I've been waiting a long time for something like this to appear in one of our newspapers of record.
The most concise description of Libertarian economics is "hallucinogenic." It's goal to to get, oh, 25 feet or so beyond the edge of the cliff. Implementing Ron Paul's policies would make the economy crash so hard the crater would be roughly contiguous with the continental United States, and range from three to fifteen feet in depth.
Reshaping the Debate on Raising Taxes
By ROBERT H. FRANK
POWERFUL anti-tax rhetoric has made legislators at every level of government afraid to talk publicly about a need to raise taxes. The constituents of the few who dare speak are typically bombarded with attack ads that go something like this: “It’s your money, but your esteemed senator thinks the bureaucrats in Washington know how to spend it more wisely than you do.”
Because of our inability to talk sensibly about taxes, the United States has been sliding toward second-class status in the world economy. Our national debt, for example, has increased by more than $3 trillion since 2002. Once the world’s largest creditor nation, we are now its largest debtor. We are currently borrowing more than $800 billion a year from the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans and others — loans that will have to be repaid in full with interest. These imbalances have sent the dollar plummeting.
The situation is set to become worse. On the current trajectory, the national debt will rise an additional $5 trillion over the next decade. The retirement of baby boomers will require additional revenue to cover growing deficits in the Social Security and Medicare programs.
And though an emerging consensus in favor of universal health coverage may mean better care for more people for less money over all, such coverage will also require higher taxes. Additional revenue is also needed to make up for the deferred maintenance that has placed many of our roads and bridges in dangerous disrepair.
Anti-tax crusaders say that these problems can be solved by just cutting wasteful spending. To be sure, Congress could help keep spending in check by adopting a strict pay-as-you-go standard for all new legislation. But most existing government programs have powerful constituencies, and programs that lack such strong defenders are not always the most suitable candidates for cuts. Salient examples from recent experience include scientific research, infrastructure maintenance and security investments like cargo-container inspection and lockdown of loosely guarded nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union.
In short, realistic proposals for solving our budget problems must include higher revenue. But unless political leaders can develop strategies for dealing with the powerful anti-tax rhetoric that has sunk similar proposals in the past, the impasse will continue.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
You know, if you begin with
You know, if you begin with the assumption that you have to keep all spending in place, then it becomes true by default that you must raise taxes. If you're willing to end the Iraq war, demobilize the overseas portion of the armed forces, eliminate farm subsidies, foreign aid, the war on drugs, the department of education and you're just getting started, other possibilities open up. Paul does not keep these positions a secret -- if he were to be elected, one might conclude that the constituencies backing those programs are not as powerful as Mr Frank assumes.
the department of
YOu lost me right there. Plus see the headline. No getting around that one.
lol!
hallucinogenic indeed. you sure have a knack for bringing these nutjobs out of the woodwork, p6. why is it that the few libertarians i know all went to public school?
Few can stand up to the
Few can stand up to the simple truth...part of the reason y'all don't know nothing about me.
You mention only the symptoms of the problem (high debt)
First off your title is inappropriate to the content of the article.
Why would I want to pay more taxes? To pay for a war I disagree with or domestic spying I disagree with? To hear of the DoD buying another pack of $50k 'toilet seats'? Or to over-pay a military contractor by billions of dollars for services not received (Haliburton +DynCorp)? Or for that matter, money gone to subsidize these powerful constituents' lively hood although it is detached from market influence without an end in sight? But surely these things are put aside when important things like levies need to be repaired, right?
Your arguments to raise taxes assume government is some sort of responsible entity which it is obviously not, at least not fiscally.
But what if we do raise taxes? What do people get and who are taxes raised for? Could we get a government that could bother with balancing a budget? People live incredibly close to their means in many cases anyway, how does this fly?
While the US may be afraid of tax reform it is by no means a silver bullet to fix anything, even debt if we can't curb spending. So what is to be done of this pickle? Sadly the only choice is to take the really dangerous option from the government's control, the ability to destroy our currency through hyper inflation. Meaning we must back the money we have with 'something' so the government cannot simply print it.
This is a difficult situation in practice, understatement, that will require vast economic knowledge, but the alternatives are worse. Nobel prize winning economist Fredrick Hayek on the topic of ending fiat currency suggested: legalizing other currencies and allowing the market to determine what other currencies circulate. Funny enough this is also Dr. Ron Paul's position in the presidential race, to not let the federal government destroy the dollar through it's inability to spend only as much as is prudent.
I hope you come around, good to worry some, but if we hold on this cycle of printing money to spend it: all the constituents could be without their favorite government program, if the dollar tanks.
WrongPolicy.blogspot.com
First off your title is
It is appropriate to my intent. It is the precise truth. I was hoping you Paulies would recognize the futility of arguing the point.
You see, even if you are right in your argument...and I don't know yet, this comment is entirely a reaction to that first sentence...the fact remains that Ron Paul has voted against every civil rights bill that ever crossed his desk. That and that alone would be enough for me to oppose him, for life.
Now to read the rest of your comment.
Why would I want to pay more
Ron Paul was talking about eliminating the IRS long before the invasion so your argument is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty. It's like quieting the baby by smothering it.
Ron Paul is for dissolving
Ron Paul is for dissolving the DoE because he feels education should be handled by states and local governments, not the federal government. This makes sense since most schools are supported through local taxes, and the decision of what to teach kids should be handled as close to the students and families involved as possible.
Read the mother fucking
Read the mother fucking title of the god damn thread.
Ron Paul is against equal treatment for Black people under the law. Any Black person who supports Ron Paul is either suicidal or lives overseas.
Ron Paul's steadfast
Ron Paul's steadfast opposition to civil rights legislation is defended, of course, by he and his supporters as really being a vote against the steadily encroaching power of the federal government. This is the same argument that William F. Buckley, James J. Kilpatrick and countless others made during the 1950s and 1960s as the basis of their steadfast opposition to ending state and local laws that supported and enforced racial segregation.
This is one of many dilemmas that American libertarians have never been able to successfully resolve or even offer a coherent justification in support of their position. It is the same kind of position Clarence Thomas takes in his opposition to Brown v. Board of Education. Libertarians have never presented any rational alternative for addressing American-style apartheid.
You point out Reason #1 to be against Paul
He doesn't believe in equal rights for me.
Am I supposed to have Reason #2 to be against him?