Ever since the last election, I have been confused over the current stance (I'll use the right as my example because I spend more time in that crowd), that compromise is wrong, in all its forms. It seems that people don't understand that their stances shouldn't be taken completely and put into action. Why is it that Republicans (and Democrats, but currently its Republicans), cannot understand that losing the Presidential election means something. We lost, they won, how is it that we now think that our policies should be the ones put into effect? Why is it considered traitorous to enter into negotiations where give and take brings you to a middle ground?
To take it to its simplest, at least half the country disagrees with the Republicans, and the Democrats. Why is it that both parties on a given issue believe they have a mandate from the people to hold firm and refuse the bargaining table that will require giving up some of what they want to get a resolution?
The current debt crisis is a wonderful example of this problem. I am not going to claim the Democrats are blameless. Many things have led us up to this point, more politicians than statesman. More rhetoric than desire to solve problems. However, as we sit right now, it seems that the Republicans must shoulder the lion's share of the blame. They have drawn a line in the sand on any and all revenue increases via changes to the tax code. And to be clear we're not talking about raising tax rates. We're talking about doing away with loopholes and tax breaks that bring the richest in America's taxes down.
I know, I benefit from tax breaks as well. I have, in my time, benefited from child tax credits, EIC, mortgage interest deduction, tuition deduction, student loan interest deductions, etc.. The tax code, rather than being a right and wrong, and a good vs. evil proposition, is one of opinion. However, when you don't bring in enough revenue for all the things you have to pay for, it becomes a problem.
I believe in the proposition that lowering taxes on the wealthy stimulates the economy, but I do not believe it is a constant. When the tax rates were up somewhere around 70% pre reagan, and then they were dropped significantly, I do believe that helped stimulate job growth and the economy. However, I do not believe that it is a 1 for 1, if taxes are lowered, things get bettered. There is a point of diminishing returns. Our current tax rates are very, very low. The highest rate is currently lower than at any time during Reagan's presidency. And many tea party candidates are pushing for it to be even lower. This makes no sense to me. We clearly are not bringing in enough revenue, and we are spending too much. Any argument that it is only one, or only the other to me seems absurd. The idea that the problem can be fixed merely by raising taxes, or that it would all be better if we cut spending is in my opinion ludicrous. Of course, neither idea is as asinine to me as the idea that the real fix is cutting taxes. That, to me, seems pure pandering with absolutely no care to whether or not it causes incredible harm.
Do Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid need massive changes, I think so. Do we spend to much money on all sorts of things, in my opinion, yes. But I do not think taxes are too high, in fact, I do not really have any opposition to the top bracket being raised by a percent or two. If we want to look to data, if 38%~ helped bring us one of the best economies under Reagan, why is it imperative that it be 35% now, or heaven forbid, even lower?
The main point I wish to make is this. To draw a line in the sand and take any and all talk of taxes off of the table with the current debt crisis is immature and irresponsible. I look to George Bush I, and see a very good president, who when he realized how wrong headed his "read my lips" stance was, raised taxes for the good of the country. When partisan hacks decide that the will draw a line over each and every issue, as if their opinion has descended from Sinai, they hurt the country. Hopefully, this standoff will not continue much longer. But already, I find myself blaming the tea party for the vast majority of this debacle.
8 comments:
I love the Tea Party and identify with their politics normally. I am disappointed with their actions on the Boehner bill though. I see that they are trying to stand on principle, and I agree with their stance, but it's just bad politics. As Krauthammer, the evil genius, pointed out, when you only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the legislature you can't govern! It gives Obama the opportunity he's been looking for to try and push the economic blame on the GOP.
As for compromise, would you not say that even allowing a debt level increase is a concession? I would say it is because as we take on more debt our interest grows too.
I find that, in politics, when one is 'standing on principle' it is usually an excuse to pretend something is morally right, when in fact it is merely an opinion.
As to allowing an increase to be a concession, no I would wholeheartedly disagree. Republicans cannot pretend that they have no part in the debt. To stand back now, pretending to have not contributed to the economic mess, and say, okay we'll let you raise the limit, since its your fault we're here, and have that be the concession is disingenuous at best.
I'll save my in depth problems with the Tea Party for a subsequent post, suffice it to say, I find them (as a group) horrendously pompous, disturbingly misinformed/uneducated, and fanatical.
The party changes man. What do think the election of 2010 was all about? Clearly there's been a revival of fiscal sanity among the GOP. Many seats turned over on both sides of the isle. However, a few months and even weeks ago the democrats were clamoring for a so-called "clean" bill with debt limit increase and no cuts in spending. The current GOP should be judged for their own actions- not those of the GOP back in 2008. You can call it disingenuous if you'd like, but that's what sounds pompous to me.
What's more- if a compromise was 4 trillion in debt reduction and 2 trillion in tax based revenue increase (as it was at one point), then what's wrong with asking 2 trillion in spending with no tax increase?
You think its pompous of me to say the party doesn't get to pretend it didn't participate in running up the debt? Really?
We are going to have to just completely disagree on the fiscal sanity thing as well. I personally think the idea of dropping the corporate tax to 9%, zeroing AMT, zeroing capital gains, and taxing the poorest people in the country, is anything but fiscal sanity.
I am all for low taxes, when they equal growth and strength to the economy, but the current crop of tea party republicans (or closet libertarians/anarchists), act as if any tax is too high, and anything the government does is wrong.
also, if you lay all the blame for a lack of compromise at the feet of the Tea Party, how you explain how there were only 66 NO votes from republicans with 95 NO votes from Democrats.
You can play the blame game, as Joe Biden apparently is comparing Tea Party members to terrorists, but you're willfully closing your eyes to the whole picture.
Taylor, you may need to go back over my original post. I have never laid all the blame on any one side or group.
As far as the numbers, it doesn't surprise me that more Republicans voted for it, it had zero tax reform, just what they wanted.
The longer they continue to stand at their line drawn in the sand and refuse to even discuss tax reform, and yes, even tax hikes, we are not going to be able to get to a balanced budget, you have to take in more money.
Post a Comment