December 9-10, 2010
Dec 09 09:58 The Truth About Extending the Bush Tax Rates Dec 09 11:42 Are Daytons Taking Over DFL? Dec 09 14:49 Twins Making Noise At Winter Meetings? Dec 10 13:21 Let's Solve This Impasse Dec 09 17:33 House Dems Rebuke Obama Dec 10 11:42 What Dayton Administration Accomplishments? Dec 10 15:43 Paul Ryan: Conservatives' Solutions Man Dec 10 17:57 Krauthammer's Intellectual Dishonesty
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
The Truth About Extending the Bush Tax Rates
DC's pundits have been pontificating that passing the extension of the Bush tax rates all but assures President Obama's re-election. They're saying that extending the Bush tax rates guarantees a growing economy. Frankly, they're wrong.
The reason why it's important to extend the Bush tax rates is because letting them expire will lead to another recession, higher unemployment, exploding deficits and President Obama's defeat in 2012.
Preventing a terrible thing from happening isn't the same thing as making positive things happen. At this point, there's two things President Obama has to worry about: another recession and the lack of an economic recovery.
Right now, there's a very real possibility that he'll enter 2012 with one of these things being economic reality. If there isn't an economic recovery happening, he'll face an uphill fight for re-election. If there's a recession, which will happen if lunatic Democrats like Bernie Sanders, Anthony Weiner and others scuttle the compromise, President Obama will enter 2012 as a dead man walking.
There's no denying that there's a possibility that there will be economic growth in 2011. That isn't good enough. If there isn't consistent, significant job growth, voters won't care about GDP growth. If the unemployment rate isn't significantly dropping, President Obama's economic plans will be rated a failure.
What's needed to get the economy growing are some significant structural reforms, starting with the repeal/defunding of Obamacare, the lifting of the Gulf drilling moratorium and cutting spending by significant chunks. If these things don't happen, and I'm betting they won't, the economy will continue treading water because entrepreneurs won't invest in a shaky economy.
It's not like President Obama has ever had the reputation of knowing what he's doing in terms of the economy. Starting with the failed stimulus, followed by the disastrous multiple bailouts, selling out GM and Chrysler for the UAW's benefit and selectively imposing Obamacare on America against its will hasn't exactly instilled confidence from the American people.
When Paul Ryan puts together an extensive list of spending cuts and it languishes in the Senate without President Obama pushing it, people will see that President Obama isn't serious about fixing what's wrong with the economy.
If the extension of the Bush tax rates passes, there's no doubt that President Obama will get a momentary bounce. Likewise, there's no doubt that that bounce will be short-lived.
GOP presidential candidates will highlight the fact that President Obama's signature achievement, Obamacare, is what's holding the economy back. That won't be a difficult sell since 60 percent of the American people want it repealed.
The biggest gift President Clinton got was that Hillarycare didn't pass. The biggest albatross around President Obama's neck will be that Obamacare passed.
In the end, President Obama's attempt at triangulation will fail because that isn't who he is. He won't consistently do the right thing for the American people because he's a rigid ideologue. He's said it himself. He'd rather be a great one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.
Will President Obama compromise with Republicans? Probably once or twice but he'd rather stick with running his ideological checklist than compromise. In the end, it's more than likely that he'll be exposed as having the special interests' back more often than having the American people's back.
That, along with a stagnant economy, will put him behind the proverbial eight ball.
Posted Thursday, December 9, 2010 9:58 AM
No comments.
Are Daytons Taking Over DFL?
Based on this article , I'd say that there's more than a 50-50 chance that the Dayton family machine is attempting to take over the DFL. Here's what makes me think that:
Most of the criticism of DFL state party chair Brian Melendez in the wake of Election Day has been confined to the liberal blogosphere. The three-term incumbent could likely survive those barbs.
But a much more important DFL supporter, wealthy donor Alida Messinger, is also apparently opposed to Melendez remaining as party chair. According to a reliable DFL source, there won't be any checks arriving in DFL coffers from the Rockefeller heir if Melendez remains in the post.
Of course, Ken Martin, the person most often cited as a potential rival for state party chair, is closely aligned with Messinger. He chaired the Win Minnesota Political Action Fund, which played a key role in the governor's race. The group's largest individual donor: Messinger.
There's two things that were omitted that are, in my opinion, significant omissions to the article. The biggest is that Alida Messinger is Mark Dayton's ex-wife and the biggest ATM in the DFL universe. The other big thing omitted from the article is that Ken Martin, the person cited as "a potential rival for state party chair" most recently was employed as Dayton's recount spokesman .
It can't hurt Martin's chances having the DFL's most prolific ATM as an ally.
According to this article , Martin had other responsibilities:
Ken Martin, treasurer of both WIN Minnesota and the 2010 Fund , said both were created out of the WIN Minnesota nonprofit, and that the 2010 Fund was formed last year to focus exclusively on the governor's race. So far, the WIN Minnesota PAC has also focused on the governor's race, but Martin said it has more flexibility and could turn part of its gaze toward legislative races before the election.
That's before mentioning the fact that Martin was an at-large board member at ABM .
The DFL is free to choose whomever its activists vote for. Whether they re-elect Melendez or whether they go in a different direction is their choice. My question is whether the Dayton family is hoping to take over the DFL.
If that's their plan, then that tells us alot about the direction the DFL is likely to go in. A Dayton-led DFL isn't likely to moderate their message but is likely to push hard for tax hikes and a progressive tax system.
As a conservative activist, I hope the DFL heads in that direction because that isn't where Minnesota voters are at. I'll bet that independents and job creators will especially get turned off by Gov.-Elect Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme.
Installing Martin, by all appearances a radical progressive, won't move the DFL in the average Minnesotan's direction.
If the DFL elects a Dayton/Messinger disciple, happy days will have indeed returned for the MNGOP again.
Originally posted Thursday, December 9, 2010, revised 19-Jan 1:27 AM
Comment 1 by Stonewall Jackson at 09-Dec-10 04:03 PM
Good post on this.
what was interesting to me was how Dayton put two people from ABM onto his transition team, namely Denise Cardinal and Martin. If, as Dayton portrayed it during the election, he had no association with ABM, then why did he pluck those two folks for the transtion team instead of picking two from his campaign staff.
Comment 2 by Roy Rogers at 09-Dec-10 07:03 PM
The main reason Emmer lost this election is because he lost his base of supporters. The day he chose Annette Meeks (a CFR member and establishment plant) to be his running mate he kissed most of the Ron Paul base in the opposite direction. This base would have pushed him over the top and he would have won. I called the outcome wrong in this election I thought Horner would have pushed Emmer over the top but it is evident that Horner pulled Emmer votes. In the primary I knew the Obaminite DFL's would split their vote with Margaret and the spoiler that gave Margaret a smack in the face. It is evident that within the state many new DFL members are not happy with Dayton and did not vote for him. They look to him as a Clintonite or old school Dumbacrat. If Emmer would have got his base support to go with him we would not be having this conversation. There is a divide within the DFL that the GOP should have monopolized on between the clintonites and the Obamaniytes. Dayton is the worst politician to ever win the governorship in Minnesota and he got really lucky this time because of Emmers lack of judgement
Comment 3 by MplsSteve at 10-Dec-10 03:38 AM
Roy-
The main reason that Emmer really lost this election was his campaign's inability or unwillingness to respon the slime thrown at them by the Alliance for a Better Minnesota.
These attacks went unanswered and created a negative impression of Emmer than showed up in polling, particularly in the metro area.
As for the Ron Paulbot base, if they weren't smart enough to figure out that Tom Emmer was as politically close to them as they were gonna get, well, they definitely ain't smart enough to be dabbling in politics.
Maybe some of them will now be able to go back to scanning the skies for the impending arrival of the black helicopters.
Twins Making Noise At Winter Meetings?
