Yearly Archives: 2011

Heritage foundation on debt deal

It was a sad day when this dumb debt deal was signed.

Ed Feulner

August 2, 2011 at 9:30 am

My fellow conservatives,

Americans are disappointed. They are disappointed that the debate over our debt limit was about the needs of politicians instead of the needs of the country. They are disappointed with a broken government that refuses to fix itself. And they are disappointed that the Budget Control Act that passed the House last night and is likely to pass the Senate today does not make the transformative changes this nation requires.

There are several elements of this plan that are simply unacceptable, even when framed inside the narrow political confines that limited a better outcome (i.e., the White House and Senate are still controlled by spend-tax-and-borrow liberals).

No AAA Reassurance: This plan is insufficient to protect our nation’s AAA credit rating. On Friday, Moody’s stated that neither the Boehner nor Reid proposals would restore our solid credit footing. This plan did not improve upon those. Economists from Barclays Capital in London said of the deal: “Overall, our first impression is that the agreement by itself is unlikely to be sufficient to cause S&P to remove the U.S. from being on ratings watch for possible downgrade.” Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of U.S. fixed-income strategy at Barclays, was blunter: “The chances of a downgrade after this deal remain substantially high.”

Irresponsible Defense Cuts: There are two rounds of defense cuts that risk our national security. If all are imposed, we will have a trillion dollars less than we need to protect our nation and defend its interests. Despite increased risks from Iran and North Korea and ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, this deal further cripples a defense budget already sized for peacetime and ignores the real problem—runaway entitlement spending.

More Tax Hikes: Yesterday, White House officials took to the airwaves to assure their liberal base that the new “special” committee would recommend tax hikes. This is one White House assurance you can take to the bank. This deal sets the conditions for a massive tax increase from expiring lower rates and committee horse-trading. Even President Obama agreed in December 2010 that raising taxes to discourage job-creating investments in the middle of a recession was a bad idea. It’s still a bad idea.

An Unclear Balanced Budget Approach: Conservatives are united behind the idea that Congress should balance its budget year-in and year-out, but the devil is in the details. The debt limit deal is a missed opportunity to drive spending down toward a balanced budget. Moreover, the debt limit deal does little to advance the cause of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Not all balanced budget amendments are created equal. We need an amendment with proper taxpayer protections so that Congress can’t simply hike taxes to balance the budget.

Punting Responsibility: The American people don’t send politicians to Washington in order to appoint special committees and duck responsibility. They must make tough choices to reform entitlements. We’ve had enough commissions be ignored. This half-Democrat, half-Republican committee will probably deadlock, too (or worse, push a tax hike), so we’ll get little out of it.

These are just some of the problems identified in the $2.5 trillion debt deal. There are others.

Conservatives put up a good fight for the non-defense spending cuts needed to reduce the size and cost of government. While Senate Democrats sat on their hands for 800-plus days, doing nothing, House conservatives introduced and passed the Ryan budget plan and the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, each of which was a step in the right direction.

The debt limit deal is a disappointment, but conservatives have made a real difference. We can be proud of the progress we made changing the dialogue in Washington. Just as with the Ryan budget plan, we are talking in terms of spending cuts for a smaller, less costly government, not spending increases. Popular opinion is with the conservative philosophy of limited government.

But this debt increase was the highest in history. This is not surprising, given the record spending increases and deficits we’ve witnessed over the past two years. We cannot maintain this course and keep our creditworthiness or create jobs and economic growth.

Given the framework we are now living under, and the water that has passed under the proverbial bridge, it is now up to conservatives to:

Pursue Entitlement Reform: Social Security is operating in the red and faces a long-term deficit of nearly $8 trillion. Medicare is the most costly, and least efficient, federal program. Obamacare is simply an abomination that must be repealed. Congress must move to make significant reforms to entitlement programs. We can no longer accept weak recommendations and a lack of political courage. There can be no more budget-related debates in Washington that ignore this looming and preventable crisis.

Pursue Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform: The current tax system is too complex and penalizes productive work. Lawmakers see job creators and entrepreneurs as easy targets to soak so that they can spend more. It’s a terrible cycle that is costly to our economy. The committee set up by the debt framework should take up tax “reform” rather than simply tax “hikes.” Creating a simple, flatter system that protects low-income workers, encourages investment, and fuels business growth would be a major step on the road to economic recovery.

Maintain a Strong Military to Defend America: With nearly a trillion dollars in cuts to our military on the table during a period of heightened risk and global operations, it is imperative that Congress ensure that these cuts do not eliminate badly needed resources for our fighting men and women and that they have the best equipment and technology to keep America safe. As Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes stated: “America is different from other countries for a lot of reasons, but surely one of the biggest is that we are masters of our fate. We are fortunate to have an armed force that not only defends us but keeps us from being at the mercy of other countries, many of whom wish us ill.”

Get Serious About Spending and Regulation: Washington has a unique way of taking one step forward and three steps back. We must remain vigilant about preventing new spending and regulations that hinder economic growth, stifle job creation, and grow the federal government.

To drive spending down toward a balanced budget, reduce the share of the economy devoted to public debt, preserve America’s ability to protect the nation, and shift to a job-creating tax system without raising taxes, The Heritage Foundation has published “Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity.” The Heritage plan does what Congress should have done and failed to do. Conservatives: Continue to fight for what is right for America.

Onward!

Edwin J. Feulner
President, The Heritage Foundation

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.3

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.3

Analysis from Politico below:

Pawlenty: ‘It’s not about gender’

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 8/12/11 9:48 AM EDT

Tim Pawlenty kept up his searing criticism of Michele Bachmann Friday morning, deriding the notion that the Minnesota congresswoman has been a “leader” for conservative causes.

At POLITICO’s Playbook Breakfast in Des Moines, Pawlenty disputed the notion that he had gone after Bachmann too harshly in Thursday night’s GOP presidential debate. Pawlenty said he didn’t think he’d pay a price for attacking the lone female candidate on the stage.

“It’s not about gender. It’s about the issues and it’s about results and it’s about leading and saving our country,” Pawlenty said, noting that “Congresswoman Bachmann likes to assign herself the label of the leader.”

“She says, ‘I led the charge against Obamacare.’ Well, we ended up with Obamacare,” Pawlenty said, mentioning Bachmann’s unsuccessful opposition to federal spending and the 2008 bank bailout.

“Everything she’s led the charge against, she’s failed to accomplish. That’s not gonna be good enough for our nominee for president of the United States,” Pawlenty said. “We’re not gonna have a nominee and we’re not gonna put somebody in the Oval Office who has not achieved results during her time in Congress.”

Prime minister looks at breakdown of nation’s families as real cause

What caused all the riots in England that resulted in five deaths? Prime Minister Cameron thinks it is a result of the breakdown of the family units in England. I think he is right on this point.

“We will fight back against gangs, crime and the thugs who make people’s lives hell and we will fight back hard.”

David Cameron speaks at a youth center in his constituency on August 15, 2011 in Witney.David Cameron speaks at a youth center in his constituency on August 15, 2011 in Witney. Photograph: Getty Images.
It is time for our country to take stock.Last week we saw some of the most sickening acts on our streets.

I’ll never forget talking to Maurice Reeves, whose family had run the Reeves furniture store in Croydon for generations.

This was an 80 year old man who had seen the business he had loved, that his family had built up for generations, simply destroyed.

A hundred years of hard work, burned to the ground in a few hours.

But last week we didn’t just see the worst of the British people; we saw the best of them too.

The ones who called themselves riot wombles and headed down to the hardware stores to pick up brooms and start the clean-up.

The people who linked arms together to stand and defend their homes, their businesses.

The policemen and women and fire officers who worked long, hard shifts, sleeping in corridors then going out again to put their life on the line.

Everywhere I’ve been this past week, in Salford, Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon, people of every background, colour and religion have shared the same moral outrage and hurt for our country.

Because this is Britain.

This is a great country of good people.

Those thugs we saw last week do not represent us, nor do they represent our young people – and they will not drag us down.

But now that the fires have been put out and the smoke has cleared, the question hangs in the air: ‘Why? How could this happen on our streets and in our country?’

Of course, we mustn’t oversimplify.

There were different things going on in different parts of the country.

In Tottenham some of the anger was directed at the police.

In Salford there was some organised crime, a calculated attack on the forces of order.

But what we know for sure is that in large parts of the country this was just pure criminality.

So as we begin the necessary processes of inquiry, investigation, listening and learning: let’s be clear.

These riots were not about race: the perpetrators and the victims were white, black and Asian.

These riots were not about government cuts: they were directed at high street stores, not Parliament.

And these riots were not about poverty: that insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.

No, this was about behaviour…

…people showing indifference to right and wrong…

…people with a twisted moral code…

…people with a complete absence of self-restraint.

Now I know as soon as I use words like ‘behaviour’ and ‘moral’ people will say – what gives politicians the right to lecture us?

Of course we’re not perfect.

But politicians shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality…

…this has actually helped to cause the social problems we see around us.

We have been too unwilling for too long to talk about what is right and what is wrong.

