This Stupid 10-to-1,
Cuts-to-Taxes Debate
August 16, 2011
At the
Republican debate last Thursday Byron York asked Rick Santorum, "Is there
any ratio of cuts to taxes that you would accept, 3-to-1, 4-to-1, 10-to-1?"
(42:15 in the link)
Santorum said, "The answer's no, because that's not the problem." He went on to
say the problem is runaway spending. And, "revenue is down 2 or 3 percent." He
got this wrong. The answer is "No"; he was correct there. But it is not that
spending is up a lot and revenue is only down a little. This would argue for
exactly what Byron postulated - a high ratio of cuts to taxes (if you stipulate
that raising taxes increases revenue, which it doesn't). The correct answer is,
"No, because the feckless Republicans will enact the tax increases and the cuts
will never happen." Democrats lie. They cannot be trusted to honor their part of
the deal.
Then, after labeling this, "A real spending cuts deal" Bret Baier asked the
entire panel of 8, "Who on this stage would walk away from that deal?"
(44:32 in
the link) He asked for a raising of hands "If you feel so strongly about not
raising taxes you would walk away from a 10-to-1 deal."
All 8 raised their hands. They would reject that deal.
Only Gingrich elaborated and he only attacked the Super Committee, completely missing
the point. Baier made a big show of reiterating that the whole group feels so
strongly about not raising taxes that they would reject a 10-to-1 deal.
Everybody, the questioners and the candidates, fell into the phony, Washington,
play-acting, false premise - that all these phony deals where they go back and
forth with these cuts/taxes ratios are genuine.
They are not. These people are operating in a fantasy land where the Democrats
are honorable players with the best interests of the nation at heart who can be
depended upon to hold to their sworn words, votes and signatures. They cannot.
History proves it.
Let's get this straight - regardless of Democrat promises, with every tax
increase reluctantly agreed to by Retardicans, there have never, ever been any
spending cuts in Washington DC and there never will be until there are no
Democrats or RINOs in any majority of the Congress or in the White House.
For example - the current congress just passed the “Budget Control Act of 2011."
It promises to reduce spending by 2.4 trillion dollars over 10 years. The
spending cuts for the first year, 2012, total 20 billion dollars. At that rate
it would take 120 years to reach the 2.4 trillion goal. Oh, but it has no tax
increases you say! Wait until the "Super Committee" gets to punish the American
people for the lack of cuts by the congress.
Now, if the very same congress that passed the bill can only bear to cut its
spending addiction by a measly 20 billion dollars during their term, what will
future congresses do? Will they take up the slack for a bill that they had
nothing to do with and which they have no legal requirement to honor or
continue?
If they did, it would be the first time that it has happened in the history of
our Republic and would go against everything we know of human nature and of
politicians.
Meanwhile, the law (baseline budgeting) demands an automatic increase in the
budget of 7% a year. That's compounded!
Even the 20 billion will be cut down to 5 or 10 billion when it is finally put
in place. It won't come close to overtaking the automatic increase even in that
first year.
There are no spending cuts! There will never be any spending cuts! But you
better believe that any tax increases in these "ratio" deals would be enacted
pronto. And, then, years later the Democrats will condemn those Republicans who
raised taxes and increased spending! So this phony, gotcha bullcrap about
10-to-1 ratios is nothing but a trap for the decent, laid by scoundrels
It is so sad that both the Fox moderators and the Republican candidates are so
immersed in DC political game-playing that the question was even asked and was
then so poorly answered.
If you want to know how this works,
here is how Reagan was snookered by that lying piece of filth, Tip O'Neil.
Comments: