AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

cicerone imposter wrote:

When you don't provide any options to solve our problems, how do you expect to win any election in the future?

I posted these ideas is a while ago

Principles for a Successful Real Stimulus

Our alternative vision to the Left's big spending, lobbyist- and politician-dominated spending bill should have five goals.

First, to build on the 59-21 majority of Americans who believe cutting business taxes will produce more jobs than increased government spending (January CBS news poll). Americans implicitly understand what creates economic growth and a vigorous national dialogue on these terms will expand public support for tax policies that actually create more jobs.

Second, to offer tax changes which are big enough and bold enough to work. Even in its current, weakened state, America has a $12 trillion dollar economy. A small tax-cut bill simply does not matter and will be absorbed without any effect.

Third, the specifics of the tax cuts have to be vivid enough that people understand how it will affect their economic security. People will feel more compelled to support a government plan that puts money in their wallet instead of in the hands of bureaucrats.

Fourth, economic freedom should be returned to the American people-and not centralized in Washington. Politician-bureaucrat-lobbyist centered systems inevitably bring about corruption, political favoritism, and increased poverty. For long-term economic health, our small business and entrepreneur-focused, pro-growth alternative must reverse the damages the power driven elites have done.

Fifth, our tax cuts must be paid for with serious cuts in spending and economic growth. Our current economic predicament was, in large part, caused by problems created by excessive debt. As part of our recovery, we have to return to the path of fiscal responsibility and renew a call for a balanced budget.

A Real Stimulus for Our Economy: Tax Cuts for More Jobs, Higher Take Home Pay and Greater Prosperity Through Economic Growth
With these goals in mind, the following tax cuts should be at the heart of our alternative vision that would achieve a fundamental shift from politicians to small business, from lobbyists to entrepreneurs, and from bureaucrats to investors:

A two-year, 50% reduction in the Social Security and Medicare tax for both the employee and the employer. This provision would guarantee that virtually everyone who pays federal taxes (many of whom do not pay income tax but do pay payroll taxes) will have an immediate boost in income and that small businesses will see a dramatic increase in available cash to hire more people or make investments for the future. This reduction would also help the cash flow problems of government at all levels, which also have to pay the employer's match.

This proposal creates the opportunity for a serious conversation with every employer about how it would increase their income and give them more resources to create jobs. The revenue loss to the trust funds would be transferred from the general fund (a better use for the money than either TARP or the Politicians Spending Act of February).

Permanently match the Chinese capital gains rate, which is zero. This is the rate Alan Greenspan testified in the late1970s was best for economic growth. It is also a relatively inexpensive thing to do in the current economy because people are going to have smaller gains.

Match the Irish corporate tax rate of 12.5%. America has had the highest corporate tax system in the world (if you combine federal and state taxes). Moving to a 12.5% corporate tax rate and combining it with zero capital gains will make America the most desirable economy in the world in which to invest.

Eliminate the death tax permanently. Inheritance is the most powerful accumulator of capital and eliminating the death tax has been consistently supported by over 75% of the American people.

Give President Obama the Opportunity to Keep His Word. Adopt the best of the small business tax proposals announced by candidate Obama in October 2008 and forgotten by the Obama Administration in 2009.

Paying for Prosperity, Job Creation and Increased Take Home Pay:
Lessons from the Balanced Budgets of the 1990s:

First, let's be clear that liberal cries about deficits are hypocritical nonsense. In February, the Left passed $787 billion in political payoffs that was pure deficit spending. The Left's first priority is always to grow government on every front; then they worry about the deficit, which is a liberal code for "tax increases."

Second, the great lesson of balancing the budget in the 1990s was that you had to have pro-jobs and pro-investment tax cuts to get economic growth. Economic growth means more jobs. More jobs means more people off of welfare, which means they no longer need support from the government and they can start contributing through their own income. The differential in economic growth and the decline in welfare and unemployment expenses was a major part of our ability to balance the budget for four year in a row.

Third, it took a comprehensive effort of rethinking government to get spending under control. Budgeting is ultimately a function of the size and system of government. And government is a function of the kind of country and economy you want. A similar comprehensive rethinking of government in the context of what kind of country and economy America needs should be undertaken.

Fourth, the cost of potential new laws should be estimated-or "scored"-based upon information from the real world, from historic experience, and from economists outside government. Historically the Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office have always underestimated the revenue generating power of economic growth and overestimated the revenue potential from tax increases (capital gains cuts in the past have generated vastly more revenue than Joint Tax expected and that is an historic fact).

Fifth, real change will require real change. The following proposals include dramatic even wrenching change for the current bureaucracies, politicians and lobbyists. However those changes will be applauded by most Americans. We need to make it clear we will support Congressmen and Senators willing to stand up to the institutional pressures of Washington who want to avoid reform. They will need to know we've got their back.
Offsetting the Cost of the Tax Cut Through Smaller, Smarter Government
The following strategies are some strategies that should be used to pay for the robust tax cuts that are the centerpiece of our real stimulus bill:
Capture as much of the TARP money as remains unexpended;

Carefully go through the uncommitted portion of the $787 billion politician pay off bill from February and set aside $300 billion to $400 billion to pay for the tax cuts.

Incorporate into the bill offshore drilling and other pro energy measures. These would be accurately scored as revenue raisers through more development and from the economic reflow in higher tax revenue through keeping the energy money at home instead of sending it overseas.

Sell the private sector assets the government has unwisely acquired during the last year. The economy will grow faster without the threat of government controlled, bureaucratically supervised and politician defined companies. Whatever the value of the government stake in the various companies, put them on the auction block and get them back into the market. This will yield billions in revenue.

