Minnesota’s http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9436854 posted an article by Paul Mulshine of The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey on Saturday. It correctly pointed up the impending entitlement crisis and then missed the point in asserting that The Fair Tax that Huckabee supports will not fix it, calling it, “the real bridge to nowhere.” Here is the article and the response I left at the site.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exaccerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
Showing posts with label candidate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label candidate. Show all posts
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
McCain About America, Romney About Romney, Huckabee Better Than Both, and Consider This/Super Tuesday Republican Run-Down
Before summarizing the remaining candidates, I just want to say two brief things: 1) I would vote for Mike Huckabee next month even if he averaged less than 10% tomorrow (which he won’t) and he has pulled out of the competition by then, IF HIS NAME IS STILL ON THE BALLOT, simply because he is the best presidential candidate of my 50-year life. And, he’s easily the most clear-headed conservative mind that America has seen in the past few years. And 2) I often disagree with John McCain, who probably has a Washington provincially distorted perspective. But John McCain is by far a more noble man than Mitt Romney. And, right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.
That said, It has been a remarkable year. While there were once 9 Republican candidates for president, heading into tomorrow, Feb. 5, when 22 states will vote on delegates to the Republican National Convention, there are four remaining. The front-loading and compression of the process, has certainly made a dramatic difference in how it has played out, which is mostly regrettable, I think. There was a lot of speculation early on, about how that situation would play out. Mostly, it asked whether the early states be more or less important? It would seem to have been the latter. Certainly in previous presidential campaign seasons, the sorting out would have been farther along or over after the South Carolina primary, with only 1 or 2 left standing.
Perhaps the “frontrunner” perception has not had enough time to settle in between contests. The notion is a strange one to me. But, it’s no great surprise if I’m not typical. Someone I spoke with doubted the force of the tendency, but it seems undeniable that many fall in line behind what or whom they perceive a “winning.” Indeed, that is the whole idea of “momentum,” a sort of psychological centrifugal force. As I said, I have no sense of that. I’ve been voting for 32 years, and I’ve never moved my vote for a “winner” vs. whom I thought was the best candidate. In fact, Ronald Reagan was the only winner I ever voted for in a primary, and I had supported him from the start. The herd followed my sentiments, not vice-versa. In fact, I had voted for Reagan in a 1976 primary, when he was not the eventual winner, though he came close.
All of that said, I’ll say that I’m a supporter of Huckabee (whom the political chatterers also say will not be a winner) But Consider This: Huckabee has said that he’s in it until a candidate has the delegates to secure the nomination. That cannot even mathematically happen, tomorrow.Mitt Romney will likely watch more millions be flushes away, and tomorrow ning, find himself hopelessly far behind and not especially liked. If he finally decides that 100 million dollars, over 35 of it his own, is enough and drops out, what do the McCain haters do now, especially since many also hate Huckabee? They are the only ones left. That’s kind of amusing.
I’ll discuss the remaining 4 candidates, in order of unacceptability: how they stand, and how they’ve gone through the process:
Ron Paul is a very interesting character. He is not a “nut” or any other similar description that many throw at him. Ron Paul is a plenty smart man. He is very exceptional, in that he discusses in detail many things that the others don’t discuss at all like, very notably, the integrity of money and the primacy of private not government effort in shaping the economy. That kind of talk is not at all apart from why he is called names decrying him as strange. He is strange in the sense of standing apart from a perspective constrained by conventional popular culture, which is fraught with foolish assumptions. Generally speaking, I hardly consider that a fault of any sort.
However, there is an element of that unique ideal that I can’t go along with. And, unlike the many differences I have with John McCain, for instance. This is one that I can’t pass off for the sake of any sort of greater good. It seems to me that the same sort of philosophical resolve that tethers Ron Paul to the virtue of sound currency and free and private commerce, has him philosophically blinkered with a foreign policy for America that amounts to a dereliction of duty relative to security and basic humanity. Of course, what he calls a “non-interventionist” foreign policy has nothing to do with the sort of Smithian Natural Law about the inherent principles of human commerce and wealth production and maintenance.
But, I fully understand his shyness about military adventurism and the temptation of military power and expansion. And, I understand the counsel of the American Founders to “avoid foreign entanglements,” and the paleo-conservative tradition of modest foreign policy. But, the very obvious problem to the non-philosophically blinkered who must make moral and prudent judgments about the real world, is that the evolution of technology has run full out from under a world where travel, transport, and communications across the ocean required a ship’s voyage of months or years. Today, men travel the world in a day and sound and video images are transmitted around the world in practically real time. As today’s threats of terrorism have vividly demonstrated, it is no longer a sufficient defense posture to wait and respond when cannonballs are lobbed onto a populated shore. Technology is such that a very few can pose a frightful danger to American life hatched on distant continents and delivered quickly and surreptitiously.
