Jason at RightKlik recoils at the liberal ghoulishness:
Apparently apropos of nothing in particular, the New York Times has now started the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Death Watch™ . . .
John Cornyn Endorses Obama on Taxes
No sooner had I urged Republicans to call out President Obama for his “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” rhetoric than Texas Sen. John Cornyn goes squish:
Texas Sen. John Cornyn this morning laid out a political blueprint for comprehensive tax reform, declaring that he favors raising taxes on some American businesses by closing corporate “tax expenditures” as part of a “revenue neutral” deal that lowered overall tax rates. . . .
The San Antonio Republican said there is bipartisan support for “revenue neutral” tax reform that eliminated “tax expenditures” while lowering the rates paid by the vast majority of businesses.
“Our tax code is riddled with a lot of tax expenditures that don’t make sense,” said Cornyn, citing federal subsidies to the ethanol industry as one example of an unjustified corporate tax break.
He rejected the contention from some Republican conservatives that closing tax loopholes amounts to a politically unacceptable tax increase.
“That’s revenue neutral,” Cornyn said on Fox. “That’s not raising taxes.”
Well, senator, when you begin by ceding Obama’s rhetorical premise, how to you expect to win the argument? Don’t you understand that Obama is not negotiating in good faith, and that a pro-growth tax deal of the sort you describe is not possible under the current administration? Does it not then follow that no such “revenue neutral” reform is possible until Obama is defeated?
We remember that it was Cornyn and the National Republican Senatorial Committee who endorsed RINO Charlie Crist against Marco Rubio in the Florida primary.
UPDATE: Permit me to acknowledge that so-called “tax expenditures,” commonly called “loopholes,” are a bad idea in general. In his 1991 book, Parliament of Whores, P.J. O’Rourke produced his own balanced budget plan that included a complete zeroing-out of loopholes. But O’Rourke’s budget was a draconian slash-and-burn — Grover Norquist’s wildest libertarian wet dream — that saved billions through cruel simplicity, e.g.: “I got rid of all transportation spending. Let ’em walk.”
Are Obama and the Democrats ever going to agree to O’Rourkean spending cuts? Oh, hell, no. And the fact is that we wouldn’t have reached the debt-ceiling limit until 2013 if Obama, Pelosi and Reid hadn’t gone on a massive two-year deficit-spending spree. Having thus forced this crisis upon us prematurely, then, why do Democrats now get to insist that “millionaires and billionaires” pay the freight for their failed Keynesian policies?
Screw that. Let ’em walk.
Letter To An Anonymous Blogger
by Smitty
The shiny new blog Political Clown Parade is a welcome addition to the dextrosphere. Check this excellent bit of Thaddeus McCotter juxtaposed with The Gipper:
Blogging is a rush, but you can’t have peaks without valleys. We are all members of the chorus of self-government. We succeed or fail insofar as we show up to work as Presidents of our own lives. The pressure to ‘compete’ is a bit of a distractor; you remain a welcome member of the chorus. More is better. We don’t all get the solo moment, but the whole of the chorus is far more important than whichever soloist is varying the theme of liberty at any given time.
It is a historical accident that the buck must stop somewhere. That is, admitting we require a President to accept the blame, or credit, for events is a sad existential epedience. The stuck-ee for being President after the election settles is less important than whether or not the person stands for Liberty.
But don’t spend all day reading me; get your doggone blog on, you Curmudgeon!
Warm regards,
Smitty
P.S.: pay no attention to the Prince of the Malodorous. He daft.
Update: Nice Deb has video of Thaddeus McCotter announcing. Go, Thad!
How Fannie and Freddie Screwed Over Taxpayers and Wrecked the Economy
Amazing to see this on PBS:
UPDATE: Linked by The Lonely Conservative and Dan Collins at The Conservatory — thanks! Meanwhile, reviewing Reckless Endangerment at Barron’s, Gene Epstein writes:
It starts at the beginning — in 1991, when Jim Johnson, a political operative and former top aide to Sen. Walter Mondale, took over as Fannie Mae’s CEO. Previously, Fannie had been run as a business; afterward, it was run like a political machine.
