Who's The Big-Spending Big Democrat?
Wrong! It's the guy who accepted the nomination at the Republican convention, writes Mike Allen in the Washington Post:
The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade.A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.
Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts.
And Bush's agenda has many costs the administration has not publicly estimated. For instance, Bush said in his speech that he would continue to try to stabilize Iraq and wage war on terrorism. The war in Iraq alone costs $4 billion a month, but the president's annual budget does not reflect that cost.
Bush's platform highlights the challenge for both presidential candidates in trying to lure voters with attractive government initiatives at a time of mounting budget deficits. This year's federal budget deficit will reach a record $422 billion, and the government is expected to accumulate $2.3 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported last week.
The president has had little to say about the deficit as he barnstorms across the country, which has prompted Democrats and some conservative groups to say Bush refuses to admit there will not be enough money in government coffers to pay for many of his plans.
As somebody TV showrunner Scott Kaufer jokingly called "to the right of Genghis Khan," thanks to my reply (to his hypocrisy-catcher question) that the government shouldn't pay for NPR, my contention that anybody middle-class and up should pay for their own damn kids' schooling (but we should all chip in for poor kids'), and more, I feel especially entitled to say: True conservatives don't vote for Bush!
P.S. In case you were wondering, I'm also for legalizing pot, prostitution, and nudity and profanity on the airwaves, and for keeping god out of government!
Middle class and up people do pay for their kids schooling through taxes. Schooling should be available to all children/young adults based upon their abilities, I believe, and not their parents pocketbooks. We have been seeing in the last few weeks studies that show that education is becoming more difficult to afford for the lower and middle classes.
Education can be the greatest equalizer amongst the classes and races, and should be encouraged. It is an investment in our countrys freedom. How else are they going to afford the good pot and hookers?
eric at September 15, 2004 3:00 PM
Eric, people who are not poor should be the sole payers for their children's education -- not those who are childless. I'm willing to pay for poor children -- and I agree with you that those children should not be penalized. But, if you are middle class and you can only afford school for one child, well, have only one child. I can't afford to live in Bel Air, so I don't -- I don't ask others to pay so i can have the same opportunity the wealthy do. Moreover, I'm for a flat tax for everyone -- it seems wrong that rich people have to pay more just because they earn more. It's penalizing them for their success. Of course, if we weren't paying for all these kids to go to school (aw, mommy might not be able to afford a gigundo new SUV every year) we might have much lower taxes. And I like NPR, but they should either be listener or advertiser supported.
Amy Alkon at September 15, 2004 3:11 PM
First, I don't give a damn about Kerry or Bush and their pie in the sky projected spending. It's the legislature that offers up bills that are either signed or vetoed. What I care about are the damn idiots like this example who yell bloody murder that tax cuts are costing the government billions of dollars in revenue. Costing the fucking government? Give me a break. Reducing the onerous tax burden means those who pay taxes do not have to pay as much. Not letting the government have a certain amount of money from your pocket means you have control over that money and they don't. Get off this costing bullshit. They don't deserve it, don't spend it wisely, and don't care how much they waste. JFK was the only democrat I ever heard of that asked for and received tax cuts on his watch. And damn few republicans have reduced taxes either. But they sure know how to rack up the spending. Cost the government...idiot.
allan at September 15, 2004 6:50 PM
When Forbes was backing the flat tax plan, I was for it. Mostly I was for it because the tax code today is so complicated it has become insane. It also encourages behavior, such as tax breaks for 6,000 pound SUV's, that are contrary to the public interest. I would like to see a tax system that discourages the accumulation of massive wealth. In my opinion, the consolidation of wealth is the greatest threat to our democracy. A flat tax would do nothing to discourage the consolidation and may actually encourage it.
You say it seems wrong that people who make more should pay more. I disagree. When a CEO greatly increases his wealth by exporting jobs, that is wrong also. Corporate participation in America should also require social responsibility.
But I think we are talking 2 issues here. While the growth of population needs to be controlled, I look upon education as one of the rights of being American. I was given an excellent education at the University of California subsidized by tax dollars. This education has allowed me the opportunity to make a good income and pay taxes to refresh the cycle. My life is better and society is better off.
While we can get all wrapped up in the political and social theory of this, we are seeing now many of our highest education jobs being exported to formerly third world countries that 20 years ago made a policy decision to invest in education. Globalization creates the need for a more educated workforce in America with each generation.
And if it will please the Goddess, I promise not to vote for Bush.
eric at September 16, 2004 12:20 PM
It will please The Goddess very much. Although, I can't say I'm a Kerry fan. I do think it's ludicrous that I will get a $1500 tax break (reduced from $2000 last year) for buying a hybrid Honda Insight, but I could get 100,000K for destroying the environment and endangering others on a road by buying a Hummer.
Amy Alkon at September 16, 2004 1:15 PM