► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Charles Krauthammer’

Friday with the ‘hammer – A possible debt solution in three stages

by Mojambo ( 132 Comments › )
Filed under Economy at August 5th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Dr. K’s column is an interesting one but it will never work because Barack Obama being the committed ideologue that he is – does not want to compromise but wants to conquer. When your end game is to transform America into something that only a European Socialist would love – doing what is best for the American people is not on your list of priorities. “The People” mean everything, but individuals mean nothing.

by Charles Krauthammer

Conventional wisdom holds that the congressional super-committee established by the debt-ceiling deal to propose further deficit reduction will go nowhere. I’m not so sure. There is a grand compromise to be had. It does, however, require precise sequencing. To succeed it must proceed in three stages:

(1) Tax Reform.

True tax reform that removes loopholes while lowering tax rates is the Holy Grail of social policy. It appeals equally to left and right because, almost uniquely, it promotes both economic efficiency and fairness. Economic efficiency — because it removes tax dodges that distort capital flows (and thereby diminish productivity) while cutting marginal tax rates (thereby spurring growth). Fairness — because a corrupted tax code with myriad breaks grants deeply unfair advantage to the rich who buy the lobbyists who create the loopholes and buy the lawyers who exploit them.

Which is why the 1986 Reagan-Bradley tax reform was such a historic success. It satisfied left and right, promoted efficiency and fairness, and helped launch two decades of almost uninterrupted economic expansion.

[…..]
(2) Revenue Neutrality.

Every dollar of revenue raised by stripping out a loophole is to be returned to the citizenry in the form of lower tax rates. Initial revenue neutrality avoids ideological gridlock over tax hikes and ensures perfect transparency during any later alterations of that formula.

Start with the obvious boondoggles, from the $6 billion a year wasted on ethanol subsidies to your Democratic perennials — corporate jets, oil-company breaks, etc. That’s the fun part. Unfortunately, whacking that piñata yields but pennies on the dollar. The real money is in the popular tax breaks: employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Altering some of these heretofore politically untouchable tax breaks would alone be a singular achievement.

[……]
(3) The Grand Bargain.

Once you have serious revenue-neutral tax reform in place, the ideological horse-trading that is required for massive deficit reduction — tax hikes vs. entitlement reform — can begin.

Republicans will resist the former, Democrats the latter. But tax-reform-first makes possible the compromise that eluded John Boehner and Barack Obama. Boehner was willing to increase revenue by $800 billion. Obama was reputedly ready to raise the Medicare age and change the Social Security cost-of-living formula.

Remember: Tax reform will already have slashed rates radically. In one Simpson-Bowles scenario, the top rate plunges to 23 percent. Conservatives could at that point contemplate increasing net revenue by slightly tweaking these new low rates, say, back to Reagan’s 28 percent, still much lower than the current 35 percent and Obama’s devoutly desired 39.6 percent. The deviation from revenue neutrality would yield new tax receipts for the Treasury, in addition to those resulting from the economic growth stimulated by the lower rates.

Democrats would have to respond by crossing their own red line on entitlements. That means real structural changes. That means raising the Medicare and Social Security ages, indexing them to longevity (until 70 becomes the new 65) and changing the inflation formula. Perhaps even means-testing Social Security (after one has recouped what one originally paid in).

[……]

 

Read the rest – How the super-committee can strike a grand bargain

Friday with the Hammer: The Rodan Edition

by Phantom Ace ( 111 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Misery Index, Progressives, Republican Party, unemployment at July 29th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Speranza is off today, therefore I have volunteered to do Friday with the Hammer.

The debt ceiling debate has come down to the wire. House Speaker John Boehner is introducing a 2 stage bill that extends the debt ceiling for 6 months. A commission will be formed for fiscal and tax reform, then those recommendations will be included in the phase 2 debt ceiling vote. Personally and I know this sounds cynical, I don’t think the GOP should do any fiscal or tax reform until after the 2012 elections. Just like the Left rammed Obamacare down our throats, we should, after 2013 with control of the House, Senate and  White House, ram tax, regulatory and fiscal reform down their throats.

Charles Krauthammer is urging Republicans to keep their powder dry and pass the Boehner plan. His thinking is, why do any reforms that help Obama? Plus with just the House, Democrats would have input into any reforms made.

We’re only at the midpoint. Obama won a great victory in 2008 that he took as a mandate to transform America toward European-style social democracy. The subsequent counterrevolution delivered to that project a staggering rebuke in November 2010. Under our incremental system, however, a rebuke delivered is not a mandate conferred. That awaits definitive resolution, the rubber match of November 2012.

