• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
54°
Saturday October 25, 2014
View complete forecast
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Stock Summary
Dow16805.41127.51
Nasdaq4483.7130.92
S&P 5001964.5813.76
AEP56.471.19
Comcast54.261.04
GE25.640.2
ITT Exelis16.780.02
LNC50.600.86
Navistar34.800.1
Raytheon98.12-0.76
SDI22.310.16
Verizon48.770.55
Opening Arguments

Recent Comments

» RAG : Terminology has changed.
Tough guy
» Frank Keller : Larry  It was drowned by the
Tough guy
» Larry Morris : Yeah, you keep thinking that,
Board stiff
» Larry Morris : Kind of refreshing to hear
Tough guy
» Larry Morris :  Try "the city of New
Choo-choo
» Larry Morris : "They may miss out on
Early voting
» Bob G. : Leo: That...was
» Bob G. : Leo: After that last
Border guards
» Bob G. : Leo: It's just political
He has a plan!
» Larry Morris : I would be more worried about
A little gun angst

Do the math

I know Bill Kristol doesn't speak for all conservatives, but his is a major conservative voice that commands attention. So this should not be taken lightly:

Conservative commentator and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said Sunday the Republican Party should accept new ideas, including the much-criticized suggestion by Democrats that taxes be allowed to go up on the wealthy.

"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile?" he asked.

Reaction is already coming in, including this sympathetic response from Victor Davis Hanson at the Nation's Review's "The corner" blog:

Bill Kristol has a point: Given that the wealthiest counties in the U.S. are mostly blue-voting elites who caricature Republicans for not voting for higher taxes, maybe Republicans should focus on ensuring no new taxes on the $80,000 to $250,000 upper-middle-class households and let the tax chips fall where they may on the mostly Obama households above that. But only if Republicans demand in return for granting Obama’s “pay your fair share”/”you didn’t build that”/”fat cat” demands — which will only bring in revenues to account for about 8 percent of the annual deficit (this isn’t 1995, and something like the grand Gingrich/Clinton bargain won’t do much to today’s deficits) — that Obama comes up with the other 92 percent in cuts. As it is now, we are still subject to the election-winning demagoguery that not upping the tax rate by 3 or 4 percentage points on the $250,000-and-above brackets caused the gargantuan debt. What would Obama do after he got his populist rhetoric fulfilled and still faced a $900 billion annual deficit? Ask for ever more taxes?

What do you think? Does Kristol ahve a point?

If you believe the claim that many of those "millionaires" who'll be taxed more are the very small-business owners we need to be out there creating jobs (and I tend to), then raising taxes on them  "a little" might indeed hurt the country. And government spending cuts are always promised but seldom delivered, and Republicans who pretend that isn't so aren't doing us any favors.

I tend to side with Grover Norquist on this one:

The president campaigned for reelection on ending the Bush-era tax cuts for incomes above $250,000, and has said he would veto any extension of those rates, which would likely be part of any deal to avert the fiscal cliff. Obama also said tax hikes would be needed as part of a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, which would include spending cuts.

But during a series of appearance on morning TV shows, Norquist, the leader of Americans for Tax Reform, tried to put the brakes on any deal that would include tax rate increases. At one point, he mischaracterized Obama’s positions.

“Obama is not interested in taxing the rich,” Norquist said on CBS. “He admits there’s no money there. He runs a $6.7 trillion debt assuming he raises taxes on high-income people.”

The math should be obvious. If we want to continue big government, and want more money to pay for it, the big money is in the middle class, not the handful of rich people. Just saying, "Give 'em an inch" is the last thing we should do.

Comments

tim zank
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 9:09am

I'm quickly becoming a proponent of "Let Them Break It"....I'm beginning to think it's a fruitless effort to fight these idiots tooth and nail to simply prolong the pain of the inevitable crash.  We can't avert it, we can only prolong the default.

No measure of tax increases on anybody or any thing  will make a dent, and no amount of "artful" accounting or economic sleight of hand (just moving debt from column to column) will ever reduce the 16 trillion (guaranteed over $20 trillion at the end of this term).

At this point in time, with enough people successfully bribed into supporting this lunacy (as was evidenced by the election) the time has probably arrived to simply give these morons everything they asked for and let them own it 100%...

If we hand them their own fuse-lit bomb now, odds are pretty good by 2016 no one will ever want a democrat in charge of aything for a long time. Will it hurt us all? Sure, but those of us not pre-ordained to the recipient mentality will survive, because we know there is no free lunch and 2+4 will always equal 4.

john b kalb
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 11:15am

Tim :   Sorry but    (2 +4 does not =4) --- is this some of the "Liberal Math"??   You don't have to fall in line that deeply!!!

Quantcast