Rik Schneider Online

Sunday, December 2, 2012

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Opinion: Kyle Scott: "No New Taxes Without Spending Limits": Room To Negotiate

SCOTT: No new taxes without spending limits - Washington Times

No new taxes without spending cuts, imagine if then Vice President George Bush said that back in 1988 at the RNC. At his nomination speech when he was running for President, I bet you he would've still not only of won the Republican nomination for President. It just would've been closer and I believe he still would've beaten Governor Michael Dukakis but by perhaps not as big of a blowout. As he did because Conservatives would've not of been as happy with George Bush but you gotta remember he was still. Running against Mike Dukakis a Presidential nominee who wouldn't defend himself until he got to the Presidential debates. And the read my lips line never happens, President Bush doesn't end up breaking a huge campaign promise. Gets a better deal with Congressional Democrats in the 1990 deficit reduction act and would've had a better chance of being reelected. With the economy being the way it still was in 1992, low economic growth and high unemployment and with President Bush. Not seeming to have a plan to deal with it, it still would've been very tough for him though.

There's a deal here that would avoid the fiscal cliff and start to get the finances of the Federal Government in order. But again its a deal, both sides are going to have to give and take on their bases, the fringes really who see compromise. As the other side agreeing to do what they want you to do and that means Democrats are going to have to give up some spending. Not just say they are going to do that but actually put some things on the table in budget cuts and entitlement savings. That they would not only accept but would help deal with the problem and Republicans are going to have to give up some. Revenue they don't have to go as low as 250K$, Democrats should come up from that, 250 is too low for. Me but go up to 500K-1M$ which would only be used for deficit reduction, which would be in law, meaning members of Congress wouldn't. By law be allowed to use any of that revenue to pay for new spending.

The deal or grand bargain is pretty simple really at least on paper, Democrats agree to entitlement savings at. Least in Medicare that wouldn't hurt anyone who needs it, which means wealthy people and others who can afford. To work longer, financially and physically would be required to before they start collecting from Medicare and Social Security. No more early retirement, which is now 62 for people who can again financially and physically afford to work longer. Would be expected to do so and once the wealthy start collecting from Medicare and Social Security, they would be taxed at least on some. Of the benefits they would be collecting and again all of this revenue would be used to finance. Deficit reduction and defense would again have to be on the table as well, everything we are now spending. In Iraq and Afghanistan, whether its troops or equipment as far as the combat operations there, would go to. Finance deficit reduction rather then back into the defense budget and we start drawing down from. Developed nations around the World that can afford to defend themselves.

We also need to do real tax reform and maybe that could be part of this package as far as instructing to Congress. Both House and Senate to take up tax reform in the next Congress and have them report a bill by lets say June or something. Or appoint a bipartisan commission made of the House and Senate, people who serve on Ways and Means and Finance. And perhaps as well as a new economic growth package, a package of tax cuts, tax reform and new infrastructure investment and energy. But we don't have to do that to avoid the fiscal cliff, which is what we need to do right now, not go off it.