I have every sympathy with the conservative counterrevolutionaries. Their containment of the Obama experiment has been remarkable. But reversal — rollback, in Cold War parlance — is simply not achievable until conservatives receive a mandate to govern from the White House.

Lincoln is reputed to have said: I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky. I don’t know whether conservatives have God on their side (I keep getting sent to His voicemail), but I do know that they don’t have Kentucky — they don’t have the Senate, they don’t have the White House. And under our constitutional system, you cannot govern from one house alone. Today’s resurgent conservatism, with its fidelity to constitutionalism, should be particularly attuned to this constraint, imposed as it is by a system of deliberately separated — and mutually limiting — powers.

Given this reality, trying to force the issue — trying to turn a blocking minority into a governing authority — is not just counter-constitutional in spirit but self-destructive in practice.

Read it all: The Debt-Ceiling Divide

I am no fan of Speaker Boehner and the Rockefeller Republicans. They are at heart liberals who like big government, have a soft spot for Islam and believe in nation building wars. That said, the Tea Party Conservatives and Libertarians still don’t have enough strength to enact their reforms. If reforms are done, Obama and the Progressives will have input. This means whatever reforms are done will be watered down. 

The psychological effects might help the markets and thus the economy. If the economy shows any slight improvement, it will be Obama who gets credit. Therefore, it’s not in Conservatives’ interest to enact any reform. A sluggish economy helps the GOP and would make it easier to defeat Obama.  Hence, it’s not in our interest to enact any reform until 2013.

As of this writing Obama’s approval is in the mid 40’s. Any normal politician would be in the low 30’s. I know many here don’t want to believe the numbers, but we should assume they are accurate. A slight improvement in economic conditions will send his numbers into the low 50’s. This would make him even tougher to beat. Many people have an emotional investment in Obama because he symbolizes to them a way for America to cleanse its sins. We are dealing not with a politician, but a pseudo religious cult of personality. We have to keep this in mind. We should not help Obama improve the economy.

Many will not like what I wrote, but I am looking at it from a Machiavellian viewpoint. Vote for whetever BS cuts are proposed. The markets will not be impressed and the economy will stay sluggish. A bad economy makes it easier to beat Obama. Just think about this long term. Then after 2013, we can purge the McCain-Bush Syndicate wing of the GOP.

Friday with the ‘hammer – The best debt-ceiling fix

by Mojambo ( 6 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Economy, Politics, Special Report at July 22nd, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Obama is looking to  get through election day which is why he has threatened to veto any short-term debt-ceiling hike. Put the budget in Obama’s lap and let him come up with a plan. We will never get anything that is satisfactory to us as long as Obama is president. Let’s just admit it, Barack Obama is singularly unqualified for the honorable position of president.  He is leading “from behind,” which is akin to walking a lion on a leash.  He is not even remotely qualified  for the job and was elected because of   Bush fatigue.  He has surrounded himself with like-thinking left-wing ideologues, most of whom are academics with similarly no real world experience.  It’s my fervent hope that like Jimmy Carter (whom he seems to be emulating every day), he is decisively dumped after one term.

by Charles Krauthammer

The debt ceiling looms. Confusion reigns. Schemes abound. We are deep in a hole with only three ways out: the McConnell Plan, the G6 Plan and the Half-Trillion Plan.

— The McConnell essentially punts the issue till after Election Day 2012. A good last resort if nothing else works.

— The G6, proposed by the bipartisan Gang of Six senators, reduces 10-year debt by roughly $4 trillion. It has some advantages, even larger flaws.

— The Half-Trillion raises the debt ceiling by that amount in return for an equal amount of spending cuts. At the current obscene rate of deficit spending — about $100 billion a month — it yields about five months’ respite before the debt ceiling is reached again.

In my view, the Half-Trillion is best: It is clean, straightforward, yields real cuts, averts the current crisis and provides until year-end to negotiate a bigger deal. At the same time, it punctures President Obama’s thus far politically successful strategy of proposing nothing in public, nothing in writing, nothing with numbers, while leaking through a pliant press supposed offers of surpassing scope and reasonableness.

[…..]

Meaning that he would exercise his veto if that larger deal required several months rather than several days? Call his bluff. Let the House pass the Half-Trillion. Dare him to put America into default because he deems a short-term deal insufficiently grand. After all, it dovetails perfectly with parts of the G6, for which the president has expressed support and which explicitly allocates roughly the same amount of time — six months — to work out the grander $3 trillion to $4 trillion deal.