LaVelle E. Neal, the Strib's beat writer, is reporting that the Twins appear to be on the verge of trading J.J. Hardy and Brendan Harris to the Baltimore Orioles :
Indications are that the Twins are on the verge of a deal with the Orioles in which shortstop J.J. Hardy and infielder Brendan Harris would head to Baltimore on Thursday in exchange for two pitchers, one being righthanded prospect Brett Jacobson.
The deal, barring any last-minute developments, could be wrapped up following the Rule 5 draft Thursday morning.
The potential deal suggests the Twins also are closing in on a contract with Japanese infielder Tsuyoshi Nishioka. The Twins wouldn't move Hardy unless they knew they were in position to wrap up talks with Nishioka. The Twins' middle infield combination for 2011 would be Nishioka and Alexi Casilla, with Casilla probably playing shortstop.
Twins fanatics will say that Hardy and Harris were part of the two most high-profile trades in recent Twins history, with Harris coming in the Garza-Delmon young trade and Hardy coming in a trade for Carlos Gomez, the last player left from the Johan Santana trade.
Many Twins fanatics will reflexively argue that the Twins got ripped off in the Santana trade. These fans would be wrong. There's no questioning the fact that Santana was a dominant pitcher. At his best, Johan was possibly the best pitcher in Twins history. That's the Johan that these fans are likely basing their opinion off of. That isn't the Johan of today, at least according to Baseball-Reference.com . Johan's first year with the Mets was standard Johan but he's battled injuries the past 2 years.
The Johan of today isn't the dominant pitcher of his Twins days.
I don't know whether this trade helps the Twins immediately but it gives the Twins more live arms for the bullpen, both now and in the future.
The trade suggests that the Twins are close to finishing their negotiation with Japanese infielder Tsuyoshi Nishioka. Based on the videos I've watched, it's safe to say he'll bring more speed to the Twins lineup. Similarly, Alexi Casilla, the likely next starting shortstop, will bring alot more speed to the lineup.
Still, the Twins have holes to fill, mostly in their rotation and in the bullpen. Alot of that can be solved if they sign Carl Pavano, which seems more likely than it did a week ago. He'd be the Twins' innings-eater in the rotation, which would change the demand on the bullpen.
Of more concern is the bullpen. Matt Capps returns from a solid performance last year after being acquired in a trade with the Washington Nationals. Pitching coach Rick Anderson will pay close attention to 2008 closer Joe Nathan, who returns after sitting last year out after undergoing Tommy John Surgery.
After that, the cupboard is pretty thin, especially if they lose Jesse Crain, Matt Guerrier, Jon Rauch and Brian Fuentes. Possible in-house fill-ins include Glenn Perkins and Pat Neshek.
Posted Thursday, December 9, 2010 2:49 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 09-Dec-10 03:00 PM
Gary:
If you make the wrong kind of noise is that good? I don't think signing that Japanese player will do us more good.
Walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Dec-10 03:08 PM
From what I've seen, he's a major upgrade over either middle infielder they had last year.
Comment 3 by shad at 11-Dec-10 04:52 AM
Shad's post has been deleted because of some despicable, off-color language. It's the policy of this blog to encourage free-flowing debate but to not tolerate bigoted language or unsubstantiated attacks.
Let's Solve This Impasse
There's been an uproar since the Obama-Republican tax compromise was announced. Idiot hotheads like Peter DeFazio and Anthony Weiner are saying that estate taxes aren't getting raised enough. Jim DeMint, Mike Pence and others are voicing concern about the tax bill not being offset enough, with DeMint announcing he'll vote to filibuster the bill over that issue.
Meanwhile, the media that didn't care a whit about the first trillion dollar annual deficits in this nation's history ar suddenly whining about adding to the deficit.
I have a solution to this impasse. In fact, I can't believe people haven't thought of it and started pushing it already.
Last week, President Obama's debt commission was lauded for its debt reduction plan. Frankly, I'm not impressed with it but that's another fight for another day.
Here's the easiest path forward: Let's have Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Tom Coburn initiate negotiations with President Obama on a set of spending cuts. Predicate a vote for extending the Bush tax rates and extending unemployment benefits on a vote in the next session for this spending cut package.