We have too often avoided saying what needs to be said – about everything from
marriage to welfare to common courtesy.

Sometimes the reasons for that are noble – we don’t want to insult or hurt people.

Sometimes they’re ideological – we don’t feel it’s the job of the state to try and pass judgement on people’s behaviour or engineer personal morality.

And sometimes they’re just human – we’re not perfect beings ourselves and we don’t want to look like hypocrites.

So you can’t say that marriage and commitment are good things – for fear of alienating single mothers.

You don’t deal properly with children who repeatedly fail in school – because you’re worried about being accused of stigmatising them.

You’re wary of talking about those who have never worked and never want to work – in case you’re charged with not getting it, being middle class and out of touch.

In this risk-free ground of moral neutrality there are no bad choices, just different lifestyles.

People aren’t the architects of their own problems, they are victims of circumstance.

‘Live and let live’ becomes ‘do what you please.’

Well actually, what last week has shown is that this moral neutrality, this relativism – it’s not going to cut it any more.

One of the biggest lessons of these riots is that we’ve got to talk honestly about behaviour and then act – because bad behaviour has literally arrived on people’s doorsteps.

And we can’t shy away from the truth anymore.

So this must be a wake-up call for our country.

Social problems that have been festering for decades have exploded in our face.

Now, just as people last week wanted criminals robustly confronted on our street, so they want to see these social problems taken on and defeated.

Our security fightback must be matched by a social fightback.

We must fight back against the attitudes and assumptions that have brought parts of our society to this shocking state.

We know what’s gone wrong: the question is, do we have the determination to put it right?

Do we have the determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations?

Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences.

Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort.

Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control.

Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged – sometimes even incentivised – by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally de-moralised.

So do we have the determination to confront all this and turn it around?

I have the very strong sense that the responsible majority of people in this country not only have that determination; they are crying out for their government to act upon it.

And I can assure you, I will not be found wanting.

In my very first act as leader of this party I signalled my personal priority: to mend our broken society.

That passion is stronger today than ever.

Yes, we have had an economic crisis to deal with, clearing up the terrible mess we inherited, and we are not out of those woods yet – not by a long way.

But I repeat today, as I have on many occasions these last few years, that the reason I am in politics is to build a bigger, stronger society.

Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger society.

This is what I came into politics to do – and the shocking events of last week have renewed in me that drive.

So I can announce today that over the next few weeks, I and ministers from across the coalition government will review every aspect of our work to mend our broken society…

…on schools, welfare, families, parenting, addiction, communities…

…on the cultural, legal, bureaucratic problems in our society too:

…from the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights that has undermined personal
responsibility…

…to the obsession with health and safety that has eroded people’s willingness to act according to common sense.

We will review our work and consider whether our plans and programmes are big enough and bold enough to deliver the change that I feel this country now wants to see.

Government cannot legislate to change behaviour, but it is wrong to think the State is a bystander.

Because people’s behaviour does not happen in a vacuum: it is affected by the rules government sets and how they are enforced…

…by the services government provides and how they are delivered…

…and perhaps above all by the signals government sends about the kinds of behaviour
that are encouraged and rewarded.

So yes, the broken society is back at the top of my agenda.

And as we review our policies in the weeks ahead, today I want to set out the priority areas I will be looking at, and give you a sense of where I think we need to raise our

ambitions.

First and foremost, we need a security fight-back.

We need to reclaim our streets from the thugs who didn’t just spring out of nowhere
last week, but who’ve been making lives a misery for years.

Now I know there have been questions in people’s minds about my approach to law and order.

Well, I don’t want there to be any doubt.

Nothing in this job is more important to me than keeping people safe.

And it is obvious to me that to do that we’ve got to be tough, we’ve got to be robust, we’ve got to score a clear line between right and wrong right through the heart of this country – in every street and in every community.

That starts with a stronger police presence – pounding the beat, deterring crime, ready to re-group and crack down at the first sign of trouble.

Let me be clear: under this government we will always have enough police officers to be able to scale up our deployments in the way we saw last week.

To those who say this means we need to abandon our plans to make savings in police budgets, I say you are missing the point.

The point is that what really matters in this fight-back is the amount of time the police actually spend on the streets.

For years we’ve had a police force suffocated by bureaucracy, officers spending the majority of their time filling in forms and stuck behind desks.

This won’t be fixed by pumping money in and keeping things basically as they’ve been.

As the Home Secretary will explain tomorrow, it will be fixed by completely changing the way the police work.

Scrapping the paperwork that holds them back, getting them out on the streets where people can see them and criminals can fear them.

Our reforms mean that the police are going to answer directly to the people.

You want more tough, no-nonsense policing?

