Why monetary policy should become a top tier election issue:
From USA Today, Weak dollar undercuts missionaries, relief workers
And I always get suspicious when candidates begin to use the rhetoric of another candidate to prop up their own platform. Bill Clinton did this with Dole/Kemp (anyone remember “Enterprise Zones”?). Mike Huckabee is doing it now.
There you go again.:-)
c “Reagan” b
Comment by cb scott — January 8, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
It definitely is noticeable by us Mammon watchers, but praise the Lord we serve the God who owns the cattle on a 1000 hills.
Comment by Bryan Riley — January 9, 2008 @ 8:03 am
The declining value of the dollar is directly related to deficit spending. The five trillion dollar deficit accumulated during the Bush administration is explained by three follies – 1. The almost theological belief of Republicans that any increase in taxes is evil. 2. The slashes in the tax rates of upper income and wealthy citizens. 3. The uncontrolled spending of the House (controlled by Republicans from 1994 until 2006). People forget that late in the term of the elder Bush, the Democratic controlled Congress proposed to the administration that they would not fund any new programs unless they cut other programs to pay for them, but only if the administration agreed to a tax increase to help balance the budget. In a prudent move, the President reluctantly agreed, but was then attacked by his own Party for, “betraying his no new taxes” pledge. Remember, “Read my lips….” Most political consultants agree that this led to Bush’s defeat in the 1992 election. However, there is also concensus that this single agreement led to the prosperity of the Clinton years, and the balanced budget in 1998-99. The decision of this Bush’s administration to fund the Iraq war, and huge new programs such as the Medicare drug program, with loans from China, the Middle East and even Mexico, has resulted in less confidence in the dollar around the world.
We will not return to a balanced budget until we, once again, realize that a balanced budge is dependent on a balance of controlled spending and taxes sufficient to fund our expenditures.
Comment by JRW — January 10, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
JRW:
More taxing isn’t the answer. That only slows consumer spending as people will have less disposable income. The answer is less spending by the government. I agree that Republicans have not helped that part of the problem.
It has been proven that lower taxes stimulate buying which in turn places more dollars in the government revenue stream. Check the revenues to the government. They are at all times highs and there is plenty to fund government if both houses and both parties control spending.
In your entry you mention “slashes in the tax rates of upper income and wealthy citizens”. What is your definition of “upper income and wealthy citizens? The top 1% of wage earners are paying more than their share of taxes. In fact, there is a large part of our population that pays no income taxes at all. The “ulra wealthy” if they are taxed at a rate they fell is unfair they will find ways(legal) in the tax system to avoid that tax. Then I assume the definition of wealthy will start to drop and people who aren’t wealthy will be told they are and taxed like they are since we need more revenue to cover the budget.
Comment by RGH — January 12, 2008 @ 12:06 am
JR and RG-
Just for fodder: Even no less a wealthy person that Warren Buffett argues that the wealthy are taxed at too low a rate. I’m still thinking that no income tax and much less federal government ought to be the target. Any candidate who starts off a sentence with, “When I become president, I’ll institute such and such a program…” is not thinking of a smaller government.
Comment by Marty Duren — January 12, 2008 @ 7:04 am
Marty:
Thanks for your reply.
I agree with you that smaller federal government is the goal, but I don’t see that happening.
I have seen comments like that of Mr Buffett’s made by some very wealthy people, even some politicians. The problem I have is if we tax the wealthy at a rate much higher than the rest of us, that smacks of class envy. If that begins it won’t stop and then it would be much easier to redefine “wealthy”. I just can’t get onboard with punishing achievement.
With a cynical tone I propose that any individual who feels he isn’t taxed enough has the ability to make an unsolicited gift to the federal government.
I don’t hear any press reports of this happening.
Comment by RGH — January 12, 2008 @ 9:40 am
RGH-
With a cynical tone I propose that any individual who feels he isnâ??t taxed enough has the ability to make an unsolicited gift to the federal government.
I have to confess that I was thinking the same think as I typed my comment; however, as long as it isn’t required by the government I’d spend it elsewhere, too.
re: size of government. That’s where citizens come in. Until John and Jane America begin to pressure their own senators and representatives to reduce the size of the government, it will be business as usual. I’m not optimistic that Americans on the whole can even imagine life without a burdensome federal gov’t.
Comment by Marty Duren — January 12, 2008 @ 9:52 am
Marty:
I agree smaller government will only happen when the voters step,up listen to candidates and make wise voting decisions.
My concern is how can this happen when our society is filled with people basing their vote on who can give them the most stuff. It is very disturbing to hear the % of Americans that receive some type of assistance from the federal government.
As you have no doubt watched enough of the current crop of Presidential candidates make long lists of proposals of what they will give away if they are elected.
Comment by RGH — January 12, 2008 @ 10:09 am
“I have to confess that I was thinking the same think as I typed my comment; however, as long as it isnâ??t required by the government Iâ??d spend it elsewhere, too.”
My response to your comment above would be….I don’t think you have made any comments stating you believe your taxes are too low
Comment by RGH — January 12, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Marty,
The future is “Tribes”
cb
Comment by cb scott — January 12, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
CB-
Let’s hope not.
Comment by Marty Duren — January 12, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Bryan #2: Wouldn’t a dynamic equivelance translation update this number due to inlation? “the cattle on a trillion hills…”
JRW et al: I would encourage you to look at a graph of the GDP, Tax Revenues and Presidential terms. Since the Elder Bush was brought up please note the budget compromise of 1990 led to an immediate downturn (not recession) in the economy.
All, 10%, if it is good enough for God it is good enough for the government. Exempt the bottom third of wage earners to help ease the burden on those who make less.
CB, the great thing about Reagan is he was not afraid to 1) Tell it like it is 2) Go over Congress’ head and take it straight to the people and 3) Surround himself with people he considered to know more than he did.
Comment by Chuck Bryce — January 14, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Chuck:
My comment about the Bush tax increase was that it led to the prosperity of the Clinton administration. You may recall that Clinton built on this increase by leading Congress to reinstate the tax rates of the pre-Reagan years which, much to the consternation of Republicans, lowered interest rates and fueled rapid growth largely by increasing confidence internationally in our determination to cut deficit spending. You may remember the Orange county financial debacle caused by the manager of the county employees retirement fund who was so convinced that the Clinton tax increases would result in recession that he lost billions betting against the economy.
Warren Buffet has called for higher taxes on the wealthy because he knows how unhealthy it is for our economy to allow an increasing percentage of the fruits of our productivity to be concentrated in the bank accounts of the top 1% on the economic ladder. Consider the plight of Mexico. The wealth of Mexico is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population. The government serves their interests and the peasants are left with few opportunities for themselves or their children. Because of the refusal of the ruling class in Mexico to allow themselves to be fairly taxed in order to improve opportunities for all the citizens of Mexico, they now live in fortified compounds, travel everywhere with body guards and live in fear of kidnappings and murder. Is that the way we want to live? Fair levels of taxation benefit everyone including the wealthy.
Comment by JRW — January 15, 2008 @ 12:26 am
JRW:
I keep hearing Warren Buffets name with the quote that he thinks wealthy people are not taxed enough. If he believes that then he should be making large payments to the government and he should be suggesting that all of his wealthy brethren do the same Until I hear of this happening it is just rhetoric.
Do you really think that all of Mexico’s problems can be cured by taxing the rich. Do you not think that the rich will find legal ways to keep their money? Does their government bear no responsibility for the problems.
Once again it is the evil rich, the innovators,the successful that are the problem.
Comment by RGH — January 19, 2008 @ 6:58 pm