It isn't that I trust President Obama on this. I'm an optimist but I'm a realist, too. It isn't that I trust Harry Reid, either. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him if I had two broken arms and a bad back.
Simply negotiating this package puts this front and center into this debate. Having Paul Ryan and Mike Pence putting this list of spending cuts together gives the list instant credibility. If President Obama backs out of this package, his political career is finished.
If Harry Reid starts playing games with this spending cuts package and President Obama either can't or won't control Reid, he'll be exposed as an impotent leader.
Neither situation puts President Obama in a positive light but it tells the vast majority of Americans that President Obama isn't serious about deficit reduction. It also tells them that he isn't the right choice for president in 2012.
If President Obama can't get these spending cuts passed through a Democratic Senate, then it's proof that he can't even control his own party. It might also mean that his once-energized base will abandon him.
Meanwhile, Democrats like Rep. DeFazio and Rep. Weiner can pound sand because their votes are irrelevant. A month from now, their votes will be totally irrelevant. If they don't like the legislation, that's tough. Being in the minority in the House means you'll get treated like a speed bump from time to time.
By putting legislators like Ryan, Pence, Rubio, Coburn and Paul in charge of putting together a spending cuts list, TEA Party activists will see that the TEA Party wing of the GOP is running the show. It'll also prove that they're serious about deficit reduction.
Let's face it. The Deficit Commission was a waste of money in the sense that people like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence and other like-minded conservatives could've done what these people did without the formality of another blue ribbon commission.
Let's pass the compromise legislation during the lame duck session with the promise attached that the spending cuts are heading our way in a matter of months.
That's change the American people can believe it. The bad news for Democrats is that it's positive change that conservatives initiated and finished.
Posted Friday, December 10, 2010 1:22 PM
No comments.
House Dems Rebuke Obama
CNN is reporting that House Democrats have voted in Caucus to not bring the tax rate compromise legislation to the floor for a vote :
Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.
"This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.
"We will continue to try and work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs, and a balanced package as we go forward," he said.
The vote comes a day after Vice President Biden made clear to House Democrats behind closed doors that the deal would unravel if any changes were made.
"Wow did the [White House] mishandle this," a senior House Democratic Source told CNN. "Breathtaking. Members have major substantive concerns and they should have gently guided people to the finish line."
Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon said: "They said take it or leave it. We left it."
This is stunning news. This is a stunning defeat for President Obama, proving my theory correct that this compromise legislation is tearing the Democratic Party apart .
Chris van Hollen couldn't be more clear. This compromise, in which Republicans gave ground on extending unemployment benefits, isn't good enough for hotheads like Anthony Weiner and Peter DeFazio. Rick Klein has posted several quotes from Rep. DeFazio on Twitter. Here's a sampling:
DeFazio: "There were a large number of objections and concerns.
DeFazio on WH: "They negotiated away way more than they needed to."
DeFazio on Obama saying this is taking the nation "forward or backward" -- "I mean, c'mon.
DeFazio tells us Democrats weren't invited to the "real table" for negotiations.
This won't play well with the public. Here's what John Hinderaker wrote last night:
On the other hand, if the Republicans are willing to go along with the compromise and the deal falls through because hard-line left-wingers in the Democratic Party stop it, and everyone's taxes go up in January--well, that is almost too good to be true. The Democrats would be exposed as a party so spiteful that they would rather penalize everyone than forgo the opportunity to raise taxes on the "rich"--i.e., for the most part, the successful, the middle aged, and two-income families. On that scenario, public anger at the Democrats, already pretty intense, is likely to boil over, and it may well be that we could get a materially better deal in the new Congress, on top of the political benefit.
I'm confident that John's prediction will be proven true before the weekend is over. President Obama must be both mad with Pelosi and these uber-leftists and frightened that this deal might not go through, thereby causing another recession.
UPDATE: Brad Sherman is being interviewed on FNC by Jena Lee and he just dropped a bombshell. He said that, under his proposal, he'd apply the estate tax rates that will apply for 2011 and 2012 to 2010 as well .