You want to make sure the police spend more time confronting the thugs in your neighbourhood and less time meeting targets by stopping motorists?

You want the police out patrolling your streets instead of sitting behind their desks?

Elected police and crime commissioners are part of the answer: they will provide that direct accountability so you can finally get what you want when it comes to policing.

The point of our police reforms is not to save money, not to change things for the sake of it – but to fight crime.

And in the light of last week it’s clear that we now have to go even further, even faster in beefing up the powers and presence of the police.

Already we’ve given backing to measures like dispersal orders, we’re toughening curfew powers, we’re giving police officers the power to remove face coverings from rioters, we’re looking at giving them more powers to confiscate offenders’ property – and over the coming months you’re going to see even more.

It’s time for something else too.

A concerted, all-out war on gangs and gang culture.

This isn’t some side issue.

It is a major criminal disease that has infected streets and estates across our country.

Stamping out these gangs is a new national priority.

Last week I set up a cross-government programme to look at every aspect of this problem.

We will fight back against gangs, crime and the thugs who make people’s lives hell and we will fight back hard.

The last front in that fight is proper punishment.

On the radio last week they interviewed one of the young men who’d been looting in Manchester.

He said he was going to carry on until he got caught.

This will be my first arrest, he said.

The prisons were already overflowing so he’d just get an ASBO, and he could live with that.

Well, we’ve got to show him and everyone like him that the party’s over.

I know that when politicians talk about punishment and tough sentencing people roll their eyes.

Yes, last week we saw the criminal justice system deal with an unprecedented challenge: the courts sat through the night and dispensed swift, firm justice.

We saw that the system was on the side of the law-abiding majority.

But confidence in the system is still too low.

And believe me – I understand the anger with the level of crime in our country today and I am determined we sort it out and restore people’s faith that if someone hurts our society, if they break the rules in our society, then society will punish them for it.

And we will tackle the hard core of people who persistently reoffend and blight the lives of their communities.

So no-one should doubt this government’s determination to be tough on crime and to mount an effective security fight-back.

But we need much more than that.

We need a social fight-back too, with big changes right through our society.

Let me start with families.

The question people asked over and over again last week was ‘where are the parents?

Why aren’t they keeping the rioting kids indoors?’

Tragically that’s been followed in some cases by judges rightly lamenting: “why don’t the parents even turn up when their children are in court?”

Well, join the dots and you have a clear idea about why some of these young people
were behaving so terribly.

Either there was no one at home, they didn’t much care or they’d lost control.

Families matter.

I don’t doubt that many of the rioters out last week have no father at home.

Perhaps they come from one of the neighbourhoods where it’s standard for children to have a mum and not a dad…

…where it’s normal for young men to grow up without a male role model, looking to the streets for their father figures, filled up with rage and anger.

So if we want to have any hope of mending our broken society, family and parenting is where we’ve got to start.

I’ve been saying this for years, since before I was Prime Minister, since before I was leader of the Conservative Party.

So: from here on I want a family test applied to all domestic policy.

If it hurts families, if it undermines commitment, if it tramples over the values that keeps people together, or stops families from being together, then we shouldn’t do it.

More than that, we’ve got to get out there and make a positive difference to the way families work, the way people bring up their children…

…and we’ve got to be less sensitive to the charge that this is about interfering or nannying.

We are working on ways to help improve parenting – well now I want that work accelerated, expanded and implemented as quickly as possible.

This has got to be right at the top of our priority list.

And we need more urgent action, too, on the families that some people call ‘problem’, others call ‘troubled’.

The ones that everyone in their neighbourhood knows and often avoids.

Last December I asked Emma Harrison to develop a plan to help get these families on track.

It became clear to me earlier this year that – as can so often happen – those plans were being held back by bureaucracy.

So even before the riots happened, I asked for an explanation.

Now that the riots have happened I will make sure that we clear away the red tape and the bureaucratic wrangling, and put rocket boosters under this programme…

…with a clear ambition that within the lifetime of this Parliament we will turn around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families in the country.

The next part of the social fight-back is what happens in schools.

We need an education system which reinforces the message that if you do the wrong thing you’ll be disciplined…

…but if you work hard and play by the rules you will succeed.

This isn’t a distant dream.

It’s already happening in schools like Woodside High in Tottenham and Mossbourne in Hackney.

They expect high standards from every child and make no excuses for failure to work hard.

They foster pride through strict uniform and behaviour policies.

And they provide an alternative to street culture by showing how anyone can get up and get on if they apply themselves.

Kids from Hammersmith and Hackney are now going to top universities thanks to these schools.

