Two Points
Two Conservative/Republican great thinkers are well-read readers of this excuse for a blog.
At times, they annoy me, even in their eloquence. At times. But that's why free speech and lyricism is valued.
But we often rail against Liberals for hypocrisy, so those engaged in the same on the contrarian side of things deserve the same. So two frustrating points, as follows:
1. Liam comments: "The problem with the Democrats riding anything to do with Bush's spend-happy ways 'til Nov '06 is that they're still usually finding ways to be comparatively worse with the spending."
In a word, no. As Gore should have played up more, as Veep he actually cast the deciding vote on the original Clinton tax hike that ushered in the greatest rise in prosperity (growth) in modern day America. It was key, responsible, gutsy, and correct, and not a single Republican (including Newt) supported him. Bold, fiscally responsible, and the rest. I don't want to hear how reading the lips of GWHB would have served you folks better.
Liam later said as follows on his own blog: "We can't use Iraq or Katrina as evidence of anything." Hands up those who think he would say the same if a Democrat held the purse strings of 1600 at the time. Exactly.
The next tax hike, whether ushered in by Republican or Democrat, circa '10, should be named for W. As Dean loved to say, and so accurately: if you want a fiscally responsible government, you better elect a democrat as President, because no Republican President in the last 34 years has balanced the budget. Not Reagan. I refuse to concede the point to so-called "tories" that no matter how unthrifty the Right's party is, the left will be worse. The evidence does Not bear you out. It is poor argument, and even worse logic. Don't let Delay and co. off the hook just because your ideology claims the other aisle must necessarily be terrible. Chances (and history) state baldly that you are wrong.
2. I had a second point. It is now 5AM or so, and I'm too tired to rant, given the above. Let's just say Rice is an absurd pipe dream, because in the modern day it is impossible to run for President without ever holding electoral office. I'm sorry Scharma, but Wes Clark showed how tough that process can be. Fantasies aside, she'd get steamrolled.
Go Sox!
posted by J. A. MacDuff @ 12:43 AM
4 Comments:
Whether a person gets steamrolled or not depends on his (or her) level of ability.
But the main reason that I don't think we'll see Rice in '08 is that she probably doesn't want to be bothered with running. So my hopes are with Giuliani. (But we've got time... two and a half years before the next primary season.)
James, you seem to be equating tax hikes with fiscal responsibility. Why?
The Harris, Reagan, Irish(80s), and New Zealand(80s) tax cuts still did not lead to the net revenue losses that the respective govts' opposition assumed would happened. In several cases revenue continued to rise at an impressive rate!
I never said I approve of GWB's spending, but as compared to John Kerry, the guy actually managed to look ever so slightly not so bad. Neither of these guys much compares with Clinton who, to his credit, did what fiscal conservatives should do.
I've had no problem praising Clinton as a more pro-free trade, pro-economic freedom pro-enterprise president than George W. Bush. So you assumption about whether or not I'd say the same things about a Democrat who spent money on Iraq and Katrina doesn't hold much! Clinton was also, arguably, anomalous. Kerry was no Clinton.
Remember: I'm the guy who thought it should have been McCain versus Lieberman!
Besides, as I pointed out, I still take big issue with Bush's other non-crisis/war domestic spending. Soooooo much waste. Washington is a spending dump.
If I was in the US, I'd probably support the watchdog groups such as Citizens against Government Waste. As they outline in their report "Prime Cuts," there are 600 actions/cuts the US government could make that, if enacted, could save taxpayers $232 billion in fiscal 2006 and $2 trillion over the next five years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way suggesting that George W. Bush is fiscally responsible. I'm saying that John Kerry, just looking at what he wanted added to the spending list, was worse.
Tax hikes with fiscal responsibility? I think the hallmark of "responsibility" is living within your means. Bush's massive tax cuts were simply unaffordable. Kerry might have wanted different priorities in spending, but at least he had an idea on how it would be covered. Bush has laid it firmly at the doorstep of future generations. That's the very definition of "irresponsible". The Liberals made the tough choices Mulroney could not. Clinton made the tough choices Reagan and Bush could not. The Left fiscal management in the 90s deserves more respect than bald assertions of irresponsibility.
Bush's tax cuts were completely affordable if he made sure to offset the short term losses that would accompany them. Tax cuts are not necessarily net revenue cuts. The economy isn't a static box wherein you can raise taxes and exact a proportional amount of cash from it. The economy is indeed affected by taxes. I think North America, even the US, is not at an optimum level of taxation.
The Liberals did not make "tough choices." They continued to increase the size of the federal government depts in Ottawa while cutting CHST so as to allow provincial premiers of all stripes to make their tough choices for them while they in turn vilified those same premiers for doing it. If they had any balls at all they would have scrapped corporate welfare in HRDC, Industry Canada and the Regional Developmet agencies, never embarked on the tax bonfire of c-68 gun registry, and never engaged in other massive central government programs. Reagan was indeed spend-happy -- in one area - National Defense. We'll never know if his decisions in the end saved the US treasury money in the long term re cold war. But I'll admit he should have cut spending more. John Kerry in no way explained how he could expect to balance the budget.
I think your commentary on Clinton and some Conservatives (I think Harris, Filmon, and Klein have decent records) proves one thing -- Left Liberals have to act in a way inconsistent with what their core wants and what their theorists want in order to be fiscally responsible and by the same token, right conservatives go wrong when they ignore their core and become inconsistent with fiscal conservative principles.
Post a Comment
<< Home