First, that has no chance of passing the Senate. Second, if there's significant support for this amongst House Democrats, they'll be more reviled by America's job creators than they currently are. This won't play well with independents, either. They'll see this as the Democrats changing the rules of the game after the fact.
Posted Thursday, December 9, 2010 5:55 PM
No comments.
What Dayton Administration Accomplishments?
Much has been written, both on this blog and elsewhere on the conservative blogosphere, about Gov-Elect Dayton's economic policies. I've argued that Dayton's tax-the-rich policy isn't as much economic policy as it's social justice policy.
Now that a Gov. Dayton will be negotiating with a Republican legislature, it's time to figure out who will win the battles and the wars. People have asked why Republicans did so well in their legislative races but lost the constitutional offices.
The answer to that question is simple: The constitutional offices, for the most part, had little to do with economic or tax policies. People knew that the legislative races centered on economic and tax policies. The races that centered on economic and tax policies were won in convincing fashion again and again.
It's against that backdrop that we look ahead to this legislative session. While EdMinn thrills to hear Dayton say that he'll raise education funding "without exception, without excuses", taxpayers cringe because they know they'll be called on to pay for Dayton paying off his political allies.
Similarly, when people hear Dayton touting his tax-the-rich scheme, entrepreneurs cringe because their businesses will take a hard hit. That, in turn, will cause, at best, sluggish job growth, at worst, serious layoffs.
Again, Dayton will be on the wrong side of that issue. The GOP legislature will be fighting with Minnesota's taxpayers. He won't win the tax fight. In fact, he'll be fortunate to not get pummeled on taxes.
A Gov. Dayton wants to gut the charter school budget. He'll face a stiff fight on that issue; in fact, he could take quite a hit on this.
The Republican legislature is writing a photo ID/election reform bill. During the campaign, it was clear that Minnesotans of all political persuasions favored that legislation. The DFL legislature and a Gov. Dayton will fight against that legislation.
Again, a Gov. Dayton will be on the wrong side of an important issue.
At the end of the day, Gov. Dayton will have fought against the will of the Minnesota people on issue after issue. By the time the 2012 election rolls around, Dayton's popularity will have dropped significantly. It wouldn't surprise me to see DFL legislators like Gene Pelowski abandon Dayton.
This isn't going to be a happy time for Dayton. It won't be a time where he'll win more than he'll lose.
Posted Friday, December 10, 2010 11:42 AM
No comments.
Paul Ryan: Conservatives' Solutions Man
During the past 2 years, I've had the opportunity to interview a number of conservative leaders, many of whom I'm impressed with. People like Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, Jim Jordan, Thad McCotter, Scott Garrett and others have impressed me with their steadfast adherence to limited, constitutionally restrained government gives me hope for the future.
Of those people I just mentioned, one man stands as the premier fiscal hawk/problem solver. His name is Paul Ryan. Now he's worked with former Clinton Budget director Alice Rivlin to put together a vastly superior Medicare/Medicaid plan that restores its solvency and lowers costs to its recipients.
It's so good that a liberal like Mort Kondracke has written about it . Here's the most noteworthy section of the article:
Maybe the most compelling product of President Barack Obama's deficit commission isn't even in its groundbreaking final report.
It's the bipartisan proposal by the panel's health care subcommittee, former White House budget director Alice Rivlin and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), to keep Medicare and Medicaid from overwhelming the federal budget.
And it's a market-based step toward a better national health care reform than Obamacare, which Ryan, and many other experts in both parties, believe will explode health costs, not contain them.
For future retirees, Rivlin and Ryan propose to convert Medicare, now a "defined benefit" program with open-ended costs, into a "premium support" plan such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, relying on patient choice and market forces.
And they'd convert Medicaid, the state-federal health plan for poor people, into a block grant to the states, allowing them to experiment with delivery and cost-containment.
Kondracke is right. There's nothing in Obamacare that contains health care or health insurance costs. In fact, with the plethora of mandates in the bill, it's guaranteed to drive costs up at a faster rate than they rose prior to the bill.
