JBD

Been reading Ben Stein for 20 years, and have a couple of his books. He has only recently turned sappy on taxes (he's always been sappy on tort reform, since he's a lawyer first, economist second, character actor third.) One problem with this most recent change in tune re: taxes is that, as he full well knows, there are not enough "rich" people (high annual income earners) in the country to make a dent in the deficit. Notice also that this article was from August 9, before the big meltdown. He's changed his tune again since then, and his latest articles are panicked calls for "shared misery". RINO talk if ever I heard it.

Ben has been going soft as he ages and gets more acculturated in Hollywood. He gets more writing gigs, TV spots and other opportunities if he's seen as a softening conservative. His statement that Social Security, military, and the bulk of government spending is "untouchable" is ludicrous, as we are all about to find out. If there's no money, spending will drop, and the interesting part will be to see who defends what spending as "essential".

Increasing taxes to increase government revenue is idiotic. Government revenue increased every year following tax cuts, because the money not collected by the government stays in the economy and creates wealth through voluntary economic activity. As the economy grows, tax revenues increase, so taxes actually should to be reduced continually to keep the level of spending the same.

That does not happen, obviously, except at the low-income levels, where the bottom 38%  pay no AGI income taxes (they still still pay around 15% in SS taxes, but since those revenues have been pulled out of the SS system for decades and spent on current expenses, it amounts to a bottom Fed tax rate on everybody of no less than 15%). As more money is collected, budgets get bigger, and projections are based on ever-increasing revenue. Which brings us to where we are today - spending commitments that are far in excess of any taxable income. And you people want more of it?

Giving the government money is the problem, not the solution. The government will spend everything it can get, plus anything it can get away with through budget doges. What do you think is going to happen to all those "projected" pension and Social Security "out" year funding increases now that income to governments at all levels will shrink by 30-50% for the next 2 years? The SS and pension meltdown will occur in a matter of months, not in the 10-12 years as projected "best case".

What Mike Dunn has right is that the Republicans did become part of the problem by overspending. In fact, they spent like Democrats. When they acted like Republicans, as they did from 1994-2000, they made Clinton swallow balanced budgets and spending restraints he once characterized as impossible and dangerous. By the way, how was the economy doing then?

So blame any president all you want, but the truth is that Congress spends the money, and the president can only shut down the government if he opposes a bad budget bill. And W would not do that with soldiers on the battlefield, so he signed budgets that were greatly in excess of what he asked for. The majority Republicans in congress from 2000-2006, joined with the spend-it-all Democrats, are to blame. My solution is to keep the money away from both of them. How is that bad?

And if they really think it will help, Ben and all his rich friends can write checks to the government any time they damn well please. You think they could do it quietly for once? Since they haven't, and won't, until the government forces them to, says more about their true motivations than all their bitching about it ever could.

Hide Comments | Add Comment