Have a one time recapture of frozen corporate assets currently held offshore with a one or two year window for returning them to the United States. This has been estimated to produce a substantial amount of revenue for the government.

Have a six month amnesty for back taxes to generate voluntary self policing. When tried at the state level this has produced significant resources.

The bigger economy with more jobs will take people off of unemployment and off of welfare and will reduce the dependence on Medicaid and other government programs. The resultant drop in the cost of government will be a significant drop in government expenditures offsetting a significant part of the short term revenue loss through the tax cuts (this was our experience in the late 1990s and in this down economy it would be even more true).

Duty: 5. A tax charged by a government, especially on imports

Since income tax is a tax charged by the government, doesn't that make income taxes duties?

NO!

excise 1. An internal tax imposed on the production, sale, or consumption of a commodity or the use of a service within a country: excises on tobacco, liquor, and long-distance telephone calls.
But wait, an income tax is a tax imposed on the income produced so doesn't that make an income tax an excise?

NO!

If "tax" means "impost" why does the constituiton say "taxes, duties, imposts and excises". Why would the founders be redundant? Or by repeating the word tax and imposts do they mean something can be taxed more than once?

Impost means tax! All taxes including duties, excises and income taxes, are imposts. The founders were probably being redundant in Article I Section 8 on this matter, because they feared too many folks would not understand that an impost is a tax that is imposed rather than a tax that is voluntary.

And I posted these from a few days ago and advised I would produce the source after there was some discussion on them.

Response? Crickets

Quote:

Principles for a Successful Real Stimulus

I don't see anything particularly new in these ideas; it's the exact same Republican message which has been pushed for three decades in a row: cut taxes to solve all problems. And I don't think there's any indication that any of the things listed would help the economy at all.

Cycloptichorn

And I will apologize in advance for this, as I usually don't post these kinds of presentations. But this one is just too good. Turn up your speakers.

Yes I saw that. Same old typical mantra from Cyclop whenever an idea is presented to him which is usually.....move along folks, nothing to see here. But I would like some real discussion on one or two or several or all the concepts listed.

Thus, in Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 , it was held that a tax upon gains, profits, and income was an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and [157 U.S. 429, 589] that its imposition was not, therefore, unconstitutional. And in Insurance Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, it was held that an income tax or duty upon the amounts insured, renewed, or continued by insurance companies, upon the gross amounts of premiums received by them and upon assessments made by them, and upon dividends and undistributed sums, was not a direct tax, but a duty or excise.

Noun 1. excise taxexcise tax - a tax that is measured by the amount of business done (not on property or income from real estate)
excise
indirect tax - a tax levied on goods or services rather than on persons or organizations
nuisance tax, sales tax - a tax based on the cost of the item purchased and collected directly from the buyer
ad valorem tax, value-added tax, VAT - a tax levied on the difference
between a commodity's price before taxes and its cost of production
gasoline tax - a tax on every gallon of gasoline sold

http://supreme.justia.com/us/102/586/
U.S. Supreme Court
SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880)
102 U.S. 586 102 U.S. 586

SPRINGER
v.
UNITED STATES.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0157_0429_ZS.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

157 U.S. 429

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 898 Argued: March 7, 8. 11, 12, 13, 1895 --- Decided: April 8, 1895.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A tax on the rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States.

Upon each of the other questions argued at the bar, to-wit: 1, whether the void provision as to rents and income from real estate invalidates [p430] the whole act? 2, whether, as to the income from personal property a such, the act is unconstitutional as laying direct taxes? 3, whether any part of the tax, if not considered as a direct tax, is invalid for want of uniformity on either of the grounds suggested? -- the Justices who heard the argument are equally divided, and, therefore, no opinion is expressed.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States [ . . . ][1]

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes I saw that. Same old typical mantra from Cyclop whenever an idea is presented to him which is usually.....move along folks, nothing to see here. But I would like some real discussion on one or two or several or all the concepts listed.

"real discussion" meaning she won't discuss it with Cyclo or myself but only people that agree with her. If you disagree even if you give valid reasons you aren't really discussing it according to Fox.

Yes I saw that. Same old typical mantra from Cyclop whenever an idea is presented to him which is usually.....move along folks, nothing to see here. But I would like some real discussion on one or two or several or all the concepts listed.

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes I saw that. Same old typical mantra from Cyclop whenever an idea is presented to him which is usually.....move along folks, nothing to see here. But I would like some real discussion on one or two or several or all the concepts listed.

Um, what? I accurately summed up the thrust of the piece: the author, Newt Gingrich IIRC, wants to solve our problems with tax cuts. The whole thing is a salutation to lower taxes combined with assertions that they will solve all our problems. There literally is no new proposal in there which differs from what the Republicans have been pushing for decades.

What else is there for me to say? You could come back and point out which aspect of it represents a new direction - if there are any.

Present a piece worth discussing and you might find people discussing it. As it is, this last one was pretty boring; those crickets you hear are a reflection of that.

Cycloptichorn

1. He did not even suggest it would solve all our problems. He suggested it would provide a real stimulus. If you can't even get that right, how can you assess what he said about anything?

2. Please point out which of his points would NOT be a new direction from what the current Administration is doing.

3. Please take any one of the individual suggestions and show how it would NOT provide a stimulus for the economy.

Some have been accusing opponents of the Obama agenda of having no alternate suggestions. Well, Newt came up with a plethora of alternate suggestions. We have spent considerble time and energy explaining how Obama's agenda is largely a bad idea. So let's consider these alternate suggestions and whether they are or are not more feasible than what Obama is wanting.