"Since 1980, tax policy has been at the center of Presidential campaigns. Reagan staked his candidacy on deep across-the-board tax cuts. He won and built a consensus around that policy. Since then, 8 of the last 8 Presidential winners have been the perceived tax-cutters while the losers were against tax cuts or had a troubled history with tax increases.
...
"...Most recently, Obama – who promised tax cuts for 95% of Americans (a physical impossibility) – beat McCain who was anything but adept at economic policy.
"So where is the debate today? Quite frankly, it’s a one-sided discussion. Rather than fight like Reagan on the issue – and build a new consensus – Republicans have been near silent on taxes subject to arguments such as these, almost without rebuttal:
1) the rich are not paying their fair share, and
2) the Republicans want to go back to the policies of Bush.
"Since the top 1% pay over 37% of income taxes and the top 10% pay over 70%, it’s hard to imagine that isn’t fair. Romney should point blank ask Obama in the debates: if 37% isn’t enough and 70% isn’t enough – what would be enough?
...
"As for the Bush tax cuts, the national Republicans have virtually ceded the argument that the Bush policies, i.e. his tax cuts, led to the economic downturn. Of course, it is economically absurd to claim that people keeping a greater share of their own money caused an economic decline. That didn’t happen under Bush and has never happened in history."
What Governor Romney needs to understand (after this deja vu of 1979 calms down) is "It's STILL the Economy Stupid!" What the Chairman is writing about (and Romney should read) is that, even though he took a Fiscal Conservative as a VP, is that the battleground is the Economy.
To be silent on this is doing a disservice in this Election.
Here is what the Valley wrote about Tax Cuts and Spending Cuts (both needed to put Government under control):
"The concept of Spending Cuts is that the Government has taken on more then it can afford. During the Bush fils Administration, the war budget was considered off-budget (Budget rules allow this) so that Government spending would not overwhelm the private sector.
"President Obama's first movement was to put them on-budget, and the economy, already in free fall, continued to crash.
"Where do spending cuts come from? There are 13 Appropriation subcommittees and multiple agencies under the Executive Branch, some even repeating others (Or the Department of Redundancy department). "The Congress can cut and so can the Presidents own budget.
"But the Left, who believes more Government is the solution, can never find anything to get rid of.
"Not even corruption.
....
"The idea of (modern) Tax Cuts come from that hard core Conservative President, JFK. It worked in his time, then his predecessor added The Great Society to the budget (the budget process was reformed on the Hill under Nixon) and the Vietnam War, and welcome to Inflation and Stagflation. (and multiple Oil shocks like today -- the more things change the more they stay the same)
"The concept of Tax Cuts is that business' will hire and people will invest if the Tax Burden is lifted.
"With Tax Cuts, commerce succeeds and more taxes get paid. Without commerce, no State can survive. Under the Obama Administration, the State weighs more then private commerce, so why should Private business' hire with all the regulations and taxes?
"Again, walk down Wilshire Boulevard and tell me high taxes and regulation works well.
"Tax Cuts and Spending Cuts are the carrot and stick approach to keeping Government under control. "
Governor Romney should heed the call of Chairman Del Beccaro:
Fight the Economy and the Election on the field of Tax Cuts.
Again, let me quote:
"Quite to the contrary, the Bush tax cuts, once fully implemented in 2003, resulted in an economic upturn, revenues jumped to a record $700 billion, and the end result was a record 52 months of job growth. That should be no surprise to anyone. After all, the Kennedy cuts, implemented after his death, resulted in 3 years of average growth above 6% and revenue increases of 62%. The Harding/Coolidge cuts produced the Roaring 20’s and revenue increases of 61%. History is literally littered with other examples of the wise who cut taxes to revive economies and revenues.
"If you haven’t heard those figures from national Republicans it is because they are not making the factual argument.
"They are not making the rhetorical argument either.
...
..."[W]hile they may win because of Obama’s dismal record, they won’t have the mandate they need for real tax reform, which is so desperately needed. To get that mandate, they have to take on the issue and stop ceding ground to the Democrats.
"They can explain that the mom and pop who own the corner restaurant started it by saving all their money – savings which likely wouldn’t have occurred or would have been delayed if tax rates were too high. They probably wouldn’t have hired a dishwasher in 1978 at $2.50 an hour. That person wouldn’t have learned the discipline of showing up to work on time and the responsibility of a job. Eventually that person went on to college with his job savings, and even graduate school. That’s part of my story and many others – it is something people can understand."
Whether you reside in the Blogosphere or working for a campaign, the name of the game is still "Are you making more money then four years ago?"
If Governor Romney listens to Chairman Del Beccaro (and help fund the CRP), he will do well.
My question: Why are Democrats afraid of Tax cuts and Spending cuts?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.
There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.
Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.
Write! History will remember your words!