We need many more like them which is why we are creating more academies…

…why the people behind these success stories are now opening free schools…

…and why we have pledged to turn round the 200 weakest secondaries and the 200
weakest primaries in the next year.

But with the failures in our education system so deep, we can’t just say ‘these are our plans and we believe in them, let’s sit back while they take effect’.

I now want us to push further, faster.

Are we really doing enough to ensure that great new schools are set up in the poorest
areas, to help the children who need them most?

And why are we putting up with the complete scandal of schools being allowed to fail, year after year?

If young people have left school without being able to read or write, why shouldn’t that school be held more directly accountable?

Yes, these questions are already being asked across government but what happened last week gives them a new urgency – and we need to act on it.

Just as we want schools to be proud of we want everyone to feel proud of their communities.

We need a sense of social responsibility at the heart of every community.

Yet the truth is that for too long the big bossy bureaucratic state has drained it away.

It’s usurped local leadership with its endless Whitehall diktats.

It’s frustrated local organisers with its rules and regulations

And it’s denied local people any real kind of say over what goes on where they live.

Is it any wonder that many people don’t feel they have a stake in their community?

This has got to change. And we’re already taking steps to change it.

That’s why we want executive Mayors in our twelve biggest cities…

…because strong civic leadership can make a real difference in creating that sense of belonging.

We’re training an army of community organisers to work in our most deprived neighbourhoods…

…because we’re serious about encouraging social action and giving people a real chance to improve the community in which they live.

We’re changing the planning rules and giving people the right to take over local assets.

But the question I want to ask now is this.
Are these changes big enough to foster the sense of belonging we want to see?

Are these changes bold enough to spread the social responsibility we need right across our communities, especially in our cities?

That’s what we’re going to be looking at urgently over the coming weeks.

Because we won’t get things right in our country if we don’t get them right in our communities.

But one of the biggest parts of this social fight-back is fixing the welfare system.

For years we’ve had a system that encourages the worst in people – that incites laziness, that excuses bad behaviour, that erodes self-discipline, that discourages hard work…

…above all that drains responsibility away from people.

We talk about moral hazard in our financial system – where banks think they can act recklessly because the state will always bail them out…

…well this is moral hazard in our welfare system – people thinking they can be as irresponsible as they like because the state will always bail them out.

We’re already addressing this through the Welfare Reform Bill going through parliament.

But I’m not satisfied that we’re doing all we can.

I want us to look at toughening up the conditions for those who are out of work and receiving benefits…

…and speeding up our efforts to get all those who can work back to work

Work is at the heart of a responsible society.

So getting more of our young people into jobs, or up and running in their own businesses is a critical part of how we strengthen responsibility in our society.

Our Work Programme is the first step, with local authorities, charities, social enterprises and businesses all working together to provide the best possible help to get a job.

It leaves no one behind – including those who have been on welfare for years.

But there is more we need to do, to boost self-employment and enterprise…

…because it’s only by getting our young people into work that we can build an ownership society in which everyone feels they have a stake.

As we consider these questions of attitude and behaviour, the signals that government sends, and the incentives it creates…

…we inevitably come to the question of the Human Rights Act and the culture associated with it.

Let me be clear: in this country we are proud to stand up for human rights, at home and abroad. It is part of the British tradition.

But what is alien to our tradition – and now exerting such a corrosive influence on behaviour and morality…

…is the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights in a way that has undermined personal responsibility.

We are attacking this problem from both sides.

We’re working to develop a way through the morass by looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights.

And we will be using our current chairmanship of the Council of Europe to seek agreement to important operational changes to the European Convention on Human Rights.

But this is all frustratingly slow.

The truth is, the interpretation of human rights legislation has exerted a chilling effect on public sector organisations, leading them to act in ways that fly in the face of common sense, offend our sense of right and wrong, and undermine responsibility.

It is exactly the same with health and safety – where regulations have often been twisted out of all recognition into a culture where the words ‘health and safety’ are lazily trotted out to justify all sorts of actions and regulations that damage our social fabric.

So I want to make something very clear: I get it. This stuff matters.

And as we urgently review the work we’re doing on the broken society, judging whether it’s ambitious enough – I want to make it clear that there will be no holds barred…

…and that most definitely includes the human rights and health and safety culture.

Many people have long thought that the answer to these questions of social behaviour is to bring back national service.

In many ways I agree…

…and that’s why we are actually introducing something similar – National Citizen Service.

It’s a non-military programme that captures the spirit of national service.

It takes sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds and gets them to work together.

They work in their communities, whether that’s coaching children to play football, visiting old people at the hospital or offering a bike repair service to the community.

