Edmund Andrews writes in the New York Times about Senate Democrats’ choice between raising $50B in new taxes or cutting spending. Some of them are opposed to hiking private equity fund taxes because their executives are big donors. The White House is just as conflicted. It’s time for our guys in the Senate to man up and do what needs doing…whatever that is.
Comments are closed.
What, other than the war, is there left to cut?
Mark,
Of course you are right. There is never any pork in government programs. Government spending is the model of efficiency.
If it wasn’t, they would have come up with a name for it.
Wait a minute…did I just say ‘pork’?
Nevermind.
I just read the article.
“But Senate Democrats are less than enthusiastic about that tax increase, and they worry that they cannot muster the 60-vote majority they will need to pass any measure that would comply with the pay-as-you-go rule.”
I see the Democrats’ problem. Tough spot they’re in, really.
They were hoping to gain a majority across all three branches of government before they revealed that their answer for everything is almost always more government via higher taxes.
That sucks. They might have to show their stripes before the next major election.
That is a problem.
Watts,
Somehow, I fail to see how the Republicans’ performance when they controlled both the executive and the legislative branches demonstrate that there’s an alternative to spending. The difference is that one party wants to run up the credit card, and the other is looking to appropriate the money they plan to spend.
The heart of the matter is that both parties want to spend money, just on different things, and they want to put the costs in different places. I’ve said it time and time again, but if you want fiscal restraint, you want a legislative branch of one party and an executive of another, so no one can agree where to spend the money, and less gets spent.
There is an alternative to spiraling spending. It is called restraint.
“one party wants to run up the credit card, and the other is looking to appropriate the money they plan to spend”.
Amen, brother. Truer words have never been spoken. We agree on this one.
Let’s just not kid ourselves that it is an “either-or” choice.
I’d love to see some politicians advocating fiscal restraint in their actions. I’m just doubtful that there are any without other horribly misguided policies (Ron Paul comes to mind here).
“I’d love to see some politicians advocating fiscal restraint in their actions.”
Ben, it is up to you and me and all Americans to find these people and vote them in. It is up to us to hold all of their feet to the fire to keep federal spending in check. It is up to us to find those who don’t believe in such restraint and vote them out.
The challenge is to not play their game of arguing over what new programs should be implemented to justify new taxes/spending.
The game is to make them kick, scream, twist, argue, fight, complain and ultimately justify every single new stinking penny of new spending and explore every existing budget item to see what we can agree can be cut before any new spending goes into place.
Unfortunately, most Americans favor less government…for everybody except themselves. As a Republican, I was and remain embarrassed by the performance of the Bush/GOP majority re spending. Although I probably couldn’t bring myself to vote Dem, there’s something to be said for the spending restraint of the Clinton/Gingrich years that they forced upon one another due to mutual distrust, distaste, etc.
Viva divided government!