Time for GOP to Push Obama off the Fiscal Cliff
Republicans need to stand for something and start defending conservatism not apologizing for it. Whether we’re talking about economic or individual prosperity, conservative policies work. When Presidents Reagan and Clinton cut taxes, government revenues increased and economies boomed. When babies are born to married couples, their chances of succeeding in life grow exponentially as opposed to falling into a life of poverty and crime, if they are born to single moms.
As Mitt Romney remarked in his NAACP speech, a Brookings Institution study found kids “who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and wait until 21 before they marry and then have their first child, the probability of being poor is two percent. And if those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76 percent.”
When parents are given choices to escape failing public schools with programs like vouchers, their kids’ chances of finishing high school and going to college increases. The Republican Party supports policies that promote an opportunity society versus a government dependent society. Living off welfare and food stamps won’t buy you a home in the suburbs or send your kids to college. Yet Democrats make their pursuit of an ever-growing role of government in our lives sound chic, fulfilling and something to aspire toward.
Congressional Republicans have allowed Democrats and President Barack Obama to use the fiscal cliff battle to paint Republicans as the party of bad while falsely positioning Democrats as the party of good. There’s nothing good about a person or nation living beyond his or her means and that’s what Democrat policies persistently pursue.
As expected, Republicans have lost control of the narrative just like Mitt Romney did during the election because the party won’t stand on terra firma and defend its principles. America doesn’t have a taxing problem we have a spending problem and are living in debt denial. Republicans need to remind Americans that our nation is marching down the path of Greece and Spain both with a 25% unemployment rate unless we reign in our spending.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), entitlement programs of Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are nearly solely responsible for blowing up our deficits in the next 75 years. This is why we need bold entitlement and spending reform and tax reform of the kind Rep. Paul Ryan proposed in his budget plan, The Path to Prosperity. As Bob Woodward’s The Price of Politics notes, CBO confirmed Ryan’s budget would cut $4.4 trillion from the deficit over ten years.
Thanks to Obama’s penchant for spending on his favorite things like the failed stimulus, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank, the president has taken the debt from $10 trillion in 2009 to over $16 trillion in four years. President George W. Bush spent that in eight years. As Senator Rob Portman noted in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, our “national debt now tops $130,000 a person” and allowing the $800 billion in Bush tax cuts to expire for higher earners only pays for “nine days of spending.”
Why aren’t House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell getting their people in line and hammering away at these facts?
Why isn’t the GOP reminding Americans that the $3.2 trillion in Bush tax cuts Obama wants to protect for 98% of Americans “was proposed and put into law largely by Republicans.” So if Obama admits we can’t afford to hit the middle class with tax cuts then it wouldn’t be good to hit 2% with $800 trillion in tax cuts either because this group includes small business owners, who create jobs and put money back into the economy.
Moreover, why isn’t the GOP reminding Americans as Portman wrote only 4% of the $12 trillion of in deficits accumulated from 2002-2011 was due to tax hikes on the rich or that Obama’s $3 trillion budget increases spending by $1 trillion over ten years. Curiously, Obama’s relentless quest to make higher earners pay more in taxes would only pay 7% ($80 billion a year) of Obama’s $1 trillion yearly deficits.
Why aren’t Republicans reminding Americans Obama’s budgets are so out of control they never passed Congress? Obama’s cliff bargain of $1.6 trillion in tax hikes on the rich is the same cost of “the three entitlement programs in 2012,” (p. 379, The Price of Politics) but Obama refuses any reforms to entitlements or cuts in government spending. In ten years Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will cost $3 trillion.
“The single biggest threat to the future of this country—there’s nothing even close—is the unsustainable path we’re on, driven by excessive generosity beyond our ability to pay . . .on very popular programs,” said McConnell, (p.364, The Price of Politics). Why aren’t Republicans telling the American people this story?