It shows young people that doing good can feel good.

The real thrill is from building things up, not tearing them down.

Team-work, discipline, duty, decency: these might sound old-fashioned words but they are part of the solution to this very modern problem of alienated, angry young

people.

Restoring those values is what National Citizen Service is all about.

I passionately believe in this idea.

It’s something we’ve been developing for years.

Thousands of teenagers are taking part this summer.

The plan is for thirty thousand to take part next year.

But in response to the riots I will say this.

This should become a great national effort.

Let’s make National Citizen Service available to all sixteen year olds as a rite of passage.

We can do that if we work together: businesses, charities, schools and social enterprises…

…and in the months ahead I will put renewed effort into making it happen.

Today I’ve talked a lot about what the government is going to do.

But let me be clear:

This social fight-back is not a job for government on its own.

Government doesn’t run the businesses that create jobs and turn lives around.

Government doesn’t make the video games or print the magazines or produce the music that tells young people what’s important in life.

Government can’t be on every street and in every estate, instilling the values that matter.

This is a problem that has deep roots in our society, and it’s a job for all of our society to help fix it.

In the highest offices, the plushest boardrooms, the most influential jobs, we need to think about the example we are setting.

Moral decline and bad behaviour is not limited to a few of the poorest parts of our society.

In the banking crisis, with MPs’ expenses, in the phone hacking scandal, we have seen some of the worst cases of greed, irresponsibility and entitlement.

The restoration of responsibility has to cut right across our society.

Because whatever the arguments, we all belong to the same society, and we all have a stake in making it better.

There is no ‘them’ and ‘us’ – there is us.

We are all in this together, and we will mend our broken society – together.

Federal Revenues Have More Than Tripled Since 1965

Federal Revenues Have More Than Tripled Since 1965

Overall tax revenues have risen despite a recent decline due to the recession. Congress cut income taxes and the death tax in 2001 and capital gains taxes and dividends in 2003, yet revenues continued to surge even after the tax cuts were passed.

INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010)

 

Federal Revenues Have More Than Tripled Since 1965

Source:White House Office of Management and Budget.

Chart 14 of 42

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich

Max Brantley this morning on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:  

Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for investment income. Candidates such as U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin believe — with election results to support them — that Americans support such a tax system.

 It appears according the chart below that the rich do sacrifice more than others which contradicts Max Brantley’s statment above. Welcome back Max. We missed you!!!

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the U.S. tax system is already highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all.

PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES (2008)

 
Source: Tax Foundation and Internal Revenue Service.

Chart 13 of 42

In Depth

  • Policy Papers for Researchers

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

Brummett: Republicans think Wisconsin “public employee unions are too fat”

John Brummett in his article, “Economic expansion comes to Wisconsin,” August 15, 2011, asserts:

So this estimated $35 million got spent by national special interest groups on these recall campaigns, these temper tantrums. This is a big chasm; generally speaking, Republicans think public employee unions are too fat while Democrats think they are noble champions of working people in a world the Republicans want to hand over to the untaxed super-rich.

This is where Brummett misses the boat. The problem is not just that the public employee unions are too fat, but that they exist at all. Take a look at this article below:

February 19, 2011

FDR’s Ghost Is Smiling on Wisconsin’s Governor

By Patrick McIlheran

 

Somewhere, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is grinning past his cigarette holder at Wisconsin’s governor. They are on the same page regarding government unions.

Except that Scott Walker — Republican cheapskate, his visage Hitlerized on signs waved by beet-faced union crowds besieging the Capitol — is kind of a liberal squish compared to FDR. He’s OK with some collective bargaining.

Walker, you might have heard, wants some changes in how Wisconsin deals with unions. He wants state employees to pay 5.8% of their salaries toward their pensions (they pay almost nothing now) and he wants them to cover 12.6% of their health care premiums (their share would go up from $79 a month to about $200; the average private-sector sap pays about $330).

Unions are enraged. They’ve been calling such increases unspeakable since Walker was elected handily in November. Then, Feb. 10, Walker went further. He’d allow public-sector unions to negotiate only pay, not benefits, mainly because he wants HSA-style health plans and 401(k)-style retirements for state workers, and unions would fight that, tooth and ragged red claw.

So unions erupted. Teachers faked illness in such numbers as to close school districts for days. Mobs beat on the doors of legislative chambers. And in some heavenly Hyde Park, the great liberal god of the 1930s is saying he saw it all along.

Roosevelt’s reign certainly was the bright dawn of modern unionism. The legal and administrative paths that led to 35% of the nation’s workforce eventually unionizing by a mid-1950s peak were laid by Roosevelt.

