BeyondStageOnePolitics.com
“Our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve . . . a budget surplus.” John F. Kennedy

Voice-over

My recent political voice-over demo. See Contact for manager's information.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Dec 10 2012

“The Age of the Unserious”

C.M. Phippen

Our president claims that he is making an honest effort to negotiate with Republicans to avoid the fiscal cliff. He wants us to believe that they are the ones who simply won’t budge on their positions and won’t allow him to fix the horrific fiscal issues we face.

This is the president whom Tim Geithner claims is willing to go off the fiscal cliff if the Republicans don’t agree to his plan to raise taxes on the richest 2% because, in Geithner’s words, “remember, it’s only the top two percent.” Doesn’t unequal treatment under the law become a civil rights issue at some point!? Anyway . . .

This is the same president who has had his past two budgets shot down in Senate votes of 99-0 and 97-0, one of which looked an awful lot like Obama’s current proposal from which he is negotiating. He apparently expects Republicans to support the plan that his Democrat allies in the Senate refused to support?

In addition to major entitlement spending cuts, the greatest priority our government should have is that of allowing/encouraging/stimulating economic growth, which will in and of itself lead to the President’s desired revenue increases.

In fact, Bill Whittle recently made the point that “if you destroyed the entire government, burned every [public] building, fired every government worker, sank every aircraft carrier, even with no government to pay for – none – we’d still pay the same taxes that we’re paying today and still have to borrow or print money just to pay for entitlements.”

I would argue that if we do indeed have a shortage of money for schools, teachers, police and other government services, it is entitlement spending that is draining those resources, not tax cuts or wars.

Even Austin Goolsbee, former president of Obama’s Council on Economic Advisers, recently stated that any solution to America’s economic ills “cuts on discretionary and entitlement spending.”

In addition, Peter Orszag, former OMB director, recently came out urging his fellow Democrats to support reforming entitlements and putting “crucial programs on a sounder footing.”

I must assume that our president is well aware of the fact that nothing in his rejected budget plans or spending priorities will stimulate growth. And he has made it very clear that, despite his repeated declarations to the contrary, he is never going to cut any real spending.

Thus, his only plan to decrease the rate of growth of our historically unprecedented federal deficit seems to be an increase in revenue coming from the already over-burdened taxpayer. Unfortunately, the proposal on which he is willing to risk our entire economy, that of increased taxes on the top 2%, leads to enough revenue to cover expenses for about eight days! Brilliant!

Even the Obama-touted Buffet Rule, if implemented, would pay for about 28 hours of government spending. If you want to close the deficit through increased taxes on the two highest tax brackets – 33% ($178,650 – $388,350) and 35% (over $388,350) – it would be necessary to hike those rates to 159% and 166% respectively. I’m assuming most liberals would tell us that such rates would have absolutely no impact on economic growth or the willingness of those individuals to work!

AEI economists recently looked at the effect of tax increases v. entitlement reforms on fiscal crises management over the nearly three-decade period of 1970-2007. They found that countries that were able to successfully reform did so mainly with spending cuts; in fact, on average 85% of their budget gaps were closed this way. On the other hand, those with failed reforms were the countries that, on average, relied at least 50% on tax increases.

Just ask Jim Sinegal, co-founder of Costco, if those tax increases will most likely lead to greater or reduced revenue next year. He’s a supporter of Obama who preached the moral imperative of Obama’s tax plan, and of businesses large and small all “following the same set of rules . . .” while risking Costco’s credit rating to take on an additional $3.5 billion in debt in order to pay out dividends this year before Obama’s tax hikes kick in. Oh, and he is apparently the biggest beneficiary of this move.

Or ask Great Britain how a plan of tax increases worked for them last year when they raised rates on those making over £1 million (about $1.6 million) to 50%. The result was that they saw a £7 billion treasury loss as nearly two-thirds of the high earners were suddenly missing from the country or finding ways to shelter income.

Funny though, that even after the manifestation of the result of such policies, political supporters of the increased tax are now calling any reduction a “tax cut for millionaires,” as though resentment toward the wealthy is more important than the amount of money the government actually has for programs which benefit the less well-off.

Yes, Mr. Whittle, I think you’re right; this truly is “The Age of the Unserious.”


Nov 16 2012

Obama and the “Balanced Approach”

C.M. Phippen

Within days of his razor thin re-election, President Obama chose to inform us that he now has a mandate for his deficit reduction policies that include a “balanced approach.” In this case, balanced means he wants the wealthy to pay for the overspending of politicians in Washington; if the rich will just pay more, then the politicians will find the discipline to reduce their overspending by a tiny fraction.

Never mind that it wasn’t a “balanced approach” of irresponsibility that got us here – it was fully a result of Washington not living within its means. The increase in revenue from those taxpayers would amount to $82.3 billion annually, the equivalent of about eight days of spending.

According to a recent study by Ernst & Young, just allowing tax rates to go up on those making over $250,000 a year could cause a loss over the long-term of 700,000 jobs.

Are we really willing to exchange eight days of spending for 700,000 jobs in an economy that is barely making it? Does this make sense to anyone who’s not a community organizer?

Our economy needs to grow at about a 3 percent annual rate in order to just keep up with new workers entering the work force; under Obama we’ve experienced a GDP growth rate average of about 2 percent.

Even Thinkprogress.org, while denying that these increased tax rates will have any real effect on economic prosperity, has admitted that the US economy would take a .25 percent hit in growth if these taxes increase. Even if that is the worst of the economic consequences from such a policy of anything but “equal protection under the law,” are we really willing to take a 1/4 percent hit year after year just to cover eight days of expenses during each of those years, especially when the record under this president has been growth below what is necessary just to keep the currently high rates of unemployment stable?

Interestingly enough, when looking at the exit polling done on election day, only 33 percent of voters said they think taxes should be raised to deal with the deficit. A full 63 percent of voters responded “No” to the question of whether or not taxes ought to be raised to help cut the budget deficit.

Of course, no surprise that many of the people who probably voted for Obama were completely unaware of his plans. That would be because he didn’t run on his plans. He ran on demonizing Mitt Romney for being successful and rich, as evidenced by his 85.5 percent of negative ads in this campaign; ads that were mainly aimed at Romney personally rather than being aimed at his actions and principles, by the way. Translation – nearly all of his sizeable war chest was spent demonizing the most successful guy in the room.

There’s no better time in America to be a loser – we love the guy whose every promised outcome was a flop and who, at every turn, had an excuse handy as to why he just couldn’t accomplish what he wanted and why it was everyone’s fault but his own. The reason the stimulus didn’t work, according to the Obama administration, was that the recession was much worse than they’d realized; turns out it wasn’t as bad as we thought – 4.7 percent decline rather than 5.7 percent.

He truly is the president of the participation trophy generation. I guess though, that if the successful aren’t responsible for building their own success, it follows that the losers aren’t responsible for their own failures.