While I believe he is sincere and resolved as he is about other things, given today’s technology of travel, communications, and destructive force, Paul’s sort of non-interventionist prescription presents two HUGE problems:
1) it is an imprudent security risk. Paul frets military engagement with peoples’ who present no armies or navies to threaten American military power. So, what? None are required to impose great destruction. And
2) Yes, America has great power. Paul may insist that policing the world from tyrants is not American government’s business. But, no private agency has the power to do so. And a power held is a moral responsibility. It is a real question to ask when we are “intruding” (or building empire, as Paul likes to say) and when it is a moral responsibility to intervene against inhumanity. As I often ask, given today’s world, at what point does ignoring human abuse become something on the order of watching a sidewalk attack out your window and declining to get involved.
The first problem is an ostrich-head-in-the-sand question to an extreme degree. And, the second problem is an extreme degree of humanitarian responsibility. How close are we to treading into stark cowardice?
For these reasons, though Paul has all year been the philosophically clearest and most resolute candidate, what I see as his anachronistic human misjudgments are too severe, besides the fact that he is not especially skilled at personal engagement and encouragement with the public. So, though I think he is exceptionally clear and consistent, and should be an advisor in many areas, Ron Paul is the LAST Republican candidate that I want to see with presidential power.
Mitt Romney has constructed a black and white confession on definable issues, that I agree with over 90% of the time. But, I don’t feel that I have any sense of his heart and wonder if I possibly could. People accuse him of “flip-flopping” on issues of serious concern. Even if his changes were genuine, I am unimpressed with a potential leader who was ambiguous on grave issies well into his fifties. He’s obviously a smart man, which suggests not ambiguity but spectacular pliability. I believe conservatives need to “sell” conservative principle to traditionally ambiguous or antagonistic populations. If Romney was to any extent demonstrating that with his election in Massachusetts, he has disavowed all of that, now. Pliability, again?
Many conservatives are irrationally frantic about the possibility of John McCain as the Republican nominee. I just repeat what I said at the beginning: “I often disagree with John McCain, who probably has a Washington provincially distorted perspective. But John McCain is by far a more noble man than Mitt Romney. And, right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.” Check these links: http://www.trueromney.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFGA_HN3Yc I really would hate for my arm to be twisted to choose Romney over a Democrat.
As I have also said, John McCain has a philosophical disability. But, he’s a genuine man and American patriot, with plenty of conservative sentiments about spending and jusicial activism, for instance. He als favors tax reduction and reform. He undetrstands that the public has insisted on securing the border before, not after, anything else. And, he has supported restrained not activist judges. A good VP might nudge him away from sentimental errors. Again, “…right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.” He wouldn’t be my first choice. But especially given the options, he is far from my last.
Mike Huckabee is a clear-headed and constitutional conservative who is prepared to effectively deal with 20th century realities. He won Iowa with months of face-to-face engagement of Iowa voters, which has not been possible in subsequent contests, though he nearly won again, in South Carolina. I will pick his name on any ballot in which he is a candidate. He has a sober and diligent heart, and offers real solutions to move America from problems that it has gotten itself into. Based on the evidence so far, I will be surprised if I see as good a candidate as he is, again. Hopefully, he has established a model.
That said, It has been a remarkable year. While there were once 9 Republican candidates for president, heading into tomorrow, Feb. 5, when 22 states will vote on delegates to the Republican National Convention, there are four remaining. The front-loading and compression of the process, has certainly made a dramatic difference in how it has played out, which is mostly regrettable, I think. There was a lot of speculation early on, about how that situation would play out. Mostly, it asked whether the early states be more or less important? It would seem to have been the latter. Certainly in previous presidential campaign seasons, the sorting out would have been farther along or over after the South Carolina primary, with only 1 or 2 left standing.
Perhaps the “frontrunner” perception has not had enough time to settle in between contests. The notion is a strange one to me. But, it’s no great surprise if I’m not typical. Someone I spoke with doubted the force of the tendency, but it seems undeniable that many fall in line behind what or whom they perceive a “winning.” Indeed, that is the whole idea of “momentum,” a sort of psychological centrifugal force. As I said, I have no sense of that. I’ve been voting for 32 years, and I’ve never moved my vote for a “winner” vs. whom I thought was the best candidate. In fact, Ronald Reagan was the only winner I ever voted for in a primary, and I had supported him from the start. The herd followed my sentiments, not vice-versa. In fact, I had voted for Reagan in a 1976 primary, when he was not the eventual winner, though he came close.
All of that said, I’ll say that I’m a supporter of Huckabee (whom the political chatterers also say will not be a winner) But Consider This: Huckabee has said that he’s in it until a candidate has the delegates to secure the nomination. That cannot even mathematically happen, tomorrow.Mitt Romney will likely watch more millions be flushes away, and tomorrow ning, find himself hopelessly far behind and not especially liked. If he finally decides that 100 million dollars, over 35 of it his own, is enough and drops out, what do the McCain haters do now, especially since many also hate Huckabee? They are the only ones left. That’s kind of amusing.