But only for the private sector. Roosevelt openly opposed bargaining rights for government unions.

“The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, “I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place” in the public sector. “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government.”

And if you’re the kind of guy who capitalizes “government,” woe betide such obstructionists.

Roosevelt wasn’t alone. It was orthodoxy among Democrats through the ’50s that unions didn’t belong in government work. Things began changing when, in 1959, Wisconsin’s then-Gov. Gaylord Nelson signed collective bargaining into law for state workers. Other states followed, and gradually, municipal workers and teachers were unionized, too.

Even as that happened, the future was visible. Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee’s mayor in the 1950s and the last card-carrying Socialist to head a major U.S. city, supported labor. But in 1969, the progressive icon wrote that rise of unions in government work put a competing power in charge of public business next to elected officials. Government unions “can mean considerable loss of control over the budget, and hence over tax rates,” he warned.

There was “a revolutionary principle rather quietly at work in American government,” he wrote.

The principle was working at about 100 decibels in Wisconsin’s Capitol last week, once the union drum-beaters got going. What worked them up was the money they’d concede, they said, but even more that Walker would make their unions surrender the control they’d gained over every government budget.

Walker, like other Republicans, was long accused of hating government. For eight years as chief executive of heavily Democrat Milwaukee County, he would not raise taxes, which opponents said showed his contempt for government.

Yet all this past week, he praised public employees and he said the work government does is so necessary, taxpayers should get as much of it for their money as possible. Meanwhile, thousands of schoolteachers on the Capitol lawn manifested their intent to obstruct Government and their belief that the tots back at Roosevelt Elementary could darn well spend a day or three watching Nickelodeon at home.

And, to beat all, the president who now professes to be the new Reagan weighed in to say Walker was being unduly mean to unions. President Obama gave no audible word on whether unions were being unduly mean in shutting down schools.

Walker, good Republican, is no FDR but he is offering Wisconsin a new deal, lower-case. Wisconsin’s been a seedbed of bad ideas since it hatched Progressivism, and for years it’s stuck with unionized government even as the price swelled. Walker’s radical shift is to try securing necessary government at a better price. The unions, whose model depends on making government labor as costly as taxpayers will bear, object.

May they be haunted by the ghost of the 32nd president, and his little dog, too.

Patrick McIlheran is a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial columnist who blogs at jsonline.com/blogs/mcilheran. E-mail pmcilheran@journalsentinel.com

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 12)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 12)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

Posey: Last Minute Plan Falls Short of What is Needed to Curb Debt

 
 

Washington, Aug 1 – Congressman Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) released the following statement regarding his vote against the debt limit deal:

“Our nation is deep in debt and plummeting deeper in the red every day. The Federal government is spending way beyond its means. The credit ratings agencies have warned that the U.S. will lose its AAA credit rating unless Washington enacts a credible, long-term plan to control spending and reduce the national debt. That is what is required.

“The last minute bill put forward today does not achieve this goal. Regardless of its enactment, the U.S. will still be at serious risk of losing its AAA credit rating. To date, the only plan introduced that passes muster for the credit rating agencies is the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation which passed the House with bipartisan support last week and is purposefully being blocked in the Senate.

“Today’s legislation includes a weakened Balanced Budget Amendment option. In my view, it makes no serious effort in bringing us closer to passing-on such a popular and necessary provision to the States for consideration. A Balanced Budget Amendment is needed to ensure that Washington’s addiction to spending is broken. Washington must begin to live within its means. Somehow that principle had to be tossed-out to get the Senate and Administration on board with this deal.

“This bill grows the debt to $16.7 trillion without implementing a long-term plan to control spending. The real crisis is not the Administration’s impending arbitrary deadline to raise the limit, but the lack of a plan to ever repay this money and reverse this terrible trend of deficit spending and debt accumulation.

“Again, I thank the Speaker for his efforts in filling the leadership void and for putting ideas out on the table.”

 

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 9)

Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday.

Our Greatest Protection

By Josiah Kollmeyer

Americans have increasingly come to view government as a vital protector against economic hardship. U.S. politicians, especially from 1900 on, have touted various interventionist economic programs as essential for America’s prosperity and security. Free-market economist Milton Friedman, on the other hand, understood that the best protection for American workers and consumers springs not from government intervention, but from economic freedom. It is this freedom to choose that guards us from exploitation and opens innumerable doors of opportunity.