George Will also praises the book:
Put on asbestos mittens and pick up “Reckless Endangerment,” the scalding new book by Gretchen Morgenson, a New York Times columnist, and Joshua Rosner, a housing finance expert. They will introduce you to James A. Johnson, an emblem of the administrative state that liberals admire.
The book’s subtitle could be: “Cry ‘Compassion’ and Let Slip the Dogs of Cupidity.” Or: “How James Johnson and Others (Mostly Democrats) Made the Great Recession.”
Why Doesn’t Obama Come Right Out and Say, ‘Democrats Want to Raise Taxes’?
There is a cynical saying among political strategists on Capitol Hill: “Do we want the bill or do we want the issue”? That is to say, is it to our advantage to pass legislation to address a specific issue, or is it to our advantage to keep the issue alive as a controversy going into the next election campaign? If all you care about is gaining political advantage, that’s how you think about such matters, and this seems to me what President Obama is doing with the current budget debate:
President Obama used his weekly address to reiterate his demand for ending tax breaks for “millionaires and billionaires” in any budget deal to raise the nation’s debt limit.
“It would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can’t afford them,” Obama said. “Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help — then we’ll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else.”
Watch the video of his weekly address:
Obama knows — or at least, he ought to know — that ending the “tax breaks” he talks about so vaguely would contribute a neglible amount of revenue in terms of shrinking a $1.4-trillion annual deficit. Furthermore, because the policy he advocates would be a disincentive to investment, it might extend the recession and actually decrease federal tax revenue.
Now let’s drop the president’s political euphemisms about ending “tax breaks” and instead speak the plain truth: President Obama wants to raise taxes.
Or does he? Continue reading Why Doesn’t Obama Come Right Out and Say, ‘Democrats Want to Raise Taxes’? →
Watch It, Cuz!
My cousin, LaGrange (Ga.) News columnist Pepper Ellis Hagebak, is telling tales again:
My own favorite family nut is still with us. When we were growing up, he was always into something. He was brilliant and hyper, and for most of his teen and young adult years, he thought he was Rod Stewart. In his defense, he does bear a striking resemblance to the raspy-voiced rocker, but you can see why the entire family knew early on that he was our generation’s loony-toon. . . .
You can read the whole thing, but I won’t vouch the truth of any of it. However, I will not specifically deny any accusation, because then Pepper might start telling a whole ‘nother bunch of stuff. And trust me, there’s a lot of stuff.
But cousin: “Loony-toon”? Why, I’m an award-winning professional journalist! Not that the two things are utterly incompatible . . .
UPDATE: And while I’m at it, I have no comment on these salacious rumors that Bob Belvedere is spreading.
Better A Bald Head Than A Cheese Head
by Smitty
Yet another scurrilous cheap shot from the Trog bog over my enthusiasm for a Thaddeus McCotter candidacy. For such abuse to be unexpected, there would have to have been some element of surprise. The Troglopundit never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to comport himself in a civilized fashion.
How could the state which produced a Paul Ryan have also emitted such a sad bloviator as Trog?
Necessary But Not Sufficient
by Smitty (h/t Insty)
I don’t disagree with the mighty Scott Ott’s practical approach to a deficit deal, insofar as reality affects the thinking of the current POTUS, which is somewhere around ‘not at all’. Framing the discussion in terms of increasing revenue is both valid, and in keeping with Ott’s gentle humor.
Past the friendly cajoling, though, there is this: you have to tell me what we’re doing to re-constrain the federal government to its enumerated powers, or you haven’t told me much.
Restated, the outcome of our current series of Constituiontal crises is that we are either returning to the existing Constitution, as amended, and with respect to technological improvements like the Air Force that fall within the spirit of the document, or we just need to scuttle the flipping document entirely, and embrace the European suck.
There is some room for moderation, where something akin to Ryan’s plan may be more politically attainable, for the decades it will take for the Progressive-era herd to die off (sorry, mom & dad), but we have to cut the nonsense on the false EUtopia pushed by the Progressives. If it’s not a bridge to a Federalist, properly Constitutional, limited government, then any transition plan or compromise is an invitation to continued Progressdecay.
Stick to your guns, Boehner.