What's needed is for state governments to once again be the laboratories for reforms like they were in the early 1990s when Tommie Thompson and William Weld's experiments turned into the successful welfare reform bill that Bill Clinton signed into law.
The reality is that Ryan's plan is based on giving health care shoppers, aka patients, the incentive and opportunity to make smart choices. Part of Ryan's plan would be to eliminate a number of frivolous mandates, thereby driving health care and health insurance premium costs down.
It's a given that progressives will scream at the top of their lungs, possibly for days on end. Whatever. If they didn't, I'd be worried that we weren't on the right track.
Anytime that the federal government promises to pay for the costs of something, it's a promise that those costs will rise, usually dramatically. Putting in place a plan that helps people to buy policies that meet the shoppers', aka patients', needs helps in a variety of ways.
One of the biggest ways it helps drive down costs is that it eliminates the forces behind most of the cost-shifting, namely the underpayments delivered by Medicare and Medicaid. This alone will drive insurance and health care costs down.
Mr. Kondracke highlights the fact that Republicans shouldn't fear signing onto Ryan's proposal:
During 2010 Congressional races, Democrats systematically demonized Ryan's health care ideas as the ruination of Medicare's guarantee to seniors. But, as Ryan notes, most GOP candidates targeted with that message won.
The Democrats' special interest 527s huffed and they puffed but they didn't defeat candidates armed with this winning policy because they want this policy enacted ASAP. If you're positioning yourself on the side of the angels on this important issue, you'll be popular in the polls and a target for lots of fundraising contributions. Popular, on the right side of an issue and with a big warchest isn't exactly the worst position to be in.
These paragraphs should scare Democrats:
And the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee described himself as having been mentored by the late Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), believing in "a prosperous opportunity society built atop a solid safety net."
"I am not a laissez-faire, Hobbsian libertarian," he told me. "I believe in a circumscribed safety net, one that helps people get back on their feet and is there for people who can't help themselves. But I believe in a pro-growth, limited-government, free-enterprise society that encourages people to make the most of their lives."
At the breakfast, he said, "we're on a path to being a European-style social democracy" and that Republicans need to "accentuate the differences philosophically" with the Obama administration, "not in a mean and sinister way, but in a constructive way to give the country a real clear choice."
He said he doubts it will be possible for Republicans to reach any major agreements with Obama on health care over the next two years, "but I'd love to get a deal on something" to prove, especially to world markets, "that these Americans aren't crazy, their system is not broken and they can do something to control their debt."
Don't think that this tumult will disappear anytime soon either. President Obama has played his cards. It's apparent that he's wedded to Obamacare, which will soon be proven to be a failure. Meanwhile, people will see the merit of Rep. Ryan's plan. In fact, alot of heavy hitters already are noticing and writing about his plan. For instance, the Heritage Foundation's Kathryn Nix and Bob Moffitt are writing about it :
In sharp contrast to the high-profile promises of President Obama and the congressional leadership concerning their massive health care bill, Representative Ryan's proposal actually delivers on broadly held bipartisan policy goals, such as bending the health care spending curve, expanding access to affordable coverage, preserving personal choice and portability in health care coverage, promoting robust competition in the health insurance markets, and reducing the deficit.
By refusing to actively work on serious solutions to entitlement and related health policy problems, Ryan's critics lack a clear alternative to a gloomy fiscal future. On their part, this means the continuation of outdated policies, justifying them as necessary to the preservation of an ever-worsening status quo, marked by impending and unavoidable massive tax increases or savage cuts in entitlement benefits.
People from the liberal side of the aisle have criticized the Heritage Foundation in the past because they think they have a better plan but serious liberal thinkers know that their research is impeccable. This blast tells everyone in DC that Ryan's plan must be taken seriously. They aren't the only serious people who've been impressed with Ryan's plan. Thomas Miller and Jim Capretta of the AEI wrote glowingly about it , too. First, reading this paragraph is important reading to preface the rest of their study:
As part of the American Enterprise Institute project, Beyond "Repeal and Replace": Ideas for Real Health Reform, health policy analysts James C. Capretta and Thomas P. Miller observe that the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does little, if anything, to break with these longstanding policy problems. Indeed, the real point of the new health law is not to change course at all but to ensure the uninsured are also enrolled in expansive and heavily subsidized third-party insurance arrangements.