I’ll discuss the remaining 4 candidates, in order of unacceptability: how they stand, and how they’ve gone through the process:
Ron Paul is a very interesting character. He is not a “nut” or any other similar description that many throw at him. Ron Paul is a plenty smart man. He is very exceptional, in that he discusses in detail many things that the others don’t discuss at all like, very notably, the integrity of money and the primacy of private not government effort in shaping the economy. That kind of talk is not at all apart from why he is called names decrying him as strange. He is strange in the sense of standing apart from a perspective constrained by conventional popular culture, which is fraught with foolish assumptions. Generally speaking, I hardly consider that a fault of any sort.
However, there is an element of that unique ideal that I can’t go along with. And, unlike the many differences I have with John McCain, for instance. This is one that I can’t pass off for the sake of any sort of greater good. It seems to me that the same sort of philosophical resolve that tethers Ron Paul to the virtue of sound currency and free and private commerce, has him philosophically blinkered with a foreign policy for America that amounts to a dereliction of duty relative to security and basic humanity. Of course, what he calls a “non-interventionist” foreign policy has nothing to do with the sort of Smithian Natural Law about the inherent principles of human commerce and wealth production and maintenance.
But, I fully understand his shyness about military adventurism and the temptation of military power and expansion. And, I understand the counsel of the American Founders to “avoid foreign entanglements,” and the paleo-conservative tradition of modest foreign policy. But, the very obvious problem to the non-philosophically blinkered who must make moral and prudent judgments about the real world, is that the evolution of technology has run full out from under a world where travel, transport, and communications across the ocean required a ship’s voyage of months or years. Today, men travel the world in a day and sound and video images are transmitted around the world in practically real time. As today’s threats of terrorism have vividly demonstrated, it is no longer a sufficient defense posture to wait and respond when cannonballs are lobbed onto a populated shore. Technology is such that a very few can pose a frightful danger to American life hatched on distant continents and delivered quickly and surreptitiously.
While I believe he is sincere and resolved as he is about other things, given today’s technology of travel, communications, and destructive force, Paul’s sort of non-interventionist prescription presents two HUGE problems:
1) it is an imprudent security risk. Paul frets military engagement with peoples’ who present no armies or navies to threaten American military power. So, what? None are required to impose great destruction. And
2) Yes, America has great power. Paul may insist that policing the world from tyrants is not American government’s business. But, no private agency has the power to do so. And a power held is a moral responsibility. It is a real question to ask when we are “intruding” (or building empire, as Paul likes to say) and when it is a moral responsibility to intervene against inhumanity. As I often ask, given today’s world, at what point does ignoring human abuse become something on the order of watching a sidewalk attack out your window and declining to get involved.
The first problem is an ostrich-head-in-the-sand question to an extreme degree. And, the second problem is an extreme degree of humanitarian responsibility. How close are we to treading into stark cowardice?
For these reasons, though Paul has all year been the philosophically clearest and most resolute candidate, what I see as his anachronistic human misjudgments are too severe, besides the fact that he is not especially skilled at personal engagement and encouragement with the public. So, though I think he is exceptionally clear and consistent, and should be an advisor in many areas, Ron Paul is the LAST Republican candidate that I want to see with presidential power.
Mitt Romney has constructed a black and white confession on definable issues, that I agree with over 90% of the time. But, I don’t feel that I have any sense of his heart and wonder if I possibly could. People accuse him of “flip-flopping” on issues of serious concern. Even if his changes were genuine, I am unimpressed with a potential leader who was ambiguous on grave issies well into his fifties. He’s obviously a smart man, which suggests not ambiguity but spectacular pliability. I believe conservatives need to “sell” conservative principle to traditionally ambiguous or antagonistic populations. If Romney was to any extent demonstrating that with his election in Massachusetts, he has disavowed all of that, now. Pliability, again?
Many conservatives are irrationally frantic about the possibility of John McCain as the Republican nominee. I just repeat what I said at the beginning: “I often disagree with John McCain, who probably has a Washington provincially distorted perspective. But John McCain is by far a more noble man than Mitt Romney. And, right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.” Check these links: http://www.trueromney.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFGA_HN3Yc I really would hate for my arm to be twisted to choose Romney over a Democrat.
As I have also said, John McCain has a philosophical disability. But, he’s a genuine man and American patriot, with plenty of conservative sentiments about spending and jusicial activism, for instance. He als favors tax reduction and reform. He undetrstands that the public has insisted on securing the border before, not after, anything else. And, he has supported restrained not activist judges. A good VP might nudge him away from sentimental errors. Again, “…right or wrong, McCain acts and speaks in the interest of America. To me it appears that Romney acts and speaks in the interest of Mitt Romney.” He wouldn’t be my first choice. But especially given the options, he is far from my last.
Mike Huckabee is a clear-headed and constitutional conservative who is prepared to effectively deal with 20th century realities. He won Iowa with months of face-to-face engagement of Iowa voters, which has not been possible in subsequent contests, though he nearly won again, in South Carolina. I will pick his name on any ballot in which he is a candidate. He has a sober and diligent heart, and offers real solutions to move America from problems that it has gotten itself into. Based on the evidence so far, I will be surprised if I see as good a candidate as he is, again. Hopefully, he has established a model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)