Friedman describes in his book “Free to Choose” how economic freedom aids consumers. In a competitive market, businesses have strong incentives to produce goods that consumers need and demand. The freedom of new entrepreneurs to grab a share of the population’s demands ensures that the vast majority of consumer needs are met. Also, price spikes are mitigated by the competition: even if all existing stores agree to keep prices artificially high through collusion, new vendors can enter the marketplace and thwart their efforts. Consumers cannot be forced to buy particular products, and thus will voluntarily contribute to the expansion of high-quality vendors while abandoning companies that provide poor service. According to Friedman, it is free competition, not government regulation, that protects consumers from exploitation and shortages of essential goods. 

In his works, Friedman also points out the benefit workers gain from economic freedom: the crucial ability to earn wages that reflect the value of their skills. In an open market, companies will compete strategically for the most productive workers, driving wages up and rewarding good work. The free market also allows workers to become entrepreneurs and manage their own time and resources. Free markets ultimately protect workers from poor conditions by providing them with the freedom to choose a job according to their own desires and abilities. By contrast, a legally enforced monopoly system hurts workers, as they can only seek work from an employer with little incentive to offer competitive wages or pleasant working environments. 

Similarly, Friedman argued that the freedom to choose among schools can help protect American children against a poor education. The more options parents have regarding schooling, the more schools will be held accountable for the teaching they provide. The worst situation for any student is to have only one compulsory schooling option, as is true for many inner-city children. Without any alternative, they have nowhere to turn if their assigned school fails to provide a good service. Friedman and his wife Rose were tireless advocates for increased school choice, knowing that increased freedom for families could provide an escape route for children in poor schools.

Dr. Friedman deeply understood the importance of freedom in our society. America’s key to prosperity and long-term economic security is the liberty that enables her citizens to apply their skills and talents without arbitrary government interference. Anytime a citizen is left with only one vendor to buy from, one employer to work for or one school to attend, that citizen becomes vulnerable. Our greatest protection against both corporate and government exploitation lies in our freedom to choose.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 108)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

I just did. I went to the Senator’s website and sent this below:

Debt-Limit Deal: $500 Billion Cut Option

Posted by Chris Edwards

Charles Krauthammer is absolutely right that Republicans must call President Obama’s bluff on the debt-limit vote. I suggested that the House GOP pass $2 trillion in cuts tied to a $2 trillion debt increase, thus handing the matter over to the Senate and the president and refusing to budge.

Krauthammer has the same idea, but with $500 billion in cuts and a $500 billion debt increase. That would certainly be better than Senator McConnell’s chicken-out plan, and it would have the advantage of being so modest in size that I think it would ultimately get large support in the Senate from moderates.

The cuts–small “trims” really–could be taken right from Obama’s own Fiscal Commission report. The table below illustrates how modest and limited are the reforms needed to hit $500 billion in savings over 10 years. Indeed, the data from the commission only covers a nine-year period and includes just some of the proposed entitlement savings.

Obama Fiscal Commission Entitlement Trims $Billions
Trim Health Care Subsidies
Reduce subsidies for medical education $60
Expand Medicare cost sharing $110
Enact tort reform $17
Reduce Medicaid tax gaming $44
Reform Tricare $38
Trim Social Security Growth
Increase benefits by chained CPI $89
Trim Growth in Other Entitlements
Increase other entitlements by chained CPI $43
Reform federal retirement benefits $73
Reduce farm subsidies $10
Reduce student loan interest subsidies $43
Total Trims, 2012-2020 $527

It would be blindingly obvious to most voters that Obama would be responsible for a debt default if he couldn’t bring himself to sign such modest cuts that were proposed by his own fiscal commission. Then, when the government runs up against the debt limit again five months from now, the GOP should have another package of cuts ready to be passed. This next time they could perhaps focus on discretionary program terminations, some of which I’ve proposed here.

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.2

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.2

Ben Smith wrote a fine article:

August 11, 2011
Categories:

2012

Romney’s non-answer

Byron York asked Mitt Romney directly about the report that he’d bragged to S&P about a 2002 tax hike, and he again dodged the question, giving an answer that’s true but irrelevant:

I don’t believe in raising taxes and as governor I cut taxes 19 times … I was fortunate enough to be a governor who got an increase in the credit rating of my state … Our president simply doesn’t know how to lead and how to grow our economy.

One honest answer, which former Romney aide Eric Kriss gave me, was the former governor opposed taxes broadly, but that you tell ratings agencies what they want to hear, and they don’t care if you raise taxes or cut spending as long as the numbers run up. But that answer gets in the way of the claim that the U.S. downgrade is a judgement on spending. 

The other answer is also obvious: Romney governed as a right-leaning technocrat, not an ideologue, and he’s hoping to squeeze through on the left side of this primary without getting into the details of governance.

Posted by Ben Smith 09:51 PM