If Republicans cave into Obama’s demands to punish higher earners with tax hikes while all other earners enjoy the lower Bush tax cuts, the GOP will lose all credibility with the American people. Looking to the 2014 mid-term elections and the 2016 presidential election, Democrats will campaign against untrustworthy Republicans. “They said they were for lower taxes and raised taxes. Their presidential nominee Mitt Romney changed his positions like the wind to suit the political climate. What does the Republican Party really stand for?”
It’s time for Republicans to stand, deliver and let Obama face his own cliffhanger. America has a spending problem, not a taxing one. Do or die. The moment is now!
Finally! Someone with BALLS! Exactly right. History does not remember who the Senate was when Nero let Rome burn, but it remembers Nero playing his harp. History will remember Obama playing golf while this country burns.
Exceptionally piece, Crystal! You’re absolutely right. At issue here is the fact that we often use the terms “conservative” and “Republican” interchangeably.
However, fact of the matter is that they’re not the same. The term conservative represents a way of life that’s built around a set of core principles.
Whereas, the term Republican (also known as the Grand Old Party or simply the GOP) refers to a political party that has historically been behind conservative candidates and legislation.
And as Crystal said, the GOP is at its best when it has been lock in step with conservative principles.
This is why we can no longer afford to simply take it for granted that every Republican is conservative.
So I’m with Crystal on this one, it’s time for the GOP to stand up and rep conservatism so the world can see that we stand on the “right” side of this spending problem.
Thank you
Ronnie Reagan promised to take government off the backs of enterprising Americans. He told voters that government was not the solution to the nation’s problems; it was the problem. “The nine most terrifying words in the English language,” said Reagan, are, ” ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
During the Reagan administration the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third.
Ronnie was never afraid to raise taxes.
Reagan’s policies led to the greatest financial scandal in American history: the Savings & Loan debacle which cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Ronnie Reagan the Gross Federal Debt under his watch from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms at best could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
Rome started to burn under the Reagan regime, while he was napping in the WH.
Started The Burn of Rome
“and allowing the $800 trillion in Bush tax cuts to expire for higher earners only pays for “nine days of spending.”
did you mean 800 billion?
Like I’ve said many times , ot depends on who you ask and how much research you’ve done…
“It has been about “Starving the Beast” that Reagan and succeeding GOP Administrations, with their “Trickle Down” tax cuts/policies, have used to dismantle middle class social security, medicare and welfare programs. The GOP with their corporate, millionaire and billionaire backers, would prefer policies that shrink government spending on poor and middle class safety nets, in order to reduce defecits that were launched by their policies. Prosperity for the middle class will never occur with GOP economic policies. ”
ERGsfnm
“The harsh reality is the debt isn’t the issue. It’s cash flow. Cash flow is king in all businesses. Debt is a small issue when the government is working well and the middle class is growing. As long as the government feeds the coffers of the rich the rest of us will suffer. The economy can’t carry the rich as it has been doing. They have been busily stashing away $32 trillion in offshore accounts while for most Americans have seen their wages stay flat. Time to return to the tax structure under Carter. It was much cleaner and had a high tax rate at 72%. And you know what, he added 10.5 million jobs even with the oil embargo and gas rationing. Neat trick. No Republican has matched that achievement. ”
Duane7
Carter created more private sector jobs than 4 of the last 5 Republican presidents. Actually, he create almost as many jobs as 4 of the last 5 Republican presidents combined.
—————————-
Republicans frequently have blamed the $787 billion stimulus for the national debt, but, when all government spending is taken into account, the stimulus frankly wasn’t that big. In contrast, the U.S. will have spent nearly $4 trillion on wars in the Middle East by the time those conflicts end, according to a recent report by Brown University. The Bush tax cuts have cost nearly $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
—————————–
The federal budget deficit ballooned under Ronald Reagan, and that may be just the way Republicans like it. Some Republican thinkers have proposed “starving the beast”: that is, cutting taxes in order to use larger deficits to justify spending cuts later. Since Republicans ultimately want lower taxes and a smaller government, what better way is there to cut spending than to make it look urgent and necessary?