The G6 conveniently comes in two parts. Part One puts immediately into effect, yes, a half-trillion dollars in cuts, including a more accurate inflation measure (that over time greatly reduces Social Security costs) and repeal of the CLASS Act (the lesser-known of the two new Obamacare entitlements, a fiscally ruinous, long-term-care Ponzi scheme).

Part Two of the G6 is far more problematic. It mandates six months of committee negotiations over the big ones — Medicare, Social Security, discretionary spending caps and tax reform. Unfortunately, the Medicare and Social Security parts are exceptionally weak — no mention of any structural change, such as raising the eligibility age to match longevity. As for the spending caps, I wouldn’t bet my dog’s food bowl on their durability.

On tax reform, the G6 calls for eliminating deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions to reduce rates across the board. The new tax rates — top individual rate between 23 percent and 29 percent — would bring us back to Reagan levels (28 percent). This would be a good outcome, but the numbers thus far are fuzzy and some are contradictory. Moreover, those negotiations have yet to begin.

[…..]

What to do now? The House should immediately pass the Half-Trillion Plan, thereby putting something eminently reasonable on the table that the president will have to address with a serious counterproposal using actual numbers. If the counterproposal is the G6, Republicans should accept Part One with its half-trillion dollars in cuts, consumer price index change and repeal of the CLASS Act, i.e., the part of the G6 that is enacted immediately and that is real. Accompany this with a dollar-for-dollar hike in the debt ceiling, yielding almost exactly the time envisioned in the G6 to work out grander spending and revenue changes — and defer any action on Part Two until precisely that time.

The Half-Trillion with or without the G6 Part One: ceiling raised, crisis deferred, cuts enacted and time granted to work out any Grand Compromise. You can’t get more reasonable than that.

Do it. And dare the president to veto it.

Read the rest – The Half-Trillion Plan

Friday with the ‘hammer – Regime change may be needed to cut deficit

by Mojambo ( 158 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Politics, Republican Party at July 15th, 2011 - 2:30 pm

Dr. K. points out what we have all been saying – the answer to the debt crisis is regime change. Nothing will be solved until Obama and his merry band of wealth redistributionists are out of power and that means winning the White House in 2012. That is why trying to compromise with Obama and his socialists are pointless, no sooner then you meet them half way then they raise the ante and with the support of a collaborationist press, we will go from crisis to crisis.

by Charles Krauthammer

President Obama is demanding a big long-term budget deal. He won’t sign anything less, he warns, asking, “If not now, when?”

How about last December, when he ignored his own debt commission’s recommendations? How about February, when he presented a budget that increases debt by $10 trillion over the next decade? How about April, when he sought a debt-ceiling increase with zero debt reduction attached?

All of a sudden he’s a born-again budget balancer prepared to bravely take on his own party by making deep cuts in entitlements. Really? Name one. He’s been saying forever that he’s prepared to discuss, engage, converse about entitlement cuts. But never once has he publicly proposed a single structural change to any entitlement.

[…]

As part of the pose as the forward-looking grown-up rising above all the others who play politics, Obama insists upon a long-term deal. And what is Obama’s definition of long-term? Surprise: An agreement that gets him past Nov. 6, 2012.

Nothing could be more political. It’s like his Afghan surge wind-down date. September 2012 has no relation to any military reality on the ground. It is designed solely to position Obama favorably going into the last weeks of his re-election campaign.

Yet the Olympian above-the-fray no-politics-here pose is succeeding. A pliant press swallows the White House story line: the great compromiser (“clearly exasperated,” sympathized a Washington Post news story) being stymied by Republican “intransigence” (the noun actually used in another front-page Post news story to describe the Republican position on taxes).

Call His Bluff

The meme having been established, Republicans have been neatly set up to take the fall if a deal is not reached by Aug. 2. Obama is already waving the red flag, warning ominously that Social Security, disabled veterans’ benefits, “critical” medical research, food inspection — without which agriculture shuts down — are in jeopardy.

The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It’s time to act. Time to call Obama’s bluff.

[…]

After all, by what crazy calculation should Republicans allow themselves to be blamed for a debt crisis that could destabilize the economy and even precipitate a double-dip recession? Right now, Obama owns the economy and its 9.2% unemployment, 1.9% GDP growth and exploding debt about which he’s done nothing. Why bail him out by sharing ownership?

You cannot govern this country from one house. Republicans should have learned that from the 1995-96 Gingrich-Clinton fight when the GOP controlled both houses and still lost.

If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term small-government Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.

Read the rest: Call Obama’s Bluff