Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    September 2010
    S M T W T F S
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Archive for September 17th, 2010

What a difference a day makes

Posted by Richard on September 17, 2010

When Christine O'Donnell stunned the pundits of both parties by winning the Republican primary for Senate in Delaware on Tuesday, she had $50,000 in the bank and trailed Democrat Chris Coons by 16-25 percentage points, depending on the poll. A day later, she had received over $1 million in donations, and Coons' lead was 11 points.

As Ed Morrissey pointed out, the "internals" of that poll were interesting. O'Donnell leads among independents. Her biggest problems right now are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats — both groups would have been much more supportive of primary loser Mike Castle. Delaware is clearly more liberal than the nation — 54% approve of Obama's job performance, significantly higher than the national number of 45%.

But even Delaware voters favor repeal of Obamacare (53-43%), and 62% say the way to create jobs is to cut taxes, not increase government spending. So there's certainly room for a well-run, well-financed O'Donnell campaign to gain support on the issues. Especially if it can move the focus from her "extreme" views to Coons'. After all, this is a hard-core leftist who, some years ago, described himself (with tongue perhaps slightly in cheek) as a "bearded Marxist."

Yeah, O'Donnell has at least one truly flaky view: She urged young people not to masturbate because it necessarily involves "lusting in your heart" and thus violates the 10th Commandment. Oh, my … Well, that's patently incorrect, for one thing. But is this really an important issue? 

I went into work late today after a dental appointment, so I got to hear part of the Dennis Miller Show. Dennis is pretty libertarian — or what P.J. O'Rourke called a "Republican Party reptile." He's pro-choice and strongly supports gays in the military — as he puts it, anyone who's willing to put their life on the line defending us and killing jihadis deserves our thanks and support. He acknowledged that O'Donnell's anti-masturbation view is "pretty kooky." But he made a good point: What are the people who fret about this worried about — that she'll try to outlaw masturbation? Come on!

O'Donnell's other "baggage" appears to be entirely financial — she apparently went through a rough patch during which she failed to pay some taxes and mortgage payments, and she fell way behind in paying her student loans. Well, that sounds not all that different from about half of Obama's cabinet and countless members of Congress. If anything, her financial issues sound more innocent and less calculated.

No, she's not an ideal, perfect candidate. But her opponent's extreme leftist/quasi-Marxist views make him less than perfect, too, even to the average centrist. It's not at all obvious that she's unelectable — or should be. She's articulate, personable, and intelligent (judging from an interview I saw), and she is clearly and unequivocally focusing her campaign on fiscal/economic issues, and from my perspective she's 100% on those. 

I think I'll help her get to the $2 million mark. I suspect she'll get there pretty quickly, with Rush Limbaugh encouraging contributions to her campaign. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

Stop calling them tax cuts

Posted by Richard on September 17, 2010

I saw a Nancy Pelosi soundbite tonight in which she claimed that Republicans were blocking a "tax cut for the middle class" unless Congress also enacts a "tax cut for the wealthiest Americans." I believe it was Orwell who said that if you let your opponent control the language and define the terms, you'll lose the debate. We're not arguing about cutting anyone's taxes.

The phrase "Bush tax cuts" gets over 10 million hits on Google. I use it myself all the time. But it has distorted the debate, and it's time to reclaim the language. What's on the table is whether tax rates go up or not — not whether they go down.

The Tax Foundation has a nice explanation of why the Bush tax cuts (there I go again) are expiring:

During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray).

Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.

Overall, 62 senators supported H.R. 1836 as amended by the Senate, thereby sending it to conference. In the end, 58 senators voted in favor of the conference report.  Nevertheless, because the bill was passed under reconciliation, revenues further than 10 years in the future could not be changed. And so, on December 31, 2010, all of EGTRRA will expire and revert to 2001 law.

The 2003 tax cuts mostly accelerated the original tax cuts, but also put in place new tax cuts for dividends and capital gains. The 2003 tax cut, known as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was also passed under reconciliation.

So, in a nutshell, here's what happened: In 2001 (and again in 2003), Congress voted to cut tax rates through 2010 and to raise them again in 2011. Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party members, most economists, and the majority of likely voters are calling on Congress to rescind the 2011 tax increase and leave tax rates as they are today. That's not a tax cut. That's simply maintaining the status quo.

Believe me, I'm all for really cutting taxes. What the President keeps bragging about doesn't count — those aren't tax rate cuts, they're targeted tax credits with two purposes: behavior modification and rewarding his allies.

But for right now, the subject being debated is whether to allow the largest tax increase in history to take effect on January 1, at a time when unemployment is at near-historic levels and most businesses large and small are already afraid to invest in the future and hire new employees. The subject being debated is whether to administer a potent poison to an economy that's already extremely ill. 

So let's quit talking about "extending the Bush tax cuts" and use more accurate language: we want to stop the tax increases. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »