• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

From the "current batch" of "Repubs."

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Maybe some Conservative Republicans might do a better job than the Liberal Republicans that have become known as the "current batch"

Ryan's Road Map

Posted 07:03 PM ET


Fiscal Policy: The godmother of the Tea Party movement suggests we bypass presidential commissions and Oval Office compromises on tax cuts and follow a well-thought-out path to fiscal discipline and prosperity.

To paraphrase President Obama's famous quote: We won, although one would never know it from the rush to let the current Congress — a roundly "refudiated" and defeated Congress — decide the fate of extending the current tax rates established by the Bush tax cuts nearly a decade ago.

The House Democratic caucus, populated by the largest number of lame ducks in recent memory, is being allowed to decide whether the compromise worked out between President Obama and Senate Republicans will even be brought to the floor for a vote.

The Tea Party is upset that a hard-fought election triumph is once again being squandered in the proverbial "smoke-filled" rooms.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin suggests that the GOP act like it won a clear and convincing victory and simply follow the "Roadmap for America's Future" offered by one of its own, Rep. Paul Ryan.

Palin says we "should not settle for the big government status quo, which is what the presidential commission offers."

Nor, we might add, should we settle for the mere extension of current rates, the permanent enshrinement of ObamaCare, and the ongoing intrusion of big government into our daily lives.

The way to accomplish that is to starve the beast, and if there is any redistribution of wealth to be done, it will be from government back to the people who earned it and to the entrepreneurs who will risk theirs to create more for all of us.

Palin notes that while Ryan's road map is not perfect, it returns power to the people and is a real plan with real promise.

As she notes, "The CBO estimates that under the Roadmap, by 2058 per-person GDP would be around 70% higher than the current trend."

The national debt would not disappear, but we would stop making the hole deeper. Palin notes that while under the commission's proposals debt would rise to 433% of GDP by 2060, under "Rep. Ryan's Roadmap, the CBO estimates that debt would rise much more slowly, peaking at 99% in 2040 and then dropping back to 77% by 2060."

It accomplishes this by getting unproductive government off people's backs and its hands out of our pockets.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/556690/201012131903/Ryans-Road-Map.htm
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Republicans poring over a 1,924-page overarching spending bill proposed by Democrats to cover the rest of the fiscal year are threatening to grind the legislation to a halt, citing hidden earmarks and massive spending that would be enacted into law without a review process.

Two sources who spoke to Fox News are describing the legislation as "a total mess."

Devolving into pandemonium, a source said "all hell is breaking loose" ahead of a Republican policy lunch in which Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina were expected to insist the omnibus bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held.

They also were expected to seek debate on all earmarks and any amendments. According to one source, Republican anger is aimed at the fact that earmarks are buried and word searches are so tough it's hard to dig out the details.

On top of that, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., also is revolting against the Democratic-sponsored bill, saying she will not support an omnibus spending bill unless it includes an amendment proposed by McCaskill and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that calls for a three-year cap in discretionary spending. Democratic leaders told McCaskill on Monday that they would meet a one-year gap, which she rejected, according to sources familiar with the conversations.

The fiscal year runs from Oct. 1-Sept. 30. Currently, a continuing resolution, the stopgap measure to keep government operational until a budget is passed, is set to expire on Saturday. If another CR or the bill itself isn't passed and signed into law by President Obama by then, the government will shut down.

A spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "all hell is not breaking loose just yet" at the policy lunch that began at 12:30. "But I'm sure there will be a robust conversation."

On the House side, Republican leader John Boehner is apparently warning that if the Senate sends over the bill as it is, "We will work to kill it."

Opponents of the measure are finding support among conservative groups who describe the legislation as a Democratic attempt to lock in 2010's $3.5 trillion budget for the next year without allowing any spending cuts."Despite the dire fiscal crisis the nation faces, with a $13.8 trillion national debt that cannot be paid, and in spite of the American people who are demanding action to cut spending, Congress is busy voting to kick the can for yet another year. A vote for the continuing resolution is a vote for another trillion dollar-plus deficit, and that is simply unacceptable to all Americans. Any politician in Congress that has ever promised to reduce the deficit should vote 'no' on this continuing resolution," Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said in a statement Tuesday.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I like the idea of individual unemployment savings accounts . I've been saying the same thing about Canada's unemployment system for years. let the individual decide how much insurance coverage they want, whether it be full income for 6 months or 75% for 9 months for example.

It could still be run through payroll and administered by Government, but your contributions/premiums would go into your own account. If you don't use it before retirement it could be paid out, either monthly with your Social Security/CPP or a lump sum.


USA TODAY OPINION

By Mitt Romney

Death and taxes, it is said, are life's only two certainties. But in the wake of President Obama's tax compromise with congressional Republicans, only death retains the status of certainty: The future for taxes has been left up in the air. And uncertainty is not a friend of investment, growth and job creation.

The deal has several key features. It reduces payroll taxes, extends unemployment benefits and keeps current tax rates intact. So far, so good. But intermixed with the benefits are considerable costs of consequence. Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November, it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement. The new, more conservative Congress should reach a better solution.

The deal keeps current tax rates from rising to pre-Bush era levels for two years. But in 2013, unless Congress acts again, rates will increase dramatically.

Extension temporary

Of course, delay now is better than an immediate tax hike. But because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost. When entrepreneurs and employers make decisions to start or expand an enterprise, uncertainty about tax rates translates directly into a reduced propensity to invest and to hire. With only a two-year extension, investors know that before their returns are realized, tax rates may be jacked up to the levels favored by President Obama. So while the tax deal will succeed in temporarily putting more money in the hands of consumers, it will fail to deliver its full potential for creating lasting growth.

It will also add to the deficit. In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation. But once again, because the tax deal is temporary, a large portion of this beneficent effect is missing. What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.

Part of the tax deal is a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. The president was insistent, however, that only the employee's payroll taxes be reduced — the portion paid by the employer is to remain the same. Again, the president is looking to get more money into the hands of the consumer to boost near-term spending. But by refusing to lower the cost of hiring a new employee, he fails to encourage what the American people want even more than lower taxes — more good jobs. Like the income tax deal, the payroll tax deal will add to the deficit.

For those without jobs, the tax compromise extends unemployment benefits for 13 months. A decent and humane society must have a strong safety net for the unemployed. I served for 15 years as a lay pastor in my church and saw the heartbreak of joblessness up close; a shattering loss of faith in oneself is but only one of many forms the suffering can take. Nonetheless, the vital necessity of providing for those without work should not be used as an excuse to ignore the very real problems of our unemployment system.

In this, as in so many other arenas of government policy, unemployment insurance has many unintended effects. The indisputable fact is that unemployment benefits, despite a web of regulations, actually serve to discourage some individuals from taking jobs, especially when the benefits extend across years.

Redo jobless benefits

The system is also not designed for a flexible economy like ours in which some employees move from job to job for short periods, and are therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation when they are faced with a protracted spell without work.

To remedy such problems we need a very different model, perhaps establishing individual unemployment savings accounts over which employees would exercise direct control when they lose their jobs, or putting in place financial incentives for employers to hire and train the long-term unemployed. One thing is certain: While we cannot rebuild our flawed system overnight, we are surely not required to borrow the funds to pay for it. In spending $56.5 billion to extend benefits, the deal is sacrificing the bedrock Republican principle that new expenditures be paid for with offsetting budget cuts.

President Obama has reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections. But the long term health of our great engine of prosperity will remain very much in doubt. To the twin inevitabilities of death and taxes, we may now have to add persistent high unemployment.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
WASHINGTON -- A growing chorus of conservative criticism is prompting some House members to rethink the $850 billion package of tax cuts and extended jobless benefits that President Barack Obama negotiated with top Republicans in Congress.

The attacks are unlikely to derail the measure, which gets a final vote Wednesday in the Senate, to be followed by a debate and vote in the House. But they underscore the difficulty of building centrist coalitions after an election in which tea party conservatives ousted many Democrats and some veteran Republicans who were seen as too willing to compromise with opponents.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and the Tea Party Patriots have denounced the tax plan, which previously was criticized mainly by liberals as a giveaway to the wealthy. The new reproach from conservatives is that the package would swell the federal debt while failing to make permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 by then-President George W. Bush.

Congressional insiders still predict the tax plan will pass in some form before Jan. 1, when almost every American's income tax rates would go up if a new law isn't in place. But House passage this week seems a bit less certain than before, and Obama's supporters are watching anxiously to see how many opponents on the right will join those on the left.

"The longer we wait, the harder it's going to be," said Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who is leaning against the package. He said House leaders probably are close to assembling enough support to pass it, but many GOP lawmakers are hearing from constituents who follow commentators such as Limbaugh.



Dec. 6: President Obama speaks after meeting with Democratic congressional leaders on a deal to extend tax cuts.
Related Video


House Democrats Caucus on Tax Cuts

Future of tax structure in U.S.
The radio talk show host says the package should cut taxes, not leave them at the Bush-era levels.

The group Tea Party Patriots also urges the tax package's defeat. The legislation was crafted in secret, the group's petition says, and it fails to kill the estate tax, a goal of many hard-right groups.

But other tea party groups, including Freedomworks, support the tax compromise. Freedomworks, headed by former House Republican Dick Armey, says conservatives should be pleased to see the Bush tax cuts extended for another two years when Democrats still control Congress and the White House.

The tax cut debate is splitting Republicans at several levels. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney criticized the plan Tuesday in a column for USA Today.

"Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November," Romney wrote, "it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement." It will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt, he said, "when we are already drowning in red ink."
 
Top