Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Retread Health Care, The Mount Vernon Statement, and The Online Tax Revolt

Okay, I had indicated I was going to do my due diligence and drag myself through the President's "new" proposal for health insurance reform.  I started reading.  And having started on the first page, I stopped.

Because there wasn't really anything new.  So I'm going to save it until Thursday's show summit is over, and I'll see if I have anything new.  Because whatever has been said has been said.  Bored now.

However, I have two other things that caught my eye that are worth reading (and joining).

First up is the Mount Vernon Statement, which I received emails from at least three sources on.  And they all pointed me to the Heritage Foundation, which for those of you who are confused about what conservatism is, is the final word in what really is conservative.  So I had to take a read:

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

Essentially, it's a broad statement of conservative principles, and a general guide for why conservatism (in the broad sense) is the way to go.  And while I still consider myself more libertarian than traditionally conservative, there are parts that speak to the core of my political philosophy.

Needless to say, I signed up. 

Earlier in the day, I finally got over to the Online Tax Revolt.  From the site:

“The Online Tax Revolt is open to every American who believes taxes and spending are out of control, harmful to our country and a threat to our nation’s future,” said Campaign Chairman Ken Hoagland. “Our economic future and that of future generations is at stake. We need taxes that are lower and a tax structure that’s fair. We’re in serious trouble and it falls to us to get the nation back on track. This march is a wake-up call to everyone in Washington that the American people won’t be ignored any longer.”
I joined up on this as well, as *surprise* part of the Neal Boortz's FairTax Brigade.  An additional disclaimer is that the site is paid for by Americans for Fair Taxation (yeah, it's the FairTax people).  But if the FairTax isn't your particular flavor of tax reform, there's a Reagan Tax Revolt Team, a flat tax team, a veteran's team, a senior's team, tea flavors of Tea (partiers), among others, as well as the option to march on your own without being allied to any of the options.  So if you think the current tax mess is a bad thing, and that spending has gone insane, check it out and sign up.  And if everybody that comments regularly joins up on one of the FairTax brigades, I'll stop posting on the FairTax (except on April 15) until next year.

(Yeah, I know that won't happen.  I'm such a bastard.  Right, Toad?)

So the options are either to continue try ramming the same crap through or really try to go a new direction than the one we have been going for so long.


Toad734 said...

But taxes have only gone down since Obama has taken office. And the reason we have such a deficit is because of Bush's tax cuts, his 800 billion dollar IRaq folly and his 700 billion no strings attached bail out.

Where were these guys several years ago when this was in the making? Its like blaming your closing pitcher for losing the game by allowing a homerun when the guy before him allowed 12 runs.

And give me a break with these teabaggers, its a revolt about taxes yet 95% of the think taxes under Obama have gone up, only 2% know they have gone down...And this is a party who claims to be about taxes yet they don't even know the facts or what they are talking about.

Only 12% of the general population knows taxes have gone down, 24% think that Obama has raised taxes and 11% don't know.

The people on the streets with the misspelled street signs talking about socialism, taxes and wealth distribution don't know what they are talking about....end of story. They think the wealth transfer in this country over the last 9 years went from the rich to the poor but the reality is that it went from the middle class to the ultra wealthy.

That is why this movement is bullshit. And by the way, the original Tea Party wasn't a revolt against taxes, it was a revolt against taxation without representation which the Teabaggers have, they keep electing the party which represents the big banks, big oil and the lobbyists.

Mike's America said...

Toadbat: Are you completely out of touch with reality?

Have you seen the Obama deficit in comparison to Bush's?


dmarks said...

Toad said: "But taxes have only gone down since Obama has taken office. And the reason we have such a deficit is because of Bush's tax cuts, his 800 billion dollar IRaq folly and his 700 billion no strings attached bail out."

A reality check: Obama's planned and promised huge tax increases (carbon tax, health care plan) have been delayed, due to public outrage.

We're still getting at least as much revenue after Bush's tax cuts as before, so it is false that his tax cuts (most of which were for the middle class, btw) caused the deficit.

Retaliating against the terrorists in Iraq was necessary (not folly), and the cost of that is small for each year.

You are partially right on "[Bush's] 700 billion no strings attached bail out."

But if you check what actually happened, this was strongly pushed by the Democrats, including Obama, and most Republicans opposed it. So this was actually an early policy of the Obama administration.

"Where were these guys several years ago"

That is a pitiful and pointless claim. Might as well ask why Moveon.org did not complain about inflation during the Ford administration!

"And this is a party who claims to be about taxes yet they don't even know the facts or what they are talking about."

I have my disagreements with them, but they are dead on when it comes to tax policy.

"but the reality is that it went from the middle class to the ultra wealthy."

Actually, it has been going from the middle class and rich to the government, thanks to still excessive overtaxation.

"And by the way, the original Tea Party wasn't a revolt against taxes, it was a revolt against taxation without representation..."

The second part is about taxes. You kind of forgot to read that before you submitted it, didn't you?

Either that, or you are making a silly claim like those who say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but was really about states' rights to have slaves.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Patrick, you may have to initiate word verification on your comments until those spammers get lost.

To the subject of deficits, I'll quote Dick Cheney:

"...Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.
O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

Deficits: It's a Republican value!

And it truly is amazing to witness anti-tax Republicans give absolutely no credit to President Obama for lowering taxes.

More rank hypocrisy.

Patrick M said...

Toad: You really don't have much to argue against, so you resort to just insulting the opposition.

But let me clarify an important point. We are getting to a point where taxation is without representation, in a sense. That sense is that we have a tax code that twists things that we really don't know how we're being taxed and from where. Add to that the fact that debt, first under Bush, and then quadrupled under Obama, is creating a burden that will necessitate further taxes down the road, on people who had no say in how we wasted the money today.

So the anger that motivated the Tea Party is far from bullshit. Because they were seeing that the representation that they did vote for buckling like a belt and expanding the government. Then came Obama, with a mix of spending that dwarfed the Bush years, and a tax plan that smacks of class warfare, and their damned common sense told them that sitting on the sidelines and just voting was going to cost them too much.

So I'm not going to defend every single person in the movement, because some of them are idiots. But, like people who do understand the subject, they are on the right track. And some of them will figure it out.

So I'm guessing when you sign up on the online tax protest, you're NOT going to join the tea party brigades either?

Mike, Dmarks: Word.

Shaw: Word verification is gone up now. And the spam is gone.

Now out of curiosity, where did you come up with this O'Neill-Cheney exchange? It's way too easy to say Cheney's full of shit, based on the quote. So I'll ask for a good link or be forced to call BS.

As for the deficits from the GOP during the Bush years, there is no defense for it, and constant growth of the government.

Finally, Toad, Shaw, I can't find a damned link that explains how Obama "lowered" taxes. I see a lot of his bullshit how he will, but no explanation how it was done.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Patrick, here's the source for the quote, Paul O'Neill, Bush's Treasury Secretary:


And heere's the other link about President Obama lowering taxes.

All you would have had to do to verify both of these issues is use Google. Unless you didn't want to learn the facts...Ooops.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: I DID google the phrase "how did Obama lower taxes" and came up empty. That's why I asked about that one.

But now that I read the link you provided, I'm more confused than anything. But I did gather a few things.

First, it looks like he cut taxes down to people that didn't pay taxes anyway. That doesn't sound like tax cuts, that sounds a whole lot more like redistribution. Second, it appears to be another set of gimmicks rather than the simple task of lowering a rate. Either way, it's indicative of using the tax code for manipulation.

I won't defend Cheney on the other quote, because it looks like the same kind of shit Obama is currently pulling, except to buy votes from another constituency.