Why make the past your sacred cow?
Why guess you’ve changed? You’ve changed and how
Yeah, yeah, yeah

Fruit’s grown rotten on the bough
Reap what you sow, with a counterfeit plough
Yeah, yeah, yeah

That was then, but this is now
That was then, but this is now

More sacrifices than an Aztec priest
Standing here straining at that leash
All fall down

Can’t complain, mustn’t grumble
Help yourself to another piece of apple, crumble
And consequently …. hear the rest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPm_v4vTPgw

Given that context, Coburn’s essay in today’s Washington Post prompts a question — just where exactly did the Gang of Six want to go?

They wanted tax increases only, because that is all the Dems will accept. For some reason they think themselves still entitled to whatever they want and that the GOP is just throwing a tantrum. They do not understand or accept that the voters threw out whatever mandate they may have claimed in 2008.

The Donks want to raise taxes (but I repeat myself) and they want to increase spending (again, I repeat myself).

Odd that “Dr. No” would be the guy who:

First, bolts from the Gang of 6 “because he won’t go where they want to go…” (My guess is Tax and Spend)

Then says “Raise taxes. Cut Spending.”

And I had to think about it, because it’s the very definition of “out of left field”.

Then I thought: Maybe Coburn’s setting a trap?

Basically, he’s presented the Donks with something they can get behind (tax hikes) but ties it to something they’ll never get behind (spending cuts) thus setting it up thusly:

The Dems (and Obama) can:

1. Take a deal that raises taxes but cuts spending. (not happening as cutting spending is something Obama and the Dems simply won’t do under ANY circumstances)

2. Try to negotiate a deal that raises taxes but doesn’t touch spending. (Very good trick to find which GOPers aren’t on the fiscal conservative train also…) Much like #1, not happening. It’ll die in the GOP House.

3. Try to split it into two separate bills: One that raises taxes and one that cuts spending.

The Dems will take #3 and try and play it like this:

“Give us the hikes, we’ll give you the cuts…but we vote on the hikes first.”

Needless to say, the hikes don’t get out of the GOP House and the cuts die in the Dem Senate and here’s the trap:

Obama and the Dems are on the record as supporting tax hikes but not spending cuts and the GOP is on record as opposing tax hikes but supporting spending cuts, while nothing gets done.

With a general election coming up in 2012 the Dems are cast as the party that wants to raise your taxes AND increase unsustainable spending. The GOP is cast as the party that wants to cut both taxes AND spending.

Which one looks more fiscally responsible to the highly coveted “independent voters” in that scenario?

I think Coburn’s playing for the party’s prospects down the ticket in 2012 with this.

If I’m wrong, he should be castigated for it, but if I’m right, he’s a genius.

However, I would only be willing to support that AFTER some real border security and enforcement as well as real enforcement against businesses hiring illegals is done for a number of years.

In other words, they have to prove they are serious about the problem first – by serious spending cuts and entitlement reform – before I will believe they are serious.

Once they have proven they are serious, I would support some reasonable tax increases to pay down the debt.

But, as others have commented, if we raise taxes now, it won’t go to solving any of these problems, it will simply go to more spending. That is why it is unacceptable.

It’s kinda like immigration. Demonstrate to us that you can plug the southern border and deal more effectively with legal visitors who overstay their visas and then we’ll discuss and debate what to do with the illegals already here. Get the deficit under control and then we’ll discuss and debate the measures required to pay down the debt.

If you recall, we had all this and all the Bush tax cuts the year the Democrats retook Congress and the deficit was 150 billion- more than 10 times lower than the Obama deficits.

Chuck Schick on May 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Yes, but you realize that Obama cannot be held responsible for anything. After all, he is the first president in history to have inherited any problems, any budget issues, any foriegn policy issues, from previous administrations. So, all of Obama’s spending HAD TO BE DONE. Therefore, he cannot be blamed for deficits. Whereas the evil Bush can be blamed for defecits b/c everything Bush did was a choice that he alone made of his own free will. Unlike Obama who was required by events to spend all of that money.

I am for cutting the size of the federal govt down to borderline anarchy, but even I think there is going to be some tax hikes to get rid of the debt.

Jim T on May 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Let’s assume for a moment that this tax increase is being used to pay down the actual national debt – that’s complete fantasy, of course – but in honor of Walt Disney – let’s just pretend that it will be …

What is a tax increase? Does a 1% tax increase on citizens result in a 1% INCREASE in tax revenues?

I’m going REAL SLOW HERE FOR YA! ;)

No – increasing a tax rate DOES NOT increase revenue that could potentially be used to pay down the debt. In fact – very often – raising taxes depresses the economy enough to actually LOWER TAX REVENUES going into federal coffers.