Sorry ..meant to say “it depends on who you ask”
It really is a morality issue. The Liberals – oops, Progressives – want to keep people dependent and the Conservatives want to give people a path to prosperity and self-reliance.
Unfortunately politicians generally are not moral philosophers and Demos and Repubs are ALL guilty of working with the lobbyists. Sounds like payola for both to me.
Anyway, CBC is right, we need a moral leader. Perhaps one will come up from the Repubs. The Demos are too busy grabbing money. We shall see.
@ scott…That’s interesting since the econmy has always done better with democratic presidents…
“The common viewpoint is that Republicans are good for business, which is good for the economy. Republican policies – and the more Adam Smith, invisible hand, limited regulation, lassaiz faire the better – are expected to create a robust, healthy, growing economy. Meanwhile, the common view of Democrat policies is that they too heavily favor regulation and higher taxes which are economy killers.
Right?
Well, for those who feel this way it may be time to review the last 80 years of economic history, Bob Deitrick and Lew Godlfarb have done it in a great, easy to read book; “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” (available at Amazon.com) Their heavily researched, and footnoted, text brings forth some serious inconsistency between the common viewpoint of America’s dominant parties, and the reality of how America has performed since the start of the Great Depression
•Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
•Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
•Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
•Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
•Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
•The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
How about some leadership in DC. Let the president take a paycut and his cabinet and all officials making over 200K. It’ll never solve the problem but it will make them reflect on their spending.
@Truevoice
I understand the facts re: market under Repubs vs Demos acutely. I am calling for a moral conservative leader, I have lost faith in the Republicans.
How did the economy do under J Carter? And is it coincidence that the recession which G.W. Bush fought started shortly after his inauguration. Do not think you can blame him for what started so quickly.
To me the problem is career politicians. How can a moral person state he is going to make a career of living off the people???
I know, I know, rambling and ruminating out loud.
@ scott…Bush was worse then Carter…
The economy performed better during the Carter years than it did under Bush. The economy was doing better in 1980 than in 1976.
Many people, even those who voted in 1980, are surprised to hear that as high as the unemployment rate was that year — 7.1 percent — it was actually 0.6 percentage points lower than it had been in the year before Jimmy Carter took office.
Real family income was 1.6 percent higher at the end of the four years of the Carter presidency than it had been at the beginning. By contrast, family income had risen by just 0.6 percent over the prior four years. (In eight years under Bush, real family incomes are up just 0.4 percent.)
Carter also kept the country out of useless wars and settled the Panama Canal dispute. Carter’s legacy was ruined by conservatives and the Big Oil..Remember Carter was environmentally friendly and pushed hard for alternative energy..Something conservatives even to this day do not want. Conservatives aka republicans are trying to do the same thing to president Obama..The difference is now there is a significant minority voting block that will look deeper into the issues rather then listen to the right wing media..Reagan for example was one of the most racist presidents in history but his legacy is protected by the media and by useless uncle toms like Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell
@truevoice, do you work for the DNC? There are too many party-line approved soundbites in your posts.
Re: real income under Carter: of course it was up 1.6%, inflation had taken prices up lots more. Why don’t you mention interest rates? Carter’s motto was “let’s lower our expectations!” Now there is a leader! I was there, the times were very depressing. From Nixon to Carter … some bad presidents.
It is not just democrats, it is dishonest and immoral politicians.
@ walkercolt…I merely state facts that’s all….
@scott..I remember the interest rates…That was some wild shyt..Carter had his flaws but he was light years better then Bush..Carter did some good things such as standing up to Isreal and Big Oil..His focus on alternate energy was forgotten in the Reagan/Bush administrations…But I agree , the interest rates were off the chain…
Good points.
