Bait and Switch: Is Pope Benedict Really Against Raising Taxes On the Wealthy to Help Balance Government Budgets?
What’s most angering is this deliberately disorienting, gimmicky refusal by these pols—Ryan and Romney, in particular—to acknowledge that raising revenue through taxes reduces the government’s budget deficit and debt; that lowered tax rates in the last 11 years have significantly increased budget deficits and the debt (and that that also happened in the 1980s); that budget deficits and the national debt decreased during the 1990s after tax rates were raised during the G.H.W. Bush administration; and that Ryan’s and Romney’s tax-reduction plans would, according to (apparently) all projections except their own, substantially increase the national debt.
It’s one thing to argue for a substantial reduction or elimination of the national debt, but quite another to pretend that raising tax revenues isn’t one possible way to help do that.
These people do make Ayn Rand philosophical arguments to support their policy proposals, but the claim that the pope “has charged that governments, communities, and individuals running up high debt levels are ‘living at the expense of future generations’ and ‘living in untruth,’” is a non sequitur to the question of how we reduce the national debt.
The Laugher Curve: Romney Etch-A-Sketch Aide Says Romney Thought TARP Unnecessary but Urged Support of It as a Give-Away to Wall Street
Me? I just want some reporter to ask Romney, in light of Fehrnstrom’s claim, why, if the economy was fine until 2009 and the banking industry wasn’t collapsing back in the fall of 2008, he urged Republican members of Congress to vote for the bailout. Oh. Oh, wait. It must be that TARP worked so well—and so fast—that by January 20, 2009 the economy was healthy again. But then one of those damn healthcare-legislation death panels intervened and mandated the death of the recovered economy, as practice for some time down the road, after enactment of the Affordable Care Act, when the panel would have to kill nice old ladies instead of the GDP. Either that or, well, Romney wanted the bailout as a gift to Wall Street, not as the only apparent way to keep the entire financial system from unraveling, his contrary claims notwithstanding; according to Fehrnstrom, Romney thought the financial system and the economy were fine.
I think it’s simple, too. I’ll leave it at that.
Can Your State Mandate That You Buy Broccoli or Join a Gym? (And why the excoriation of Donald Verrilli is misplaced)
[Cross-posted at Firedoglake.com, front page.]
- More on the activity/inactivity canard in the ACA litigation
- New wrinkles in the ACA litigation – Part I
- New wrinkles in the ACA litigation – Part II
- Markets and the ACA: Why the Supreme Court Will Uphold the ACA
- It’s not about regulating markets, after all! It’s about regulating the individual!**
- Paul Clement’s weird tail-can-morph-the-dog ACA-litigationargumen
- Judge Sutton Channels …Me?? States and individual liberty
- Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Strange Political Prediction—AndOther Recent ACA-Litigation Events
- The Plot Sickens – The Heart of the ACA Litigation Movesto the Supreme Court
- Twenty-Six Republican State Attorneys General v. W. MittRomney (subtitle: Does Romney’s Economic Plan Violate State Sovereignty?)* [See asterisked correction below]
- The Cliff’s Notes for my post from yesterday subtitled“Does Romney’s Economic Plan Violate State Sovereignty
**I added this one to the list after I posted this post earlier today.
Greenhouse’s is titled “Never Before,” and the thrust of her article is that those two words—“never before”—are the sum and the (non)legal substance of the challengers’ arguments. “Unprecedented,” she notes, “is a description, not an analysis.” Or a legal argument. It is instead merely a political argument. And transparently so, which is why she predicts that the Court will uphold the statute, by a comfortable margin.
That, after all, is how we got Citizens United v. FEC. Roberts & Co. misjudged. Oops. Well, for heaven’s sake … I mean … y’know … who knew that the public would, um, actually get the Citizens United ruling?