Over the last 60 years – we have collected (yearly) an average of 17 percent of the GDP in taxes – no matter what tax law was. Sometimes we collect less – like as low as 15%. On ONE occasion – we collected 20 % (the year 2000). That’s ONE YEAR out of the last 60 years.

So tax rates – and tax laws – have little effect on tax revenues. They can – and do – depress the economy – and they can also (if low enough) GROW the economy.

And that is how you INCREASE federal revenues – by growing the economy. If the GDP goes up – then even 15% of that GDP is a much higher actual number of dollars going to the treasury. If you want to use that to pay down the debt.

But a better option?

I told you we can reliably collect about 17% of the GDP in taxes. Yet – we are SPENDING more than 22% of that GDP every year – I think around 25% actually.

If the feds could only spend – oh – say 15% of GDP – then everything collected in taxes above that 15% would be money you could pay down the debt with – and very quickly too.

The problem is – the GOP’s balanced budget amendment “locks in” deficit spending by saying the government can spend no more than 20% of GDP. Well – that’s about three percent HIGHER than our tax revenues. No – I don’t believe the crap in that same amendment that says the government can spend no more than it takes in – because the government always has to make a budget before they know how much in taxes they’re going to get. Budget is due before October – but taxes aren’t due for 7 months after that – in April. That’s why the GOP’s current Balanced Budget Amendment is a complete Ruling Class sham.

Well – it’s not the only reason it’s a sham – but one of the many.

Unfortunately, reverting to pre-2000 spending levels isn’t an easy thing to accomplish given the cost that people are convinced is necessary to wage the war on terrorism while maintaining a military presence deployed worldwide and supporting new entitlement programs such as the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

bayam on May 19, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Wow what a coincidence. All the spending you hate is from the people you hate.

If you recall, we had all this and all the Bush tax cuts the year the Democrats retook Congress and the deficit was 150 billion- more than 10 times lower than the Obama deficits.

Amjean on May 19, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Not just No-but HELL NO!
*channeling John Boehner*

Now go away.

Personally – I have no problem with higher taxes for myself – I TRUST the GOP to eliminate funding for illegal abortions by PPP in the same legislation.

I’m willing to pay a bit extra in taxes to see the NPR defunded too – and I’m sure the GOP will handle that for me.

Extra taxes on me are like water off a duck’s back – I’ll be all smiley happy face when paying them because the GOP will also get rid of funding to educate African men on how to wash their tally wackers.

Extra taxes is PEANUTS for me as long as the NEA is abolished and no longer spending my money on funding artists to make Jesus statues out of cow manure and urine.

Extra Taxes? Pffft! I laugh at them! And then I laugh again! HA HA!! Because I know the GOP is going to also ensure that Obama doesn’t TRANSFER BILLIONS to the Muslim Brotherhood like he promised he would in today’s speech.

Folks – we JUST HAVE TO TRUST THE GOP and support them when they say these taxes are a necessary trade off to get these programs eliminated!!

(hehe … yeah right. Tom Coburn – you and the Republicans pass your tax increase – without getting rid of these phony spending programs – and you’re sunk in 2012. Oh wait – you already ARE SUNK for 2012!)

The problem is we can not trust Congress. So any deal really needs to be put in the Constitution, or we’ll just be screwed within two years.

I am for cutting the size of the federal govt down to borderline anarchy, but even I think there is going to be some tax hikes to get rid of the debt, and it will take years to do it. I don’t think there is any realistic scenario where cuts alone will take care of our problems, and that is damn depressing.

I am also interested in scenarios to get around the federal employee/ unemployment paradox we will have. Where are these folks going to work?

We are in for some hard times folks.

Jim T on May 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Your naivete is impressively astounding. It’s amazing how many ‘conservatives’ swallow this premise without thinking.

When was the LAST time a tax increase was applied to the debt, rather than just being spent before the Presidential ink on the bill was dry?

I am also interested in scenarios to get around the federal employee/ unemployment paradox we will have. Where are these folks going to work?

We are in for some hard times folks.

Of all the conservative articles of faith, this has got to be the one that’s been debunked the most frequently. Yet I still see it here nearly every day. Funny stuff.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 4:12 PM

I’ve never seen it debunked here once. I see idiots like you pushing talking points, but not one of them is ever backed up by any solid logic.

Of all the conservative articles of faith, this has got to be the one that’s been debunked the most frequently. Yet I still see it here nearly every day. Funny stuff.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 4:12 PM

I’m curious to hear your wise economic policy….how exactly does taxation stimulate economic growth, Einstein?

I’m curious. Which rights in the bill of rights do you think we still have?

j_galt on May 19, 2011 at 3:56 PM

For me, all of them except the tenth.

‘Course, they can go ahead and do it anyway. But they’ll be looking for work come next election. Watch and see.