It seems to me that the Republicans should agree to raise the tax rates as President Obama desires, but specify that every penny of the revenue raised go to Debt reduction. “Not” growing the size of the federal government. This would calm President Obama and the Democrats on raising taxes. They would totally loose interest in tax increases if they can not spend the money.
Will the Republicans do this? No, they like to spend other peoples money as much as the Dems. do. Too Bad!
I hear you Crystal, spending is the problem.
Surely there has to be government waste. Increase taxes on the rich but also make the government more efficient. Maybe Republicans should call for eliminating government waste more loudly. I’m even afraid to say it; eliminating government waste means firing unnecessary employees or cutting wages and benefits. But that is the reality of spending cuts. There is no other alternative. It’s painful, I know.
The fact is, taxing the rich will yield only enough income to fund the government for about 6-7 days. Liberal stupidity at it’s best. This fight is just to humiliate the Republicans. I say fine you miserable excuse of a leader, let’s go over the cliff.
@ pam
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.
If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany’s average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.
You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.
Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle — potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going.
As we’ve seen in recent years, when disposable income is concentrated at the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough money to boost the economy.
@ pam
By not taxing the highest-income households, deficit reduction relies too heavily on spending cuts that
harm low- and middle-income Americans.
Historically, deficit-reduction efforts have included a combination of tax increases and spending
cuts. Reflecting this history, recent bipartisan recommendations to address the deficit have also included
both elements.
This balanced approach of combining targeted spending cuts and revenue increases reflects the understanding
that, otherwise, deficit reduction requires spending cuts that are overwhelmingly borne by low- and middleincome
Americans. Domestic government spending tends to fall into two categories: public goods and public
investments that benefit all citizens (e.g., highway investments, basic scientific research, food safety inspections,
and law enforcement) and social insurance programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment
insurance, and food assistance). All citizens lose if spending on public goods and investments are cut. And lowand
middle-income Americans lose considerably more from cuts to social insurance programs, because transfer
payments from programs such as Social Security have a larger relative impact on disposable income for lowerincome
workers, and because programs such as Medicaid and food assistance are means tested.
@ truevoice
“Historically, deficit-reduction efforts have included a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.”
I agree with that, it is the logical thing to do.
Taxes on business can be increased up to a certain limit and government spending can be decreased down to a certain limit; it cannot be decreased beyond domestic government spending, you say. Fine.
Let’s look at the PUBLIC INVESTMENTS category under domestic government spending. It has entities that must be run like a business but are not. They are full of government WASTE. And the public-sector unions that run them are demanding and greedy. In fact it is the public-sector unions that are the beneficiaries of tax increases.
That “balanced approach” sounds alright but public-sector unions unbalance things by being inefficient and always making demands; by their very existence. They have to be eliminated. But that will never happen and so the decline of the Western World.
@ noel
There is no more wateful spending then military spending…Let’s start there…
sorry meant to say “wasteful”…
Thanks again for a thoughtful and insighful perspective, Ms Wright. I am confused, though about who needs to change their ways. I think it is parents. If the parent is single, i.e. never or no longer married to the other parent, is their job or that of government authorities, the media, NGO’s, courts, faith-based leaders, other relatives, neighbors, business or whom to stop murders? Murder may be disproprortionately black on black, while media covers on-white mass murder, but that does not make race per se the cause. People are of different races. Someday there may be less race, but that will not reduce violence. I don’t really believe your want behavior to be addressed discriminantly by race correct? Influences toward unjustified violence, whether sourced from video games, the Neighborhood, poor parenthood, Hollywood..or anyotherh-ood are the cause.
I just heard Crystal on talk radio this morning. I was happy to know she & her website and agenda exists. If left to the main stream (liberal) media we would never know there ARE black conservatives. Crystal, May I suggest you try to get on the “black” talk radio station in Philly, WURD, 990am on the dial. It is so left wing; they talk like Obama is the second coming of Christ. Go to their facebook page & read it.
Thank you for being there & spreading the truth.