Exactly right. Obamacare isn't health care reform. It's just subsidizing an enlarged status quo. That isn't reform. That's the opposite of reform because it's just more of the same.
Here's Capretta and Miller's solution:
Many analysts favoring a move to a market-based health system have discussed the need to restructure health entitlements and tax policy. But only one current plan has been introduced to do exactly that across the board: the "Roadmap" offered by Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
In putting together the Roadmap, Ryan's explicit objective was to restore long-term balance to the government's budget without resorting to an antigrowth tax hike. The incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee wants to build an affordable network of entitlement programs that will not crush entrepreneurial initiative and dynamism.
Solving the Medicare/Medicaid crisis without crippling tax hikes is quite the mean trick. According to two well-respected think tanks, that's precisely what Ryan's plan accomplishes. It's time Congress got serious about health insurance reform and started hearings on Ryan's plan. It's the only one that accomplishes what the American people expect it to accomplish.
Originally posted Friday, December 10, 2010, revised 21-Sep 3:06 AM
No comments.
Krauthammer's Intellectual Dishonesty
I've been a big fan of Charles Krauthammer's for close to a decade. This week, however, I'm having difficulty not thinking not-so-flattering thoughts about him. This week, he's engaged in a campaign of saying that Republicans got rolled in the Bush tax cut compromise by Obama. Culminating in this column , Krauthammer argues that Obama negotiated a second stimulus with Republicans.
I'll respectfully and strenuously disagree.
First, calling extending current tax policy a form of stimulus is intellectually dishonest. Using that expansive definition, anything can be termed stimulus. I expect a higher level of thinking than that.
Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010, and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?
This paragraph assumes, incorrectly, that extending the Bush tax rates will jumpstart this struggling economy. I'm not plagued by that illusion, having written about it here :
DC's pundits have been pontificating that passing the extension of the Bush tax rates all but assures President Obama's re-election. They're saying that extending the Bush tax rates guarantees a growing economy. Frankly, they're wrong.
The reason why it's important to extend the Bush tax rates is because letting them expire will lead to another recession, higher unemployment, exploding deficits and President Obama's defeat in 2012.
Preventing a terrible thing from happening isn't the same thing as making positive things happen. At this point, there's two things President Obama has to worry about: another recession and the lack of an economic recovery.
Extending the Bush tax rates only prevents another recession. While that's important, it's hardly a windfall for President Obama like Mr. Krauthammer suggests. It's merely allowing him to tread water a bit longer.
The 800-pound gorilla that Mr. Krauthammer isn't talking about with his windfall talk is Obamacare, which is still weighing heavy on employers' minds in terms of starting the next round of hiring. Until that 800-pound gorilla is shot and dragged out of the room, hiring will be mediocre at best.
If Charles wants to argue that that's the closest that Obama is getting to a political win these days, I might be persuaded to agreeing with him on that. Beyond that, he'll lose my support.
Some Republicans are crowing that Stimulus II is the Republican way, mostly tax cuts, rather than the Democrats' spending orgy of Stimulus I. That's consolation? This just means that Republicans are two years too late. Stimulus II will still blow another near-$1 trillion hole in the budget.
First, it's important to admit that this isn't a zero-sum game. Letting the tax rates expire would've led to another recession, which would've exploded an already astronimical deficit. As a doctor Charles should know that the first rule is to do no harm. That's what extending the Bush tax rates is doing. They're preventing harm. Nothing more, nothing less.
The heavy lifting of removing the structural deficit we're currently facing can't be fixed in a lame duck session. It'll require a Republican president and a serious, reform-minded conservative congress. We're only part of the way there to accomplishing that.
It's time that Mr. Krauthammer stopped playing fast and loose with the American language and returned to a strict constructionist use of the English language. Only then can we have an apples-to-apples debate.
Posted Friday, December 10, 2010 5:57 PM
No comments.
