This Greg Walden for Congress TV ad was aired in he Portland Metro area this week.
No related posts.
And to fix this problem he wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Go figure.
I think its a good ad but it should go further. To say to a parent that your baby is born with this massive debt is fairly powerful but somewhat esoteric. Who does the baby owe the debt to? What are the implications for your child owing this money.
I would have taken out the constitutional amendment stuff as its fairly boiler plate and no one believes such an amendment would be a panacea for our problems.
What I would have substituted would be the implications of that debt. Your baby has this huge debt, what does that mean in terms of quality of life? How has your child’s life been sacrificed to make ours more pleasant?
What this debt means in terms of the expected tax rate your child will pay if we keep up with the insane spending would be a good way to point this out.
The projected tax rates for recently born children are devastating, and available. As an example, by the year 2030, the payroll tax (SS and medicare) will need to double to over 30%. That’s just payroll taxes. Add in federal and state income taxes and its easy to see how this becomes an absolutely crushing figure.
The short story is – Pointing out the baby’s debt is good, but ethereal. Pointing out the taxes that baby will incur to pay that debt would be far more effective.
And pointing out that you are for extending tax cuts and not for reducing SSI or Medicare or defense spending would expose you as a deficit hypocrite. So best to not go there.
>And pointing out that you are for extending tax cuts and not for reducing SSI or Medicare or defense spending would expose you as a deficit hypocrite.
Not really. Democrats have run up the debt like nobodies business and everyone knows it. You guys have pretty much lost that argument for a generation so forget about getting into deficit hypocrite stuff.
But lets say you do. I mean you are an idiot, so one would assume you would go there.
But lets say someone did run an ad like you suggest. I mean no one would because it leaves them wide open but lets say they did.
Ok, well, the next ad to rebut would clinch the election.
“Dean says Im a hypocrite for not wanting to cut SS or Medicare.”
“Does that make you worry a little about what Dean will do to your SS or Medicare?”
“Dean says we should let the Bush tax cuts expire, That means the lowest wage earners will see their tax rate go from 10% to 15%. Does that sound like Dean has any clue about what families are dealing with in this economic crises?”
“There’s a better way. Simply end the reckless spending in Washington. Simply end automatic increases in the size of government every year and we will get our deficit under control in just a few short years”
“The question you have to ask yourself is do you want to grow your way out of the Democrats mess or do you want to vote for Dean, who will cut SS and Medicare and enact the largest tax increase in history all so he can continue the insane Washington spending of the last two years?”
Yep, go there, pay the opposition to go there. Pray they go there with all your heart.
If the opposition ran that commercial they would pretty much be toast.
All that would have to be done is
I think a LOT of conservatives would be willing to revisit questions involving raising taxes IF there was a balanced budget amendment in place.
I know that I would.
Without a balanced budget requirement, there is little pressure to make meaningful spending reform.
We have to be willing to focus at least as much attention on spending (perhaps more in the short run while the economy struggles to recover) as we do on raising adequate revenue. If we don’t, we’ll keep kicking the can down the alley until we turn into Greece.
I think a balanced budget requirement would inevitably lead to major tax reforms with the purpose of encouraging stable long term increases in gov’t tax revenues.
If we don’t have a balanced budget requirement, our credit rating is the only pressure to reduce the gap between what (we think) we want and the taxes we are willing to pay.
We ran a balanced budget 4 straight years under a democratic president who raised taxes and held the line on spending. THe surplus went out the window when a bunch of Republicans took power, the same crowd that was always calling for a balanced budget amendment.
Balancing the budget is not hard. Just about every state does it every year. The only thing that makes it seem hard is the unwillingness to pay what it actually costs to provide the things people want and need from government.
The balanced budget amendment is a total red herring. It is an excuse for inaction. It allows politicians like Walden to talk out of both sides of their mouths, and for conservatives to avoid taking any responsibility for their actions.
Nice attempt to redirect.
During the years you mention the entire legislative branch was solidly Republican (’94-’00). The spending reforms (such as welfare reform) driven by the Class of ’94 had as much to do with balancing the budget as the Clinton tax increases did.
Without a balanced budget requirement both parties will continue to borrow-and-spend to hold onto power.
There was a time when the Republican Party took the lead on this issue, but for quite a while they’ve followed Nixon’s admonition: “we’re all Keynesians now”.
But if you absolutely need to play the party blame game on this, please consider the following:
In 1986 the Senate was one vote from passing a balance budget amendment (they needed 67 of 100 to make two-thirds).
Of the 66 “aye” votes, 43 were from Republican Senators and 23 were from Democrats.
Of the 34 “no” votes, 10 were Republicans and 24 were Democrats.
Yes, the legislative branch was republican. And those same Republicans voted 100% against the Clinton tax raise in 1993 that made closing the deficit possible. Those same Republicans failed to balance the budget once Bush was elected. Those same Republicans today are calling for continuation of the Bush tax cuts, refusing to ID any more than token spending cuts, and want to increase military spending. I don’t think a balanced budget amendment is going to change them, do you?
There was no balanced budget amendment, yet there was a balanced budget. Republicans, from Reagan onward, have dealt in symbolism, not reality. They complain about the deficit and continue to add to it. Stop us before we kill again should be their motto.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:
Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.
No Thanks (close this box)
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox
Join other followers: