in spending, do we have to look to the Democrats to do so?
The political issue is out there, a brass ring lying on the ground. It's not only a proven vote-getter, it's a proven election winner. All the Dems have to do is pick it up. Dubya can't — he's compromised on the issue. The GOP can't — they spent the money.
This is, by the way, is why I'm considering voting for John Kerry. Because all Kerry has to do is find some outrage over spending, take national security off the table (easy enough) and he's got an excellent shot at winning. I'm waiting to see if he's smart enough to grab it.
Bush's first term weakness is not Iraq. Stop talking about it, Dems. No matter what, you'll have to continue that war, and in a robust manner. You may feel you're right, but you'll lose the election if you campaign on it.
But spending is an issue in which the GOP is extremely vulnerable. The brass ring is there. The Dems just gotta pick it up off the ground, and run with it.
The cause of this: The GOP majority has SOLD OUT to DC culture and essentially become fat, dumb, drunk and happy. Zach Wamp, who I initially thought was a made-up congressman for National Review to make a larger point, is just a symptom.
Anyway, where does that leave our political debate? If the GOP is now the Dems, where are the Dems? If the GOP won't rein in spending, do we have to look to the Democrats to do so?
The political issue is out there, a brass ring lying on the ground. It's not only a proven vote-getter, it's a proven election winner. All the Dems have to do is pick it up. Dubya can't — he's compromised on the issue. The GOP can't — they spent the money.
This is, by the way, is why I'm considering voting for John Kerry. Because all Kerry has to do is find some outrage over spending, take national security off the table (easy enough) and he's got an excellent shot at winning. I'm waiting to see if he's smart enough to grab it.
Bush's first term weakness is not Iraq. Stop talking about it, Dems. No matter what, you'll have to continue that war, and in a robust manner. You may feel you're right, but you'll lose the election if you campaign on it.
But spending is an issue in which the GOP is extremely vulnerable. The brass ring is there. The Dems just gotta pick it up off the ground, and run with it.
I mean, there are all sorts of groups that could go far if they would just abandon their core principles. For example, the green party would be a lot more electable if they took up mainstream positions on environmental issues. Communists would do much better if they pushed for wishy-washy socialism, and socialists do far better as Democrats than as socialists.
Anyone not already in the majority can gain popularity by joining the majority, but just as there was something a bit odd about the black kid at the white supremacist rally, there's something disingenuous about democrats in favor of lower taxes and lower government spending. Sure, they could get votes if they were in favor of it, but they'd stop being Democrats.
And, as it happens, they're not trying to go to the right of Bush, they're trying to go to his left.
Still, the election is young, and Kerry has no convictions, let alone any courage of them, so he might yet flip flop.
Or some goobleygook like that. The Dems balanced the budget in the 90s. They can run on fiscal responsibility.
Some might say it's too early to call and point out that Bush Sr did manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when he had an even better position.
But unless Nader drops out - I'm highly skeptical about Kerry's chances.
You know that I'm really a one issue guy: either you've got to cut spending drastically or raise taxes to cover it, but don't blow our future by cutting taxes and raising spending, which pretty Bush and the GOP have done.
So, first, I completely agree with you that the deficit is Bush's biggest disaster and the Dems do not seem to be running with it at all. $2 Trillions dollars from a guy that promised he would never run a deficit (for any reason). It would make pretty b-charts and showing the interest on it etc. A lot of policies can be changed quickly, but it will take many many years to pay off GWs spending spree. Most importantly the deficit is pretty much an undeniable fact that Bush and his supports can't just pretend isn't true.
Still, in the end, I don't think the deficit can win. People simply are more interested in tax cuts than worrying about paying for the spending plus interest. They want government programs, but they just don't want to pay for them, which is pretty much what Bush policy is all about (you don't have to sacrifice). All he ever needed was for jobs to pick up by April or May and it looks like it is finally happening.
Second, I agree that Iraq is the wrong place for Dems to try win the election. I do think terrorism wasn't Bush's priority 9/11, but he never said it was going to be. That's not what he ran on. Further, it may take a decade or two to know if the war itself actually helps our position or not. Talking about it now plays to Bush's strength with people that like action. So it is pretty much a no win topic.
Have a good weekend.
I've never understood this preoccupation with deficits that some people have. Deficits just mean that we have to cut spending later, rather than now.
Tax hikes, on the other hand, mean that the government dips further into our pockets, and it will take heaven and hell to get them out again.
Of the two, it seems to me that tax hikes are clearly worse; they impact actual people rather than theories about interest rates.
John Kerry has already said he's not going to repeal the tax cut on the middle class. And he won't. He'll raise taxes on the rich a bit, and as long as the rich means folks making $200 per household or more, no one will care.
I'm not saying I'm gonna vote for Querry -- I just want to see what he has to say, come October or so, on: national security, and national finance. There's no reason the Democrats can't come up with a decent plan on both those issues.
Unfortunately, they're acting a little crazy right now. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. We'll see if the Dems pull back from the brink.
Unfortunately, Kerry's record is one of themost liberal in the Senate. What he may think is heading right might be laughed at down in Texas.
Deficits must be paid for + interest. If you buy a house with a 30-year mortgage and even a fairly low interest rate you're paying more in interest than in principle. That's what happens when we deficit spend. So in the future, because we've spent $2 Trillion extra now, we'll have less ability to respond to emergencies or tax cuts or not. That's why Bush's spending is irresponsible.
If the people want to cut taxes then responsible leaders would cut spending.
"John Kerry has already said he's not going to repeal the tax cut on the middle class."
What, has he now flip-flopped on that, too? It was one of his major planks that he's going to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts.
Yes, of course the best of all is to cut spending and taxes. I think that (within reason) we can all take this for granted. Democrats will argue, of course, but let us leave aside for the moment the desirability of high taxation and high spending.
Since we cannot currently get both spending cuts and tax cuts — since our choice is between tax cuts and a balanced budget — we must ask, what is the next best thing?
Do we prefer tax cuts or a balanced budget. Obviously we want both, but for the moment we can't get both. So what should we want in lieu of both?
My argument is that we should (all things here being with reason) prefer lower taxes to a balanced budget. Since the goal is to lower taxes and spending, we will move toward it faster if we at least lower something. The other may come in time, but if we never lower taxes we shall never have lower taxes (that is merely tautologically true). If we leave the government with its hand in our pockets, it shall not remove its hand on its own.
That's what it comes down to, in my opinion, and why analogies to home ownership fail. I earn my money, I don't force it from others. If I were not a lawful citizen but rather a pickpocket, should you really recommend, if I am already decided to purchase a house, that I should pick more pockets rather than take out a mortgage?
And make no mistake, the taxation is by its nature coercion. The guns are sheathed, but they are not hidden. No one filing taxes has any illusion that this is a voluntary exercise which bears to consequences if you bow out.
Now, I do believe that taxation is legitimate, but it is a thing which should always be done with fear and trembling. It is a thing like executing a man or waging a war — it is necessary, but also very morally dangerous. One can do it and be blameless, but it is not easy to do; it is walking on the edge of a greased sword. Small falls quickly turn to large ones.
So when faced with a fallen government, how should we have it climb back up this greased sword? I do not think that falling further down is the answer, however much that might have other benefits.
"but for the moment we can't get that." Why is that? We had one a few years ago. At least offer a rationalization. What set of causes has prevented Bush and the GOP from cutting government to match their budget?
I don't see that using future tax dollars to make interest payments somehow constitutes a savings to me.
I don't see that the house argument fails at all. On a house you get a tax break on the interest, ownership, and increase value as the house appreciates. Deficit spending on the house can be clearly judged in terms of whether it is a good ROI. I would argue that you view government as a poor ROI since you don't own it in the end and the services don't equal the price.
Is taxation a form of coercion? I do not argue the logic of that position on some levels. It is completely your choice to buy a house. With the government, you only get to vote for representatives and you are pretty much not allowed to just skip out of living under the laws of the society in which you live. If you're view of government is not realized in an acceptable way to you, you're pretty much screwed. This clearly extends beyond taxes: drug use, polygamy, etc.
In short, I don't think we have a great way for people to live in the US and simply opt out of the system. I'm sympathetic to people that feel that way.
I just don't for a second believe that deficit spending is the way to go. The right put forth that big government was essentially a poor ROI (Laffer curve theory) and I buy that. When they got there they delivered on some of their promises, but Bush completely failed on the budget. To not admit that strikes me as a major cop out.
Which one of us is President Bush, or on his staff?
We, as voters, are limited to what the candidates that we can elect will do. Since neither Bush nor Kerry is going to cut taxes and government, it's not an option.
Anyhow, I'm not claiming that Bush is doing the best that he can; clearly we'd mulch the retards, get rid of social security and medicare, slash taxes, and have a balanced budget if that were the case (to name a few things).
However, the standard for deciding a course of action (in this case, a vote) is not perfection, it's the alternative. I argue that Bush is better than the alternative (Kerry). There are clearly things that we can't have in the near future which are better than either (e.g. Heaven), but that's not relevant when deciding whether to vote for Bush or Kerry. As voters in this election, the only choice that we have is lower taxes and a deficit, or higher taxes and most likely a deficit because democrats only eliminate deficits by accident anyway, but maybe a lower deficit.
Plus, all teenagers everywhere get the pleasure of forced labor.
I'll take a deficit and lower taxes, myself.