The Occasional Observer

9 comments:

ManBeast said...

Coincidentally, Pat Buchannan will be at The Bookshelf in Huntington on August 24th. About a month later, Cindy Sheehan will be there too.

8/18/2006 1:36 PM

Fredo said...

I am a Buchanan fan, so I largely agree with the four points you cite. The GOP, under W's watch, has been sliding away from traditional conservative values.

The big government charge cannot be avoided, with the unimpeded growth in entitlement programs, earmarks, and discretionary spending.

The "look the other away" approach to border enforcement is a matter of public record (e.g., some Senate Republicans and the President failing to support Sen. Isakson's amendment to the McCain-Kennedy bill, which called for secure borders before other immigration "reforms" could be entertained).

Point 4, the elimination of a protective trade poicy that fosters domestic manufacturing, has been a bipartisan effort and has been afoot in the GOP for 50 years. Can't pin that one on neocons or GWB alone. However, it's always worth remembering that the current GOP position (unilateral trade disarmament) is not in line with the historical position of the party. Our nation's economic growth exploded for the better part of 150 years under a trade policy that would be called "protectionist" or "isolationist" in the current political environment.

The "policing the world" charge is the trickiest to prosecute. Probably why we've been discussing it so much recently. Of course 8 of 10 Americans would probably agree we should not "police the world." But what does it mean to do so?

Were we "policing the world" in the Cold War, when we left hundreds of thousands of troops in Western Europe, Japan, ROK, and Southeast Asia to prevent the spread of communism? Or were these actions undertaken in the legitimate defense of American interests?

How about in Iraq? Policing the world out of egalitarian sensitivities? Or defending American interests?

Ultimately I agree with Patty B in sentiment: a more cautious, less ideological, and less expensive (blood, money & reputation) foreign policy would be beneficial. But I think there are legitimate arguments for those who feel the Iraq conflict had American interests at heart.

8/20/2006 12:24 AM

ManBeast said...

Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not placing all of the blame on W. The GOP has been trending this way for longer than he's been in office. My point is more that I've come to the realization that it's probably more important for me to vote in the Republican primaries than in the general election. Especially given that I live in NY.

8/21/2006 8:55 AM

SheaHeyKid said...

I agree, importance of primaries seems to be greater than ever. I'd recommend registering so you can vote in them.

Since we've spent a lot of time recently focusing on 'policing the world', as captured nicely by Fredo, and I think we all agree illegal immigration must be stopped, let's focus on economy. Specifically revenues and expenses.

On the expense side first, entitlement programs will need to be changed. With people living 20 or more years beyond retirement these days, and with just two workers per retiree (vs. ~40 when program started!), something has got to give. Whether S.S. pays out less, or retirement age is raised, or some portion of S.S. is privatized, some number of changes will have to occur. (In Medicare as well... Here's where Romney's success in market-based health care approach in MA could help.) Second, I believe reductions can occur in another major expense, defense spending, if we cut back on our 'police the world' efforts. I do not suggest that we cut defense spending to any level that would reduce our ability to defend ourselves (proactively or reactively); quite the contrary I believe strong defense and intelligence capabilities (especially field intelligence) are critical to our survival today. I'm simply guessing that a large fraction of our defense budget today only exists because of standing commitments we have to defend other nations or because we pick up the tab for Europe and Asia in all these matters. Let them start to foot some of these bills.

On the revenue side, we have taxes either from individuals or companies. I think the main issue is loopholes, especially corporate. If companies aren't paying their fair share, the end result is either that taxes on individuals will be raised, or we'll be in a massive deficit. I say there's no need to raise taxes, simply enforce and collect the ones you have. Simplify the code (move towards flat tax), eliminate loopholes, and watch as revenues increase significantly.

8/21/2006 1:00 PM

ManBeast said...

SHK, I agree with your views on expenses. The federal government is way out of control with spending. Just take a look here. And while I agree we should simplify the tax code, I don't advocate a flat tax. Let's say the flat tax rate is a very modest 10%. A person making $50k per year is left with only $40k to live on. While a person making $150k per year is left with $135k. I like the idea of drastically reducing income tax and deriving revenue from increased sales taxes (excluding necessities like food and basic clothing). It might even help prevent people on public assistance from buying an Escalade (I've actually seen this).

8/21/2006 2:47 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

I agree, totally flat tax is not fair, but I like moving closer to it. One possibility would be no tax for those making less than x $ (TBD). Alternatively, you could have a semi-flat tax with 3 brackets (including a bracket of 0% for those making below a minimum).

The consumption tax is also an interesting idea. One huge benefit is that in theory it increases your tax base, because while up to 1/4 of income is 'underground' and never reported (and therefore never taxed), those people still have to buy things, and therefore will be forced to pay taxes this way. So you can still collect from mob, people who offshore their income, etc.

8/21/2006 4:34 PM

Fredo said...

It might even help prevent people on public assistance from buying an Escalade (I've actually seen this).

Tell me about it. I worked day-in and day-out in a publicly subsidized housing project whose parking lots were laden with Benzes, Escalades, and Navigators. What a joke.

The lucky part is that most of the great society welfare projects have already been dismantled, and those that remain largely serve as a reminder to how ineffective the government is at solving poverty. And how such programs provide incentive never to work.

As for the flat tax, one proposed remedy to the "unfairness" mentioned by ManBeast is a uniform exemption level. For instance, the first $25K of income is income tax free, and the flat rate would apply only above that level. In Beasty's example, that would leave the $50K income earner with 47,500 after tax, and the $150K earner at 137,500 after tax.

The consumption tax ("fair tax") is definitely intriguing. I like the fact that it encourages saving (more income in your pocket, goods less favorably priced), which would also help our trade imbalances. Don't know about the "underground" element though. Wouldn't we just replace "underground income" with "underground goods" (i.e., black market)?

8/22/2006 3:57 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

Good discussion points so far..

I would guess underground market for goods couldn't grow to the scope of underground income market. For example, it's easy to keep betting underground: only cash changes hands, and there's no need to involve more than the two parties in the transaction. To make an underground market for goods would be more difficult. First, you'd have to have a supplier willing to move his goods illegally. Then, you'd need a physical site for all this to be stored and occur, which would make it more difficult to hide. Neither one of these problems exists in the underground income example, which is why it is such a problem. (BusinessWeek and other publications have written good articles on estimates of underground economy.) Of course, physically small things (drugs, for example) always will exist in underground market.

Another huge contributor to underground economy is illegal aliens: all of their pay is undocumented. So we get no taxes from them. But, if we had a consumption tax, we would get their money when they bought things.

8/22/2006 4:17 PM

Fredo said...

Another huge contributor to underground economy is illegal aliens: all of their pay is undocumented. So we get no taxes from them. But, if we had a consumption tax, we would get their money when they bought things.

Oh, how delicious. Collect revenue without having to legitimize law breakers.

8/23/2006 1:42 AM