I received a letter from Senator #Richard Burr of North Carolina,
my home state. He is my Senator but he clearly does not represent me. He wrote
he believes “Congress must work to address our sluggish economy, stagnant unemployment,
and massive budget deficits”. I agree they should do these things. My point of
contention with him is that he is a Republican and Republicans have control of
spending in the House of Representatives but they have done nothing, not one jobs bill, or addressed anyone of
these other things, which makes his rhetoric empty. He goes on in his letter to
say his primary concern is with the rampant overspending—frankly, I am tired of
hearing Republicans saying this. He pledges to embrace American values. I would
like to remind Sen. Burr the number one American value is that we are willing
to pay for the good life we live. I am tired of hearing Republicans crying cut
taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Is it too
complex for them to understand; we have the budget deficit because of their tax
cuts for the rich.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
To give specifics to what I am saying, I will quote Elizabeth
Warren’s remarks she made at the Center For American Progress in the form of a
question about just one little item in the public agenda that echoes my
thinking as a retired educator: “Do we invest in students, or millionaires?”
She wants us to invest in those who get an education by revising the tax code. Close
loopholes, force corporations to pay taxes, and stop subsidies to the rich; corporate
welfare. All I ask is that Senator Burr do you job.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
Two things.
ReplyDelete1) How our available revenues are used (school verses BILLIONAIRES), the choice should be obvious; but in a cleptocracy such as ours, unless people start placing accountability on our politicians we should just embrace that which cannot be controlled. Of course, if anyone cares (http://www.followthemoney.org/) they can at least become informed.
2) In as much as you postulate the benefit of increasing taxes to spend more on new and expanding programs that you deem worthy or required, then surely you also see the benefit of a rational limit on such an approach (budget). When the spending exceeds the revenue it seems pragmatic to me that the spending must stop until either the revenue is increased or else the need for spending is reduced. And surely you would agree that in any system with bi-modal (spending verses revenue) parameters it is reasonable to believe that some limiting factor needs to be applied to the moderating parameter. In any household the moderating parameter is revenue; for government the reasonable people would agree that the goal is not to maximize revenue but rather make a revenue target that best reflects the capability of the economic system to provide. The argument for constraining the growing need for more tax revenue is supported by the analysis of those who stress the need to restrict tax increases. I'm not competent to determine the accuracy of these analysis, but I am strongly aligned with the belief that continuously extending the debt limit is WRONG. The specifics of how much tax revenue is required is beyond my grasp but it does appear to me that our governments (national, state, and local) have well exceeded what can be considered a reasonable level long ago. Rather than fix the balance between the bi-modal tax and spend properties of a budget we continue to spend on credit. The call for reason in this matter should have been heard many years ago, while we still had money in our treasury. This constant bickering to add more spending is childish in that it sees no consequence to demanding a greater allowance without regard to the household's income.
Of course, I agree on a rational limit on how much is spent, which is why I think a fully functional government includes both “rational” conservatives and liberal. I want public education. I want affordable colleges. I want social security. I want Obama health care. I do not want to see people go hungry. Can you say you do not want these things? This brings up the matter of how much you are willing to paying for them, which boils down to how much do you want them. Perhaps it is too easy to argue they do not want health care before they are sick, pension money before they retire, or high tuition as long as it someone else’s kid going to college.
DeleteUnfortunately, there is an uneven distribution of the tax burden. In our society, the emphasis has been on cutting taxes on those who can afford all the good things in life. That is what fair and progressive taxation means to address our budget shortfall or “cure” if that word fits better for you. Continually raising the debt ceiling is not only rational it is an obligation. You use the family analogy; it is not rational to go and buy a car—even a modest car—and then say you are not going to pay for it. In light of the fact that we have spent the money, the republican position does not seems rational; they are saying we should cut taxes more and not raise the debt ceiling; the two statements are incompatible, which makes them irrational; or, do you not agree that is the position of the Republican Party?
Thank you for the response. If it can be true that a "rational limit" on budgeted spending then what remains is to establish what that limit is. It should be tied to some economic property such as GDP, but I'm no expert and I can't solve this item. I can observe that spending continues to grow without accountability because we just keep extending our debt limit. That strikes my common sense as unwise, perhaps immature, even criminal. Those responsible for budgets at all levels of government should be held accountable under law with consequences for not stewarding public moneys written into that law. I'm big on defenestration though a public stockade would also be nice.
DeleteI agree that if we have already spent the money then if we must raise the debt ceiling we should.. but it also seems to me that these irresponsible leaders who sign up for spending beyond our revenues do so with the expectation that this spending is on credit. That kind of mindset needs to be punished.
Closing remarks, I fully agree with your position that the citizens of this country must be aware of and take steps to stop the public welfare system for BILLIONAIRES. The trickle up had become a torrent up, the rich getting much much richer at the expense of the tax payer. Your question paraphrased, Should GE be exempt from tax debt or should a child have the opportunity to have an education? Good question, anyone got an answer?